Nice try Carl (Catalyst V).
Unfortunately, I can't agree with anything contained in your most recent reply.
I also have the 2017 version of this software, so I tried to enter the same information (with 2016 references changed to reflect 2017) twice: - the first time to see if there were any changes, as you claimed, and the second time to fully document what was really occurring and to isolate the underlying problem.
These are my new observations:
While it is possible that there are slight cosmetic changes in the two versions (2016/2017), they are so insignificant as to be virtually indistinguishable from each other.
I used 'Interview Mode' in both these new tests. I had also done so as the basis for my original complaint regarding the 2016 version.
I was wrong about the problem being one primarily due to screen/page presentation, but you are also wrong about it being an issue with “clarity”. Worse than that, you are wrong when you say “the numbers are right”. They are not! There is, in fact, a logical error in the software. As a programmer, I would refer to that as a “bug”.
Here is the documentation/evidence:
Starting by entering “Update” under the “Rental Properties & Royalties” section, the user is presented with screens/fields to enter General Information that includes Tax Values for both 'Land' and 'Improvement Value'.
Depreciation is then calculated, based on these values, with the sole disclaimer that “You can review your rental property depreciation in the next section”.
This takes the user to “Review Your [property name] Rental Summary”, which includes the sub-section “Assets/Depreciation”, with values already populated from what was already entered.
By again entering “Update” against this entry (although, if no other entries are necessary, there is reason for anyone to do so) , the user is taken to “Your Property Assets”. Once again, values are already populated (in this instance, for Depreciation).
At this point. the user may enter “Edit” against the entry (again, there is no reason for the user to think that there is any such requirement), in which case they are presented with another pre-populated screen containing values for both “Cost” and “Cost of Land”.
At best, your contention is that the user should understand the the “Cost of Land” value should be manually changed from the incorrect value that your software provides here to the correct vale that said user must calculate themself.
My contention is that this is an obvious “bug”, because the value presented is based on the wrong underlying value. It is based not only on the purchase price, but also all of the additional costs, such as closing costs and improvements. It should be calculated based on the purchase price, alone.
The “fix” that you indicated works by overriding an inherent logical error within the software.
If you were unable to recognize this obvious error, what chance does the general public have and where is your QA team?
If my analysis is correct, then my previous comments regarding other potential bugs and inaccuracies become more troublesome, don't you think?
I await a response indicating some sort of error on my part.
Failing that, I would consider this “Game, set and match”.
Your move - to mix metaphores.
