Alteration of invoice?


F

Fredxx

I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done. The original
invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishly I
might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed as
per contract.

I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.

Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice,
and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or
should I do this another way. I am about to take him to court so feel I
must get this bit of admin correct.

Hope I've explained this well enough. Many thanks in advance.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Martin

Fredxx said:
I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done. The original
invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishly I
might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed as
per contract.

I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.

Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice,
and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or
should I do this another way. I am about to take him to court so feel I
must get this bit of admin correct.

Hope I've explained this well enough. Many thanks in advance.
How weird. I don't know which approach would strengthen your hand in court,
but it sounds like your client is simply delaying, so you don't want to
re-start the clock on the original debt. So I would just invoice the
balance. By all means put the original date on this new invoice, though I
doubt it will speed up payment of the second tranche.

Might also be worth sending him a note confirming that you will be charging
interest (ref. "late payment of commercial debts").

HTH but others here may have better suggestions.
 
F

Fredxx

Martin said:
How weird. I don't know which approach would strengthen your hand in
court, but it sounds like your client is simply delaying, so you don't
want to re-start the clock on the original debt. So I would just invoice
the balance. By all means put the original date on this new invoice,
though I doubt it will speed up payment of the second tranche.

Might also be worth sending him a note confirming that you will be
charging interest (ref. "late payment of commercial debts").

HTH but others here may have better suggestions.
I have already stated I am charging him for compensation and interest. The
date should in any case be the supply date, and to be honest any argument
over the exact mounts of interest is secondary. I have already been
generous in charging interest from a later date than I could have.

It was more the error itself, in the first invoice I gave a breakdown of
costs, whereas it was agreed a different total to this breakdown. The
contract documentation confirms this total. Essentially sloppy admin
through inaccurate reading on my part.

The intent was not to strengthen my hand, more to get the amounts in line
with contractual agreed amounts.
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Fredxx said:
I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done. The original
invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishly
I might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed
as per contract.

I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.

Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice,
and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or
should I do this another way.
If the customer was right that your invoice charged him an incorrect amount
I'm not sure why you describe him as foolish to point this out. It would
seem eminently sensible, and refreshingly honest if you undercharged him.

What would be foolish, though, and I suppose this must be what you mean,
is to use this as an excuse to deem the entire invoice invalid and to
delay settling it (especially when the amount in error is small compared
to the whole).

What he should have done is either pay the amount he believes you should
have charged, and get you to fix the paperwork later by means of a receipted
supplementary invoice for the difference, or else pay the amount invoiced
and get you to send an unreceipted supplementary invoice for the difference.

Alternatively he should have pointed out the mistake early on, giving you
the opportunity to correct the paperwork straight away.

I do *not* think you should now send a corrected replacement invoice
together with credit note cancelling the entire original invoice, because
this would probably give him another month or two to pay up before you
could sue. It might also invalidate your entitlement to late payment
charges if you cancel the original invoice. I think you should simply
send a supplementary invoice for the difference, or possibly a credit
note for the incorrectly billed items together with an invoice for the
correct ones:

Suppose your original invoice was for £200 labour plus materials of
5 widgets at £4.90 each, which should have been £5.10 each. Then either
send a credit note for £24.50 and an invoice for £25.50 or an invoice
for £1 (containing detail of minus 5 at £4.90 plus 5 at £5.10). I'm not
up on dating conventions, but I would date these documents today, not
backdate them to the date of the original invoice. Of course they should
still contain a reference to the original date of supply. In either case
I would send an accompanying "Statement" (certainly dated today) listing
all the invoices issued and still outstanding, including any charges in
respect of late payment, and showing the total amount due.

He'll probably wait until you commence proceedings (if you haven't already)
and then pay up, leaving you out of pocket to the tune of the court fee.
I am about to take him to court so feel I
must get this bit of admin correct.
I don't think minor errors in the invoicing are critically important.
The debt doesn't arise as a result of the invoice, it arises out of the
contractual obligation.
 
F

Fredxx

Ronald Raygun said:
If the customer was right that your invoice charged him an incorrect
amount
I'm not sure why you describe him as foolish to point this out. It would
seem eminently sensible, and refreshingly honest if you undercharged him.

