Loading
Because every new question earns a new code. Someone wants spend by branch, so the chart gains a code per branch per category, and two years later there are four hundred accounts and nobody picks the right one twice.
The chart of accounts is the list of accounts every posting lands in, structured by type — asset, liability, equity, income, expense — and mapped to the statements.
Analysis lives in dimensions — cost centre, branch, project, entity — carried on the posting rather than baked into the code. The chart stays small while the reporting gets finer.
Finance wants marketing spend split three ways by branch. No new accounts: one account, three branch dimensions, and the P&L filters or consolidates without a restructure.
It will not reorganise itself when the business does. Moving to a new reporting shape is a mapping exercise, and Books keeps the old mapping so prior periods still report.
Every posting references it — journals, invoices, bills, payroll, depreciation. The trial balance, P&L and balance sheet are all built from it.
Yes, with opening balances. Mapping to statement lines is part of the import.
It can be made inactive so nothing new posts, while history stays reportable.
No. One chart with an entity dimension is usually cleaner, and consolidation is then automatic.
Fourteen days, every module, no card. Or half an hour with someone who will run it on your own records and tell you where it does not help.