ERS posting reversal, but not payment

Hello
I am having an issue with ERS PO's in our system.
Scenario is as follows -
ERS flag isn't initially set on the PO. Then, a GR posted is from SES release, however because ERS flag isn't turned on EKRS table wasn't populated. Thus ERS would not create IR for the GR.
ERS flag was then set for the PO.
User reversed the GR. Reverse GR posted to EKRS therefore ERS batch picked up the reverse GR to post a reverse IR.
ERS will still not pick up the original GR to create a IR doc.
As a result, vendor account is incorrect and also the GR/IR is incorrect.
Any possible solutions to make correct the PO history?
Due to user error, we will always have cases where ERS flag is turned on after GR.
What is the best way to avoid this imbalanced PO scenario in the future? Should user first reverse GR prior to setting ERS fla

You should do the GR reversal BEFORE you change the PO to ERS.  
After you reverse the GR you then
-  change the PO to ERS
-  do the GR (receipt which is the "original" receipt of the product that you had to reverse because the ERS flag was not set)
If you see this happening alot then I'd suggest looking at your processes and improve the process to make sure this does not happen.   For example - it sounds like you are taking existing suppliers with existing POs and converting them to ERS.  This would result in POs not being checked for ERS because they were created before the supplier was an ERS supplier.   As part of the process to convert the supplier to ERS you need to add a few steps such as:
1)  identify open POs/SAs and either close them and create new ones OR convert all of them to ERS.
2)  you would also need to identify what POs/SAs have pending invoices and communicate with the supplier what paper invoices they need to send and when they should stop sending the paper invoices.
Sandra

Similar Messages

  • ERS posting reverse GR after flag activated, ignoring original GR

    Hello
    I am having an issue with ERS PO's in our system.
    Scenario is as follows -
    ERS flag isn't initially set on the PO. Then, a GR posted is from SES release, however because ERS flag isn't turned on EKRS table wasn't populated. Thus ERS would not create IR for the GR.
    ERS flag was then set for the PO.
    User reversed the GR. Reverse GR posted to EKRS therefore ERS batch picked up the reverse GR to post a reverse IR.
    ERS will still not pick up the original GR to create a IR doc.
    As a result, vendor account is incorrect and also the GR/IR is incorrect.
    Any possible solutions to make correct the PO history?
    Due to user error, we will always have cases where ERS flag is turned on after GR.
    What is the best way to avoid this imbalanced PO scenario in the future? Should user first reverse GR prior to setting ERS flag?

    posted in the wrong forum

  • BAPI_ACC_INVOICE_RECEIPT_POST document posted succ but not in FB03 -urg

    Hi
    For the Inter-company G/L Account posting (Company codes 1000 has EUR currency key & 2000 has GBP currency key), I am using the BAPI FM BAPI_ACC_INVOICE_RECEIPT_POST & BAPI_TRANSACTION_COMMIT.
    For this, I am giving the 'DocumentHeader' structure with Company code 1000. 'Accountapayable' structure as Lineitem -0000000001 and credit Account No. & 'AccountGL' structure as Lineitem -0000000002 and Debit Account No. And in 'CurrencyAmount' strcure as with LineItem - 1, Currency - EUR, AMT-BASE as 100- & Lineitem - 2 as with Currenct key - GBP, Exchange rate as 68.36, AMT-BASE as 1.00. (Because as pee my understanding 100EUR = 68.36GBP).
    Using the above test data, i am getting the output parameters result as with message as 'Document posted successfully: BKPFF 010000061210002009 T90CLNT090'.
    But when I go to BKPF table or FB03 transaction I am not able to see this document.
    Regards,
    Basani

    Hi,
    search BAPI for FB03 transaction in SDN..
    try this link.
    RFC or BAPI  for fb03 transaction call
    regards,
    nazeer

  • BAPI_ACC_INVOICE_RECEIPT_POST document posted succ but not in FB03

    Hi
    For the Inter-company G/L Account posting Company codes 1000 has EUR currency key & 2000 has GBP currency key. I am using the BAPI FM BAPI_ACC_INVOICE_RECEIPT_POST & BAPI_TRANSACTION_COMMIT.
    I am getting the output parameters result as with message as 'Document posted successfully: BKPFF 010000061210002009 T90CLNT090'.
    But when I go to BKPF table or FB03 transaction I am not able to see this document.
    Regards,
    Basani