What would be foolish, though, and I suppose this must be what you mean,
is to use this as an excuse to deem the entire invoice invalid and to
delay settling it (especially when the amount in error is small compared
to the whole).

What he should have done is either pay the amount he believes you should
have charged, and get you to fix the paperwork later by means of a
receipted
supplementary invoice for the difference, or else pay the amount invoiced
and get you to send an unreceipted supplementary invoice for the
difference.

Alternatively he should have pointed out the mistake early on, giving you
the opportunity to correct the paperwork straight away.

I do *not* think you should now send a corrected replacement invoice
together with credit note cancelling the entire original invoice, because
this would probably give him another month or two to pay up before you
could sue. It might also invalidate your entitlement to late payment
charges if you cancel the original invoice. I think you should simply
send a supplementary invoice for the difference, or possibly a credit
note for the incorrectly billed items together with an invoice for the
correct ones:

Suppose your original invoice was for £200 labour plus materials of
5 widgets at £4.90 each, which should have been £5.10 each. Then either
send a credit note for £24.50 and an invoice for £25.50 or an invoice
for £1 (containing detail of minus 5 at £4.90 plus 5 at £5.10). I'm not
up on dating conventions, but I would date these documents today, not
backdate them to the date of the original invoice. Of course they should
still contain a reference to the original date of supply. In either case
I would send an accompanying "Statement" (certainly dated today) listing
all the invoices issued and still outstanding, including any charges in
respect of late payment, and showing the total amount due.

He'll probably wait until you commence proceedings (if you haven't
already)
and then pay up, leaving you out of pocket to the tune of the court fee.


I don't think minor errors in the invoicing are critically important.
The debt doesn't arise as a result of the invoice, it arises out of the
contractual obligation.
I thought the date of an invoice should be the tax point, or date of supply.
So sending another invoice with a more recent date would be shifting income
from one tax year to another. I thought this was frowned upon?

The customer has already paid part, which has caused some confusion, but far
less than even the original invoice.

I have to admit that I was being a little economical with the truth, where
actually I have already started county court proceedings, small claims
track, for the correct amount and not the originally invoiced amount. The
contract documentation and the subsequent email conversations do indicate
the full amount.

The bit about contractual obligation is an interesting point, but surely the
debt only falls dues when it is asked to be paid, via an invoice?

The Court fee element is trivial in comparison of the time wasted through
his procrastination of payment. The hearing fee is less so!!

Many thanks for your reply.
 
Z

Zach

<snipped>

Presumably a contract exists - agreeing upon a certain sum of money for your
product or services.
You sent your customer a wrong invoice charging too little.
Your customer was bona fide in drawing your attention to your "mistake".
The only thing you needed to do was to send him a letter thanking him
together with a supplementary invoice.
To start court proceedings without first attempting to settle the matter in
a friendly way first, your customer already having shown to be bona fide by
drawing your attention to your mistake, and defining it as such, is a bad
thing to do, and certainly not the way to deal with your customers, and
sadly consistent with your apparent lack of proper administrative
procedures.

BUT ....

If the difference between the contractual sum and your erroneous invoice is
small, you might have used this situation to enhance your image by letting
your customer have the benefit.

www.thinkbones.com
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

Fredxx

Zach said:
<snipped>

Presumably a contract exists - agreeing upon a certain sum of money for
your product or services.
You sent your customer a wrong invoice charging too little.
Your customer was bona fide in drawing your attention to your "mistake".
The only thing you needed to do was to send him a letter thanking him
together with a supplementary invoice.
To start court proceedings without first attempting to settle the matter
in a friendly way first, your customer already having shown to be bona
fide by drawing your attention to your mistake, and defining it as such,
is a bad thing to do, and certainly not the way to deal with your
customers, and sadly consistent with your apparent lack of proper
administrative procedures.

BUT ....

If the difference between the contractual sum and your erroneous invoice
is small, you might have used this situation to enhance your image by
letting your customer have the benefit.
Many thanks, I do expect a little deserved ribbing for my lack of
administrative skills and procedures!!

