Help with creating sales tax by county report

James Hendrickson shared this problem 18 days ago
Solved

I've been learning about creating reports and how to use them. I believe i've followed all the information you have provided correctly but I am getting different numbers when i Group the report by county.

I believe I created almost 2 identical reports to show my issue.

sales tax by county (do not have anything grouped)sales tax by county grouping(grouped by county)

I generate the report by Payment Date from 2/01 to 2/29 and get different totals for the tax payments. I believe the "sales tax by county grouping" report is wrong but I'm not sure how to fix it. When I generate the report it has a few payments from Carver County that are supposed to be in the (non-taxable portion) but instead are in the (taxable portion). For some reason they only show up in the (taxable portion) when I group the report by county. They show up correctly when I do not group the report by county.

Any advice would be helpful and I hope my message was written clear enough.

Thanks

Comments (13)

photo
1

When I run the two reports I am getting the same totals. Can you give us more specific #'s? Which payments should or shouldn't be taxed, which totals not matching, etc

photo
1

For some reason it looks like my report named "sales tax by county" was edited since I last used it somehow. "sales tax by county" should not be grouped by anything. I just changed it back so if you generate the 2 different reports for 2/01 to 2/29 you will see the totals are different. see pictures below


9315a6cd70219d5141e04fc4afbcc5db


8a55947ba1eb5bebb89d2d6593107834

photo
1

Which statuses are you including in the report? (normally you would choose confirmed and completed statuses only)

photo
1

The statuses are irrelevant to me. I am searching for all payments collected during the month. Payments/taxes collected is the goal here.

I just need an answer to why I am getting 2 different totals on the reports. Is it something I did wrong? or is it something on your end? Please refer to initial post for details.

photo
1

That's why I am asking for details...when I run the reports I am getting the same totals. I will let you know as soon as I have more info...

photo
1

Sounds good. Did you get the images from my earlier post? They are the results from the 2 reports I generated. You can see that the payments from the taxable portions are different. For example, I believe carver county is not adding correctly in the grouping.

I believe the only difference between the reports is one of them I grouped by county and the other is ascending by county.

Any info on what I did wrong to get the 2 different total would be great. Thanks

or maybe I'm not interpreting the reports correctly?

photo
1

I finally got results like yours...I don't see why the numbers are showing so differently when the only difference in the report is grouping. I am getting a second set of eyes on this to see if we are missing something!

Thanks!

photo
1

Going on a long shot here. Do I need to take off "Payment Date" when grouping? I will try that and let you know if it fixes the totals

photo
1

Like you could have guessed, It did not fix it. I will leave the technical stuff to you guys before I make it worse!

I was hoping it would resolve it as Carver County seems to only be reporting the first line item for "Payment (non-taxable portion)" which coincidentally happens to be the Payment Date, 2/17/2020.

Thanks

photo
1

There is a technical limitation with the 3 inaccurate columns in the "grouped" report that prevents us from being able to correctly total these for each county. It has to do with the fact that they are calculated amounts in the report, rather than a stored number in each payment in the database for each payment.

I've submitted this to our development team as a bug to see if they can find a creative way to get this to work, but judging from what I'm looking at, this isn't likely to be something they'll be able to update easily to give accurate totals in the "group by" rows for these particular columns.

photo
1

Thanks for the clarification

photo
photo
1

FYI, we have updated the code so that these are accurate. Thanks!

photo
1

Looks great.

Thanks!

photo