Re: At the end of my teather with LSMB

[..hidden..]

Quoting Stroller <..hidden..>:

> Yes, but there's an obvious difference between:
>
> 00042
> 00043
> 00044
> 00046	(missing number precedes)
>
> and:
>
> 20080501
> 20080502
> 20080503
> 20080512 (issued on the last day of May)
> 20080601
> ...
> 20090101
>
> If one accepts that date-based invoice numbers are acceptable (and I
> contend the taxman might do so), no-one expects to see invoice number
> 20081301, and the "gap" between 20080512 and 20080601 is quite
> logical & reasonable. It's the anomalies that raise the taxman's
> hackles, not the choice of implementation.

Erm, you mean the "gap" between 20080531 and 20080601, surely? 'Cos I  
posit that 20080525 is a perfectly reasonable number in this scheme. ;)

This scheme, in any case, would only allow one invoice per day.

I'll buy a professional opinion from my accountant when next I see him.

R