One service, two staff: establish the split first
Document shared-service attribution, test the allocated sales basis and avoid counting a full service once for each staff member.
Two people can contribute to one service while the export names only one person. The missing step is an attribution decision supported by the source and the supplied arrangement. Duplicating the full sale for each person makes a different calculation, even if the combined total initially looks plausible.
The useful part
Confirm whether the split applies to the sales basis, the commission pool or another measure. Preserve the original line and prove that the allocation follows that specific method.
Name the thing being split
“Split 60/40” is incomplete. It could mean 60% and 40% of the service basis, or shares of one already calculated commission amount. It might describe time spent without defining commission at all. Ask for the calculation rule and the evidence identifying the earning staff.
The methods can produce different answers when the staff rates differ. Record the original invoice, the staff identities, allocation percentages, individual rates and any rounding policy. A booking note that says “assisted” is evidence of participation, not by itself a numeric allocation rule.
Work a supplied basis allocation
The fictional service has a $200.00 commission basis. The confirmed example method allocates 60% of that basis to Ari at a 40% commission rate, and 40% to Bea at a 30% commission rate. There is no further tax step in these supplied basis figures.
| Staff | Basis share | Allocated basis | Staff rate | Commission |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ari | 60% | $120.00 | 40% | $48.00 |
| Bea | 40% | $80.00 | 30% | $24.00 |
| Total | 100% | $200.00 | Individual rates | $72.00 |
Notice why a pool method is different
If a different supplied arrangement created a $80.00 commission pool first and then split that pool 60/40, the results would be $48.00 for Ari and $32.00 for Bea. The combined commission would be $80.00, not $72.00.
Both examples are arithmetically coherent, but they implement different assumptions. A calculator cannot choose between them from the words “shared service.” Keep the confirmed method with the record. Do not change Bea’s rate or the original service amount merely to make one method imitate the other.
Prefer a source that already records the allocation
Check whether the source system can provide item-level earning attribution. If it exports allocated service lines, verify that their combined amount and supplied tax reconcile to the original invoice and that each line represents a real allocation, not the entire invoice repeated.
If you prepare an external allocation worksheet, keep the original export unchanged. Record how each derived line was produced and link it to the original invoice. Preserve stable line references in the working papers and check the complete original-plus-derived dataset for accidental double inclusion.
- Retain the original item and invoice reference.
- Confirm the allocation method and staff identities.
- Calculate each allocated basis or pool share.
- Reconcile the allocated totals to their starting amount.
- Ensure the original full line is not also counted.
Understand what the current app can represent
Trimsum assigns one earning staff identity to each imported row and applies that person’s service or retail rate for the row date in a dated workspace, or the current flat rate in a legacy workspace. It does not automatically divide one row between several people or maintain a shared-service agreement.
Already allocated source lines may fit that model when their amounts, tax, categories and attribution are correct. A shared commission pool, fixed assistant payment or unsupported formula should remain in a separate reviewed schedule. Avoid creating artificial staff names to disguise a calculation the app does not support.
Carry the same evidence into later adjustments
A later partial refund raises another attribution question: which original allocation does the adjustment affect? Under a supplied proportional reversal, a $50.00 basis refund split 60/40 would reverse $30.00 for Ari and $20.00 for Bea, producing commission effects of −$12.00 and −$6.00 at their example rates.
That is only the arithmetic of that stated method. Confirm the actual arrangement before applying it. Link the refund to the original invoice and allocation schedule, preserve the original closed record, and show the resulting adjustment separately so neither person’s share is guessed from memory.
Put it to work.
Follow the source rows, calculation and review decisions in a sample workspace.
Explore the worked example