Hello GilesAG,

If this is a Partial Transfer, then the extension .001 is the remaining portion of the asset and is also what is displayed on the Asset's detail view. The NBV is not a native field to the Fixed Asset Summary report which means that report has been customized within the program, which makes my question: Are you sure the field you are looking at is call "Current Net Book Value" under the field listed in the Report Customization dialog? See How to customize standard reports for details.

If this is a Partial Disposal, then the extension .001 is the disposed portion of the asset and just may have a remaining NBV on it depending on the Disposal calculation which would not be on the Asset's detail view.

Go to the Asset's details, and look of the Transaction Tab: What kind of Transactions are listed there?

Thank you Delray,

Yes the .001 is the remaining part of the asset, the asset created from the transfer has been disposed of, it is the remaining asset (.001) which is not reporting correctly.

We do not have the 'SAGE FA - Reporting' module so our standard reports are out of the box, for the .001 remaining asset the Fixed Asset Summary Report is showing an ending cost figure of 5k with a total accum depr of 3k. In contrast the asset record itself (from the main asset list) shows cost of 5k and current accum of 5k (this is the "NBV" to which I was referring - maybe not clear in the original note).

My issue therefore is the asset record is correct, but the standard report "Fixed Asset Summary" is not picking up the accum depn correctly?

Thanks again.

Thanks, it's not the "Include Section 168...." box being unchecked causing this, I've reviewed and the box is checked in our company set-up.

Ok then, I would actually need the details of the asset to say anything definitive, but at a guess, I would say that the asset is taking the 168 allowance or 179 expense and that under Edit company, the "Include Section 168 allowance and Section 179 in Expense" box is unchecked which would account for apparent difference between the Beginning cost and the Total Accum.

Yes, checking that box and re-running the report would change that.

Then I would need the Asset's information to answer the question. Now when I say that, I do mean the asset as it was prior to any transactions and the transaction information, and I am reading your initial question correctly that the asset was changed after the partial transfer? If so, that could add a whole other element of complexity to the question.

The Fixed Asset Summary report being more a collection of formulas based off the Acquisition Date where the calculation is based on the Placed in Service date can make things look odd sometimes. It usually is just a matter of me proofing the calculation throughout the life of the asset.