Payee for split small annoyance

[lp.allard.1 at protonmail.com]

Jack,

I would tend to agree with you. The way I mainly use splits is to track the total cost of a transaction across multiple categories (if applicable). For example an invoice at Lowes can have electrical stuff, plumbing, yard maintenance, etc…. The payee is still Lowes for all of those splits.

In my humble opinion, the following behavior should be applied by the program:

If the user enters a payee in the “main” transaction, the program should assume its the same payee for all splits. There should not be a payee field in the splits (or it should be greyed out and indicate the same payee as the parent transaction) and have a tick box next to the field to “add” a custom/different payee.

If the user ticks that box, and enters a different payee, then this transaction will invariably end up with multiple payees, therefore the payee field in the parent (main) transaction should be greyed out and say “Multiple payees, see splits for details”.

Something like that…. The idea is to be consistent, if its mostly always a single payee (like for me) then no need to further complicate things. If someone needs to enter different payees (I can see cases where it would be nice to be able to do so), then no need to have redundancy at the upper level, splits become IMO a simple bundling of multiple transactions.

My 2 cents ;)

On Monday, December 22, 2025 18:23 EST, "Jack via KMyMoney" <kmymoney at kde.org> wrote:

> On 2025.12.22 17:49, lp.allard.1--- via KMyMoney wrote:
>> Hello maillist,
>>
>> I just restarted using KMM for good after a few months and noticed a
>> small issues (?) with payees in split transactions.
>>
>> It is now possible to enter different payees for the split
>> transactions. However, since most of my transactions are done at a
>> single payee, I usually (out of habit with the older KMM versions)
>> enter the payee in the “main” transaction, and then populte my splits.
>>
>> I noticed if I leave the payee fields empty on the splits, in the
>> reports these splits will be reported with NO payee. IMO if the payee
>> field is left empty KMM should automatically use the parent
>> transction's payee. If KMM cant do this, what's the point of entering
>> a payee in the main transaction if its necessary to enter one for
>> each splits?
>>
>> Maybe I am not getting the intention behind this behavior?
>
> This has indeed been mentioned on the lists, discuss, and bugs, but I'm
> not sure there is a clear solution of how KMM should behave here. I
> see three open bugs which might be used, although two refer
> specifically to split scheduled transactions.
>
> I'd like to see a bit more discussion here before any specific solution
> is proposed, although I think the main reuqest is that if a Payee is
> entered when a schedule is created (regular or scheduled transaction)
> and that transaction is then split, the Payee be applied to any new
> splits created. One option might also be to only apply it to the first
> split, as there is a use case that one reason for creating the splits
> is specifically to allow different Payees. Clearing a Payee is not
> hard, but perhaps there could be a button to apply the transaction
> Payee to the current split.
>
> Other ideas?
>
> Jack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kmymoney/attachments/20251223/9f35a347/attachment.htm>