Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but at least in the French PCG and related laws, there is probably more ‘required’ to it than meets the eye.
If I don’t pay suppliers invoice(s) ‘cash’, but by other means then the invoice(s) are to be marked by a payment remittance movement (the ‘party’ is fully maintained on the movement)
This move (e.g. to 403xxx) notes this event and indicates that disbursement is pending (typically with specific due date) for bank clearing… (for details, see e.g. PCG Section 4 ‘Comptes de tiers (Classe 4) Fournisseurs et comptes rattachés (comptes 40)’ or the reference I already gave in Lefebvre )
As to SEPA bank payments, if the “Requested Execution Date” is in a future period, similar holds (because the credit transfer instruction is considered irrévocable).
There are probably those that don’t like to bother with any of this on a day to day basis, but it is mandatory … especially so at fiscal year-end closing for pending payments.
BTW: There is a catch, well, for partners and cash-basis for VAT anyway… whereas even though the “payment means” is accepted and irrevocable, only when the payment has cleared the bank (around the due date) and the remittance reconciled naturally that finally the invoice can be marked as paid.
This all is a frequent case encountered in France, for example in construction or other services industries where many payments are done by LCR/BOR and VCOM/FAE. (which is why I mentioned the possible feature for bank clearing in the first place, because it should be able to handle most all payment types, in theory at least).