Re: Proposal: Asset management module schema

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM, David A. Bandel<..hidden..> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:33, Chris Travers<..hidden..> wrote:
>> Attached is a rough draft of a fixed asset module's schema for
>> LedgerSMB.  This is designed to support as many depreciation models as
>> possible in the future though straight-line will be the only one which
>> is immediately available.  My general approach is as follows:
>>
>
> Chris,
>
> Looks pretty good for a start.  I would recommend as a minimum in the
> asset_item table a purchase_date column (as a point of reference for
> performing the depreciation).

Ok.  Added.

>
> I would think it would also would be advisable to consider the
> double-declining-balance method of depreciation as (at least when I
> had a company in the US) the most used depreciation scheme for tax
> purposes in the states (can't talk to other countries' depreciation
> methods).

The structure allows us to plug in methods as necessary.  In fact all
that is necessary is to write a stored proc to do the depreciation and
insert info to the depreciation method table.

>
> You might also want to consider a warranty_class for items with
> warranties/guarantees as I find this has few convenient places to be
> stuck.  This warranty_class would probably have to xref to another
> table as a one-to-many relationship as some items have multiple
> warranties on them (computers, for example, have separate warranties
> for hard disks, motherboards, power supplies, fans, etc., although
> bought as one item).

Let's keep this an open feature request for future versions.


>
> Or perhaps warranties and the like need to be handled somewhere else,
> but where, I'm not sure.
>
> Also not sure how future purchases (additional memory/disks for
> example) or maintenance/part replacement/additions (as in a car or a
> building addition) would be handled.  Personally, I'd handle them as
> separate asset_items, but need a way to xref to the item they were
> added to (and access to the original item would need to show these
> additions/repairs) assuming they were capitalized and not expensed.
> Unfortunately, not everything can be expensed (or we could forget this
> para), some things must be capitalized (I no longer remember the
> rules, but that's what accountants are for).

Depends.  Personally, I would handle most such purchases as straight
expenses regarding the maintenance of the computer.  I.e. if a memory
stick dies and you replace it, that is fairly obviously an expense in
maintaining the computer system as a whole (the financial worth of the
computer remains unchanged except for depreciation).

Personally (IANACPA), I would draw the line at what would be
salvaged/discarded as a unit.  However, I am interested in other
viewpoints here.

For those out there who do accounting regarding company cars, how do
you track a new transmission?  As a straight expense?  Or as a
depreciable asset?

Best Wishes.
Chris Travers