I'm going to assume you're a human being, and not a bot, AlexV...so I will encourage you to >>read what I wrote<<, rather than provide a canned/boiler-plate answer.

The introductory paragraph to my message shows that your reply is completely off the mark and totally useless. I am well aware of exactly the "solution" you propose.

But it's not a solution! Or even a particularly good workaround.

It's a sign of lousy software/database architecture.

Please do not waste my and anyone else's time by continuing this conversation. If you really want to do something useful why don't you pass along to your management that they really, really, really need to change their database architecture so the "name collision problem" does not occur. Not by forcing customers to follow a dumb, ad hoc, prone-to-errors "solution". But by designing the database to recognize that, yes, one individual or entity can fill more than one role (i.e., be both a customer and a vendor).

Thank you, however, for asking me to clarify which software I am using. It's Quickbooks Online.