Friday, 2013-11-08

*** garrison_ has joined #npoacct00:30
*** bkuhn has quit IRC02:10
*** garrison_ has quit IRC02:16
*** garrison_ has joined #npoacct04:40
*** joar has quit IRC06:40
*** nesciens has joined #npoacct12:57
*** bkuhn has joined #npoacct13:06
*** bkuhn is now known as bkuhnIdle13:11
*** bkuhnIdle is now known as bkuhn13:49
*** joar has joined #npoacct13:55
*** ChanServ sets mode: +o joar13:55
*** nesciens has quit IRC14:10
joarbkuhn: hello!17:37
joarI haven't gotten to much the last few days17:37
joarI'm going to look at the fund accounting use case for the existing projects17:38
joarbkuhn: is double-entry accounting a UseCase/requirement too?17:43
bkuhnjoar: defintley17:43
joarI would have guessed so, but I'm not sure of the <reason> part17:44
joaris it required by some kind of law or best practise, or is it simply the implicit norm for bookkeeping?17:45
bkuhnoh, reason is easy: in the USA, any bookkeeping system that isn't double-entry would likely not be considered appropriate GAAP17:52
bkuhnyou can link GAAP to
bkuhnGAAP is an odd thing.17:53
bkuhnIt's not the "law"17:53
bkuhnbut accountants would tell the IRS "we think something bad is going on" if you didn't follow GAAP17:53
bkuhnAlso, GAAP isn't a list of rules.17:53
bkuhnIt's basically 'rough consensus' of accountants17:53
bkuhnSo, it's somewhere in between "implicit norm" and the "law"17:54
bkuhnin the sense that you'd probably loose your non-profit status from the IRS if your auditors said you weren't following GAAP17:54
joarI see17:56
joarthat's a concrete <reasone>17:56
joarwe could even leave it as implicit17:56
bkuhnjoar: nah, go ahead and add it!18:22
joarwill do19:15
*** garrison_ has quit IRC19:22
*** garrison_ has joined #npoacct19:58
*** garrison_ has quit IRC20:20
*** garrison_ has joined #npoacct20:45

Generated by 2.12.1 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!