While it was bad form to start proceedings without getting invoices and
amounts correct, he can't really claim any loss, as it doesn't make a
difference to the initial court fee. And he also has the option of paying
the small increase, reducing the claim.

I don't think the customer really intended to draw my attention to the error
beforehand - but hey! If he had paid the invoice in full in a timely
fashion, I would never have discovered the error.

My main concern was the date of any invoices, I presume this supplementary
invoice should be the same date as the original.
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Fredxx said:
I thought the date of an invoice should be the tax point, or date of
supply.
As I remarked before, I'm not sure, but intuitively I would disagree
and say that in principle the date on the invoice should be the date it
is actually issued, and that it should never be backdated. Of course if
you were administratively on the ball, you would issue the invoice on the
date of supply, which in the case of simple supply of goods would be the
normal procedure. But in the case of work done, it is not uncommon for
people to batch up their admin, and have an invoicing session only once
every week or two. In this case I would expect the invoice to be dated
on the day of the admin session, but to make reference to the relevant
supply date and tax point, which would be earlier.
So sending another invoice with a more recent date would be
shifting income from one tax year to another.
Tax year, eh? This is a roundabout way of telling us your friend
has been procrastinating since before the beginning of April, I
take it.
I thought this was frowned upon?
It is indeed right and proper that income should be recorded in your
accounts on the supply date, but I see no reason why the invoice date
should have to be the same, and if different it's not the invoice
date but the supply date or tax point which determines into which
accounting year or VAT quarter the income goes.
The bit about contractual obligation is an interesting point, but surely
the debt only falls dues when it is asked to be paid, via an invoice?
Not sure about that. It may well be that payment falls due upon completion
of the work (in some cases even earlier). It probably depends on what the
contract has to say on the matter.

I don't think the role of the invoice is to make the payment fall due,
I think the invoice is merely a formal communication which tells the
customer that payment is due and asks for it. So the invoice is
issued as a consequence of payment being due, not the other way round.

Of course there may be a separate agreement forming part of the
contract which governs the timing of payment, and allows the customer
reasonable time from receipt of invoice to pay, but that doesn't really
affect the question of payment being due more or less immediately the
work has been done, it merely plays a part in determining how soon you
can deem payment to be overdue for the purpose of commencing proceedings
and charging interest etc.
 
M

Martin

I thought the date of an invoice should be the tax point, or date of
supply. So sending another invoice with a more recent date would be
shifting income from one tax year to another. I thought this was frowned
upon?
The invoice date doesn't have to be the same as tax point. The latter
determines which VAT qtr the xaction should have gone in. As this was a
genuine error, including it in a later VAT qtr is ok.

WIP, "shipped, not yet invoiced" or something similar at year-end ensures
you don't shift income between accounting years.

HTH
 
Z

Zach

Fredxx said:
Many thanks, I do expect a little deserved ribbing for my lack of
administrative skills and procedures!!

While it was bad form to start proceedings without getting invoices and
amounts correct, he can't really claim any loss, as it doesn't make a
difference to the initial court fee. And he also has the option of paying
the small increase, reducing the claim.

I don't think the customer really intended to draw my attention to the
error beforehand - but hey! If he had paid the invoice in full in a
timely fashion, I would never have discovered the error.

My main concern was the date of any invoices, I presume this supplementary
invoice should be the same date as the original.
Yes, the additional invoice should bear the same date
as the original (wrong) invoice. Keep the description simple,
and don't call it a "supplementary" invoice. Simply invoice
the balance remaining to be invoiced with reference to the
contract number or similar job reference. Be careful of how
you phrase it, so it cannot be interpreted as the balance
outstanding, given what the customer has already paid,
else you will be in more trouble.
 
F

Fredxx

Ronald Raygun said:
As I remarked before, I'm not sure, but intuitively I would disagree
and say that in principle the date on the invoice should be the date it
is actually issued, and that it should never be backdated. Of course if
you were administratively on the ball, you would issue the invoice on the
date of supply, which in the case of simple supply of goods would be the
normal procedure. But in the case of work done, it is not uncommon for
people to batch up their admin, and have an invoicing session only once
every week or two. In this case I would expect the invoice to be dated
on the day of the admin session, but to make reference to the relevant
supply date and tax point, which would be earlier.


