Does anyone else realized there are new 17 ledger accounts created in ST with codes that already existing in QB Chart of Accountant?
Also, those new 17 ledger accounts are set up as ST Default, I cannot deactivate them.
When create a new material or equipment in Pricebook this morning we realized the new cost, income and asses accounts set up default, different from our previous accounts and of couse...so far, no ones in ST can answer us.
Why on earth would you force everyone to use or see specific GL accounts in the software? My company does not integrate with QuickBooks, we integrate with an ERP system. We don't want junk accounts sitting in our Pricebook that we will should never use. It clouds which account the Pricebook users see and provides a greater chance of the users selecting the wrong accounts. Give me the opportunity to deactivate the GL Accounts I don't need. PLEASE! We had to generate an exception report to catch anything setup with these "ST Defaults" so we can send someone in to fix them.
I generated an Idea if you want to vote on it. COMMUNITY-I-3552
To make it easier edit the ST default General Ledger accounts to ensure you either don't use them or that they differ from already existing accounts you can do the following steps.
1. Go to Settings> Operations> General Ledger Accounts
2. Filter the Associations to only show the ST Default GL Accounts
3. Edit the ST Default GL accounts so they no longer match existing GL accounts.
Hey! So from what I'm understanding, the problem here is that a few of the new default GL accounts have codes that exactly match your pre-existing GL accounts, and that is making it difficult to tell which one is which when you go to enter in a new pricebook item, correct?
You can change the number and name of the default accounts. So, if there is an exact match you can add DNU (DO NOT USE) or a * or something that makes it more distinguishable. Then you'll know which one was your pre-existing GL account, and you can continue to use that. Did I understand your problem correctly?