    Hi
    For the Inter-company G/L Account posting (Company codes 1000 has EUR currency key & 2000 has GBP currency key), I am using the BAPI FM BAPI_ACC_INVOICE_RECEIPT_POST & BAPI_TRANSACTION_COMMIT.
    For this, I am giving the 'DocumentHeader' structure with Company code 1000. 'Accountapayable' structure as Lineitem -0000000001 and credit Account No. & 'AccountGL' structure as Lineitem -0000000002 and Debit Account No. And in 'CurrencyAmount' strcure as with LineItem - 1, Currency - EUR, AMT-BASE as 100- & Lineitem - 2  as with Currenct key - GBP, Exchange rate as 68.36, AMT-BASE as 1.00. (Because as pee my understanding 100EUR = 68.36GBP).
    Using the above test data, i am getting the output parameters result as with message as 'Document posted successfully: BKPFF 010000061210002009 T90CLNT090'.
    But when I go to BKPF table or FB03 transaction I am not able to see this document.
    Regards,
    Basani

  • User needs parking and posting facility but not to post doc parked by him

    Hi All,
    Please Let Me know whether it is possible or not
    Requirement : For Instance, we have two users user1 and user2.
    Both the users should have posting and parking facility. But they should not have the authorization of posting a document which was parked by them.
    i.e. If user 1 is parking a document he should not be able to post that particular document but he should be able to post the document which was parked by user2 and vice versa.
    Regards
    Karthik

    It was possible... take your basis people help... you can authorisation of parking document tcodes to one person and you can give authorisation for chaging, posting, deleting or rejecting parked document to another one...
    for document parking --> f-02, fb50, f-65  : only give authorisation to this tcodes the person for parking
    for parked document changes --> fv50, fbv0 to fbv6   only give authorisation to this tcodes the person for changing parked documents

  • Billing Document  getting reversed thru VF11 but not the accounting documen

    Hi All,
    I am using this transaction VF11 to reverse the billing document and its corresponding accounting document.But only the billing document is getting reversed but not the accounting doc. For eg The message im getting is
    Document 92029379 saved (no accounting document generated)Message no. VF050
    Will definitely reward points if helpful...
    Regards,
    Sushma.

    Hi Sushma ,
    It depends Upon ur Config settings .
    Regards
    Peram

  • IR not balance was posted but not blocked for payment

    Dear all,
    Kindly help.
    I have PO , with GR amount of 1000, then tried to post IR amount higher than the 5%  tolerance limit
    PO/GR amount = 1,000
    IR amount  =  1,500.00
    in this case when i simulate and check, i get the message Balance Not Zero , so I cannot post.
    But when i use the function in this path  EDIT > ACCEPT and POST  , i am able to post and NOT Blocked for Payment.
    Why is this so?
    Please help. Hope i explained this clearly.
    thanks in advance.

    Hello
    Please note that in MIRO if you post invoices choosing Edit- >Accept and
    Post, then this procedure overwrites all other settings. Your invoice
    will be posted regardless of the tolerances, etc.
    Please, check the attached notes:
    394370   FAQ: Invoice release - frequently asked questions
    333930   MR3M/MIR4: Display of payment block
    377306   MIRO/MRBR: System behavior in the case of invoice
    SAP's explanation on this is as follows:
    The system design is such that it only checks the blocking reasons at
    the initial invoice verification. This was to avoid the release
    functionality being too complicated and hence difficult to design. In
    this case, the system still recognises the block as being valid as it
    is referring to the initial invoice and it will have to be manually
    released only. I hope this has cleared up any confusion you may have
    regarding this issue.
    In conclusion, it is only possible to automatically release invoices
    if their blocking reasons are no longer valid. This can be the case for
    invoices blocked due to quantity, price, or schedule variances, or due
    to quality inspection.
    You can only use the function Release automatically for the blocking
    procedure Blocked due to variances.
    However, please note that if the 'GR-Based IV' indicator is set in the
    line item of the PO, the invoice can not be released automatically.
    The reason behind this s that with GR-based IV the system only
    makes checks against each individual goods receipt rather than
    against the invoice as a whole. If you need to use GR-based IV, then the
    invoice will have to be released manually in MRBR.
    I hope this clarifies the system behaviour
    regards
    Ray

  • ERS PO line item not marked GR-based IV w/GR posted.

