DEPRECIATION ONSTATEMENT OF FUNTIONAL EXPENSES DOUBLES UP CAUSING THE STATMENT TO BE OUT OF balane

[abctax55 · Accepted solution]

DID YOU ENTER IT TWICE?   Depreciation Screen 39 and on Screen 34 ?

And our hearing around here is fine, BTW.

[IRonMaN]

When things get out of balane, they are so upset that they don't find anything helpful.

[IRonMaN]

But then again those funtional expenses can get awfully confusing when you try putting them on statments.

[IRonMaN]

I understand we don't get released from this prison any sooner for good behavior.
I was feeling kinda Henryish tonight

[abctax55]

@rgv - instead of a no vote, how about answering my question?  And internet etiquette is the ALL CAPS is shouting, and rude.  So unless you have a functional <w> reason for not using the shift key try using your inside voice instead.

[George4Tacks]

@abctax55 The statement was not all caps - "balane" was in lower case for emphasis. I think it is a type of product generated by whales. I am not sure how  this applies, so VERY INTERESTING, BUT ....

[abctax55]

Ah...that would change my answer *completely*....IF I cared.  

The OP needs to provide more info before anyone can help.