Tax year, eh? This is a roundabout way of telling us your friend
has been procrastinating since before the beginning of April, I
take it.
Erm - yes - in fact a bit longer!!
It is indeed right and proper that income should be recorded in your
accounts on the supply date, but I see no reason why the invoice date
should have to be the same, and if different it's not the invoice
date but the supply date or tax point which determines into which
accounting year or VAT quarter the income goes.
It does make it easier if the date on the invoice is the supply date, and
perhaps it's why many invoices use the term tax point to distinguish that
the date of issue may well be different.
Not sure about that. It may well be that payment falls due upon
completion
of the work (in some cases even earlier). It probably depends on what the
contract has to say on the matter.

I don't think the role of the invoice is to make the payment fall due,
I think the invoice is merely a formal communication which tells the
customer that payment is due and asks for it. So the invoice is
issued as a consequence of payment being due, not the other way round.

Of course there may be a separate agreement forming part of the
contract which governs the timing of payment, and allows the customer
reasonable time from receipt of invoice to pay, but that doesn't really
affect the question of payment being due more or less immediately the
work has been done, it merely plays a part in determining how soon you
can deem payment to be overdue for the purpose of commencing proceedings
and charging interest etc.
There are no terms for payment in the contract. However by default, aren't
there statutory terms which apply?


I had asked a friend earlier who is AAT qualified, and they've only just
come back saying that the that I ought to produce a credit note for the full
amount, and re-issue for the whole amount, dated the same day as the
original supply. Which is at odds with Zach's suggestion. Zach's does
sound simpler and in some respects neater in respect of compensation and
interest which the customer may well then try to wriggle out of.

Many thanks for your reply.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Z

Zach

Fredxx said:
Erm - yes - in fact a bit longer!!


It does make it easier if the date on the invoice is the supply date, and
perhaps it's why many invoices use the term tax point to distinguish that
the date of issue may well be different.


There are no terms for payment in the contract. However by default,
aren't there statutory terms which apply?


I had asked a friend earlier who is AAT qualified, and they've only just
come back saying that the that I ought to produce a credit note for the
full amount, and re-issue for the whole amount, dated the same day as the
original supply. Which is at odds with Zach's suggestion. Zach's does
sound simpler and in some respects neater in respect of compensation and
interest which the customer may well then try to wriggle out of.

Many thanks for your reply.
A number of problems you seem to be having would appear to be arising from a
lack of terms and conditions that you should communicate to your customer
prior to acceptance of the contract and work done on it, or prior to the
delivery of goods or services to your customer. In some countries terms and
conditions may be deposited at the Chamber of Commerce; it then suffices to
refer to them on the written contract (not on the back of the invoice, that
is too late), depositing terms and conditions might be less off-putting to a
prospective customer. (Actually the party dealing with you should enquire
about the authority you have to enter into the contract, and so should you.
In some countries, the prospective party to a contract who does not do this
is considered non bona fide, which could be used against him at a court of
law. In the old common law there is the principle that the law does not
protect those who do not protect themselves. There is a tricky issue of
dealing outside the realm of authority and the party who does this
benefitting by it.) Alternatively terms and conditions will need to
accompany the contract. Drawing up terms and conditions can be a costly
affair if you employ legal counsel. An alternative is getting together terms
and conditions of competitors and making a list of the issues you need to
cover, also of the various ways of doing that (the wording). You must not
simply copy what other firms have written because you might be infringing
upon copyright. In some countries the proper phrasing is determined by law,
to which you should refer in each case. In some countries there are branch
organizations who have done all this work for you. Then deviating from what
is usual for a particular branch might be used against you at a court of
law. As to interest, terms and conditions should stipulate the period within
which payment is due, after which interest will be charged without prior
notice. This information should also be printed on the invoice. In some
countries the percentage interest you are allowed to charge is limited by
law. I use the words « in some countries » because I have mainly worked on
the continent, nevertheless how things are done in different countries might
shed light on useful alternatives. So, in sum, it would appear to me that
some of your problems have arisen from the lack of proper terms and
conditions, and communicating them at the right time and in the proper way
to your customer.