    Hi SAP Gurus,
    We are on ECC 5.0.  I have a PO that had the ERS flag ticked for the line item, but not the GR-based IV.
    A goods receipt was posted against the line item, but I can't settle the receipt in ERS settlement transaction MRRL.
    Is there a way to "update" the goods receipt without reversing it so that I can pick it up in the ERS settlement?
    Thanks,
    Linda

    Hello Linda,
    The best way to handle this is Cancle the ALL GR which will open the purchase order again, now you will be able to flag "GR based IR".
    Hope this helps,
    Regards,
    Arif Mansuri
    Reward if answer is helpful.

  • What is the Impact of just parking invoice doc's, but not posting...

    I would like to know the risk/constrain involved with the below process, which may not be a standard practice.
    1. Service Provider maintains Classic SRM/ECC. Customer maintains own ECC.
    2. Shopping cart created in SRM and PO generated in ECC of Service provider.
    3. PO transferred to Customer ECC. Invoice posting, Payment and FI activities are carried out in customer ECC.
    4. Basic Invoice Information is transferred back to Service provider ECC, so this invoice will be shown as follow on document in the shopping cart. It will show only the invoice number and it is only for the informational purpose. There is neither finance activity nor any reporting are made out that system.
    Service provider just want to Park the document and not to post it, so it won't hit the GL account. This eliminates considerable work FI configuration settings.
    Question is whether this unorthodox method of just parking, but not posting will cause any impact/risk, even though no FI activities is carried on that system.

    Hi,
    'the invoice number and it is only for the informational purpose' and 'In future if we are planning to use any reporting from service provider', in this case of cause there will be a problem.
    But, what Service provider going to do with Parked doc? In future if they're going to post it?I mean if they are have accounts payable why they don't post it?

  • GL balance in FS10N not tally with KE5Z due to trx posted to FI but not CO

    Hi,
    Need help to solve this problem.
    Some of our FI postings were not reflected in the Profit Center accounting therefore when we compare GL balances in FS10N against KE5Z, the figure does not tally.
    Suspected when the transaction was posted, the cost element for the GL was not created yet.
    ie GL account 123456 created in 01.10.2009, transaction posted in 06.10.2009, but the cost element for 123456 was only created on 12.10.2009. Therefore the transaction posted on 06.10.2009 only updates FI but not on the CO side. Not sure whether this is the actual reason or could be due to other reasons.
    Is there any way to reverse/repost such that figures from the 2 tcodes tally? Thank you in advance.

    Hi Azmin,
    thanks for your reply, but I have actually tried using 1KE8 but I got an error log "Account xxx requires an assignment to a CO object". Therefore I wonder if there is any other tcode that I can use or should I perform certain step first before I can use 1KE8.

  • Impact of just parking invoice doc, but not posting???

    I would like to know the risk/constrain involved with the below process, which may not be a standard practice.
    1. Service Provider maintains Classic SRM/ECC. Customer maintains own ECC.
    2. Shopping cart created in SRM and PO generated in ECC of Service provider.
    3. PO transferred to Customer ECC. Invoice posting, Payment and FI activities are carried out in customer ECC.
    4. Basic Invoice Information is transferred back to Service provider ECC, so this invoice will be shown as follow on document in the shopping cart. It will show only the invoice number and it is only for the informational purpose. There is neither finance activity nor any reporting are made out that system.
    Service provider just want to Park the document and not to post it, so it won't hit the GL account. This eliminates considerable work FI configuration settings.
    Question is whether this unorthodox method of just parking, but not posting will cause any impact/risk, even though no FI activities is carried on that system.

