This is a feature request. To be able to issue a Sales Invoice for parties other than Customer such as Member, Employee and Patient. Likewise I would like to know why such feature is not possible.
You can put this feature request on ERPNext Github, under Issues tab for the maintainers to see it: GitHub · Where software is built
Hi @jcagbay
Currently member (non profit domain) and patient (healthcare domain) automatically creates customer for these two so that sales invoice can be booked.
Employee is payable party and raising sales invoice for employee requires further input.
Employee Advance Account has been promoted as Receivable in recent days as well.
@ahsantareen You are right employee is account type payable. So we can exclude it in party type list in Sales Invoice. The point I raise is duplication. Since it is allowed in Journal and Payment Entry why not allowed also in Sales Invoice. This feature request is raise in Muti Party Sales Invoice · Issue #49953 · frappe/erpnext · GitHub .
From a technical perspective, allowing non-customers as parties in invoices is going to be complicated. There are a ton of fields specific to the customer doctype that the invoice looks for, and doctypes like Member, Employee, and Patient don’t have these fields.
Obviously there are not a ton of fields to be added in Patient details. We can even place them or look up to the Customer Group assigned e.g. Medical. Only a few fields are critical: Expense Account and Terms of Payment and maybe few others.
The advantage is great. You can invoice a Patient for medical business operation likewise you can Invoice a Customer to non-medical business operation which is very common business requirements for Hospitals.
Hi if you Create a Staff Loan Account > and define account type as Receivable > In Journal Entries It asks you to define party type and party
Party Type > Employee
Party > Employee’s Id
You can still invoice a Patient; you just have to link it to a Customer doc first. The advantage to this approach is that in many cases the Customer and the Patient/Student/Member/etc aren’t the same person or entity. It is very common in my organization, for example, to enroll a student and bill their their organization.
The proper logic in your requirement is Bill To. It might be that ERPNext Customer Bill To address is not even link to Customer Account because most of the time Address is use only for delivery of stocks and billing physically.
I think, we need to stablish the proper logic not the work around functionality from unintended design. Once the core developer recognize the request for Multi Party Invoice then the next logical request is Bill To. Or even no need because the actual business practice is handling the billing to the actual payor.
Not in my regulatory context. The party of an invoice is the person being billed.
The current flow is not a work around. It’s the intended design. You’re welcome to create/wish for something else, of course.
Perhaps rename ‘Customer’ docType to ‘Bill To’.
This can be accomplished using the translation function (Customer > customize > label via custom translation)
This is correct.
Definitely wrong. Why a government level department of health regulatory body will comment if the logic is correct. That, bill the patient not the customer!
I don’t really follow what you’re saying here, but in the end it doesn’t really matter what either of us think. If the current setup doesn’t work for your jurisdiction, your options are what they always are in open source:
- change it
- pay someone else to change it
- hope that someone else changes it
I can’t disagree further. Thank you.