Zach.
 
P

PeterSaxton

I am in a dispute with a customer for some work I have done.  The original
invoice was sent a while ago, and the customer has pointed out, foolishlyI
might add, that some items in the original invoice are less than agreed as
per contract.

I therefore need to amend this invoice to show the correct amounts.

Should I send a credit note, dated the same date as the original invoice,
and send a new invoice (with the same date) with the correct amounts, or
should I do this another way.  I am about to take him to court so feel I
must get this bit of admin correct.

Hope I've explained this well enough.  Many thanks in advance.
The last thing you want to do it to take somebody to court over an
unpaid invoice and then they produce a credit note relating to that
invoice.

Simply send a new invoice dated the day of issue. Make sure that it
clearly states the reasons and calculations for the amount.

As Martin says, you can still correct the revenue in the tax years by
adjustments to the accounts.
 
F

Fredxx

Zach said:
A number of problems you seem to be having would appear to be arising from
a lack of terms and conditions that you should communicate to your
customer prior to acceptance of the contract and work done on it, or prior
to the delivery of goods or services to your customer. In some countries
terms and conditions may be deposited at the Chamber of Commerce; it then
suffices to refer to them on the written contract (not on the back of the
invoice, that is too late), depositing terms and conditions might be less
off-putting to a prospective customer. (Actually the party dealing with
you should enquire about the authority you have to enter into the
contract, and so should you. In some countries, the prospective party to a
contract who does not do this is considered non bona fide, which could be
used against him at a court of law. In the old common law there is the
principle that the law does not protect those who do not protect
themselves. There is a tricky issue of dealing outside the realm of
authority and the party who does this benefitting by it.) Alternatively
terms and conditions will need to accompany the contract. Drawing up terms
and conditions can be a costly affair if you employ legal counsel. An
alternative is getting together terms and conditions of competitors and
making a list of the issues you need to cover, also of the various ways of
doing that (the wording). You must not simply copy what other firms have
written because you might be infringing upon copyright. In some countries
the proper phrasing is determined by law, to which you should refer in
each case. In some countries there are branch organizations who have done
all this work for you. Then deviating from what is usual for a particular
branch might be used against you at a court of law. As to interest, terms
and conditions should stipulate the period within which payment is due,
after which interest will be charged without prior notice. This
information should also be printed on the invoice. In some countries the
percentage interest you are allowed to charge is limited by law. I use the
words « in some countries » because I have mainly worked on the continent,
nevertheless how things are done in different countries might shed light
on useful alternatives. So, in sum, it would appear to me that some of
your problems have arisen from the lack of proper terms and conditions,
and communicating them at the right time and in the proper way to your
customer.
I appreciate what you say. In the past I have dealt with local customers
which have been more like gentleman's agreements. In this case a mutual
friend put us in contact with each other. This is the first incidence where
the relationship has gone pear shaped where the customer has reneged on an
agreement in order to try and get more work out of me for free.

To be honest, typically the customer's main concern is that knowledge
doesn't find its way to their competitors and is seen to be far more
important than terms and conditions. If I was to put forward terms and
conditions, I may come across as a nit-picking supplier, which might
frighten the customer off, where normally goodwill will prevail.

I'm not sure how having a formal terms and condition would have helped in
this instance, when there is a dispute in contractual delivery, however weak
an excuse, is used to delay and/or prevent payment.

In the past I have taken a companies terms and conditions and modified them
for my own use for the supply of equipment, but this instance is more a
supply of a service, so they weren't really relevant.

Many thanks for all your help. It's very much appreciated.
 
F

Fredxx

PeterSaxton said:
The last thing you want to do it to take somebody to court over an
unpaid invoice and then they produce a credit note relating to that
invoice.

Simply send a new invoice dated the day of issue. Make sure that it
clearly states the reasons and calculations for the amount.

As Martin says, you can still correct the revenue in the tax years by
adjustments to the accounts.
Why todays date? Wouldn't it be better if I use the term "tax point" or
"date of supply" and dated it the day of supply?

Should this be for the full amount, or the additional amount?

I was worried of the idea of sending a credit note and then a new invoice,
but thought all would be well if they were all dated the date of supply,
with a covering letter.

