To my thinking this instance is not really bank charges but rather an increase in the cost of the goods purchased.
A good way to consider transactions such as this is the definition in IAS16 which states that the cost of assets (stock simply being an asset held for trading) includes all costs incurred in bringing the asset to the location and condition for intended purpose.
To my mind the cost of the asset purchased is inclusive of the charges associated with the purchase rather than such charges being seperated.
The other way around in the books of the supplier the fee's and cost of asset would be shown seperately.
Others may have alternate treatments so don't act on my post until others have also had chance to respond.
kind regards,
Shaun.
p.s. right, now back to painting my windows so there may be some delay between my replies.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
In some circumstances, like where there is carriage on an invoice, I would do as Shaun suggests, and post it all to Fixed Assets or Stock purchases etc... but with bank charges, if the client hasn't specifically shown them on the invoice, I separate. This has been because the bank has been taking the charges as part of the transfer, not the supplier recharging them.
I am not sure of the definitive answer, that's just how I do it.