Many thanks for your reply.
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Fredxx said:
Why todays date? Wouldn't it be better if I use the term "tax point" or
"date of supply" and dated it the day of supply?
This is not an either-or matter; your invoice should show *two* dates.

Although it has become accepted practice for invoices to show only one
date, this is OK only when tax point and invoice date are the same (in
fact, it's common to see pre-printed invoice forms with a box for one
date, with the box labelled "invoice date and tax point"). But when
the two dates are different, as in your case, both should be shown.

So your invoice should show *both* the "tax point", which in your case
would be the date of supply, *and* the "invoice date", which should be
when you issue it (i.e. today).
Should this be for the full amount, or the additional amount?

I was worried of the idea of sending a credit note and then a new invoice,
but thought all would be well if they were all dated the date of supply,
with a covering letter.
I think it should be for the additional amount, because if it's for the
full amount, you would be replacing (and therefore cancelling) the original
invoice, which technically might have implications about payment dates,
i.e. your customer might be entitled to the statutory two months (or however
long it is) *from today* to pay the new invoice.
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

Fredxx

Ronald said:
This is not an either-or matter; your invoice should show *two* dates.

Although it has become accepted practice for invoices to show only one
date, this is OK only when tax point and invoice date are the same (in
fact, it's common to see pre-printed invoice forms with a box for one
date, with the box labelled "invoice date and tax point"). But when
the two dates are different, as in your case, both should be shown.

So your invoice should show *both* the "tax point", which in your case
would be the date of supply, *and* the "invoice date", which should be
when you issue it (i.e. today).


I think it should be for the additional amount, because if it's for
the full amount, you would be replacing (and therefore cancelling)
the original invoice, which technically might have implications about
payment dates, i.e. your customer might be entitled to the statutory
two months (or however long it is) *from today* to pay the new
invoice.
I get the drift, many thanks for the points you have raised. Most invoices
I see have just the one date, ie the tax point, and certainly unlikely to be
issued on the same date.
 
M

Martin

Ronald Raygun said:
This is not an either-or matter; your invoice should show *two* dates.

Although it has become accepted practice for invoices to show only one
date, this is OK only when tax point and invoice date are the same (in
fact, it's common to see pre-printed invoice forms with a box for one
date, with the box labelled "invoice date and tax point"). But when
the two dates are different, as in your case, both should be shown.

So your invoice should show *both* the "tax point", which in your case
would be the date of supply, *and* the "invoice date", which should be
when you issue it (i.e. today).


I think it should be for the additional amount, because if it's for the
full amount, you would be replacing (and therefore cancelling) the
original
invoice, which technically might have implications about payment dates,
i.e. your customer might be entitled to the statutory two months (or
however
long it is) *from today* to pay the new invoice.
It might provide a little additional fun if the new "extras only" invoice
was stamped "paid" - and then enclose a statement showing the part payment
allocated to the "extras", any balance allocated to the long outstanding
invoice, and the unpaid remainder shown as "2 years overdue and counting" or
whatever. If credit card coys can decide how to allocate payments, why not
the rest of us creditors? :)
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Martin said:
It might provide a little additional fun if the new "extras only" invoice
was stamped "paid" - and then enclose a statement showing the part payment
allocated to the "extras", any balance allocated to the long outstanding
invoice, and the unpaid remainder shown as "2 years overdue and counting"
or
whatever. If credit card coys can decide how to allocate payments, why
not the rest of us creditors? :)
You old devil.
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

PeterSaxton

Why todays date?  Wouldn't it be better if I use the term "tax point" or
"date of supply" and dated it the day of supply?
For what purpose? You can still give the date when the work was done.
Todays date is the date of issue.
Should this be for the full amount, or the additional amount?
Additional amount otherwise you are invoicing them for too much.
I was worried of the idea of sending a credit note and then a new invoice,
but thought all would be well if they were all dated the date of supply,
with a covering letter.
What is your claim for? Did you say what invoice you are claiming for?
It would be confusing if you claim for a certain amount and one
invoice and then there is a credit note referring to that invoice and
also the claim is for a certain amount and the outstanding invoice is
for a different amount.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top