    It is not a normal practice and does not fulfill the intent of the park process but as long as you have controls around preventing those parked documents from being posted this should probably work.
    Consider them to be a little akin to delivery accruals that are never matched to an invoice, my thoughts are you might want to HOLD rather than PARK these documents.
    You will also need to consider what your long term housekeeping and archiving strategy will be for these essentially orphaned documents.

  • How can i check for posted but not yet commited changes in a form

    Dears
    I make changes programmatically in a form then i post it using (Post built in).
    If the user exits the form, i make check for any changes in the form to commit it using the system variable :system.form_status
    Unfortunately the value of this system variable is 'Query' not 'Changed' because of using the post built in.
    Is ther another system variable ( or any another way ) that check for posted but not yet commited changes in the form ?
    Thanks a lot
    Mostafa Abolaynain

    I had faced similar situation. Using of package variable which identifies, what is the user's latest action.
    This is just a workaround.
    Capture what the user has performed into a variable say, PKG_VAR.ACTION,
    This will be assigned values like List L, and Create C, Update U and Saved S.
    If commit is executed,assing the status S to the variable.
    So while closing,
    IF :system.form_status = 'CHANGED' or PKG_VAR.ACTION in ('C','U') THEN     
    -- validate the data, n perform commit.
    else
    -- just close the form.
    end if;
    Regards
    Deepz : )

  • Apple, Pfft!!! (Another iPod shows up in Windows but not in iTunes post)

    How in the world does Apple market the iPod, etc... as if 10-year olds and grandmothers can operate the technology, when having viewed these message boards for 10 hours yesterday, it seems as even the tech savy people who can make a computer out of two pieces of bread and a piece of bologna have to wrack their brains to make it come a step closer to actually working. Blah!!!
    Anyway, the problem that I am having is the problem that a lot of other people are having and seems to be the main theme at the moment.
    I am unable to have iTunes recognize my iPod. My PC will once-in-a-blue-moon recognize the iPod as its own drive in Windows Explorer, but mostly all I get is the big freeze. Every time I connect my iPod to the USB, all of the programs cease to operate until I unplug it. I am not having memory problems either.
    Here's what I've done. I have updated the iPod Updater to the 06-23-06 version. I was able to get it to update the software on my 60GB iPod. I got all excited only to then have it give me several error messages 1) an internal manager error and 2) some unable to dock or something like that (sorry I'm not at my home cpu.) Once while I was doing the 4-hour battery charge my iPod came up in the source list in iTunes, but I have been unable to have it be rerecognized.
    I've unistalled and reinstalled iTunes and the iPod Updater over 10 times and have gone through the 5 Rs as well as all of the steps on
    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93716 (My iPod shows up in Windows but not in iTunes)
    I've even messed with msconfig and tried a whole bunch of other suggestions. It doesn't seem that Apple has a fix for this problem and we are all left with paperweights.
    Any suggestions?
    Thanks you all and condolences to everyone who is going through this same problem. I swear what happened to plug and play. Pfft!!!

    You know they are probably going to search me out and crash my computer for posting this but i had the same problem with iTunes. i spent hours, went through the 50000 "R's" and changed my settings and formatted and reset and reloaded and then i tried Realaudio. it found all the songs i had loaded into iTunes and put them on my shuffle first try. you can get Realaudio at <www.real.com> Let me know how it works...

  • Approve/Post Journal works in 32-bit, but not the web Client?

    We have HFM 4.01 sp2 and sometimes when a user tries to approve/post a journal in the HFM Web Client they receive a security error (even though they have the post role and ALL access to the Entity), then they login to the 32-bit client and they can approve/post the same journal? Why?
    Thanks,
    Tom

    The user in question has all the security he needs. . . post journal role, ALL access to the scenario, entity, etc. or it wouldn't work in the 32-bit (windows) client either. I want to know why he received an error in the Web Client, but NOT the windows client?

  • Adobe form-Able to post  data using Adobe Reader 9 but not with Adobe Proff

    Hello Guru's
    I am facing one problem with adobe forms.
    We have develoed a adobe form using adobe reader 9.
    Now when user are posting the purchase requistion using the form,they are able to post the data using
    Adobe Reader 9 but not with Adobe Reader professional.
    Can anyone please advice me what can be the problem here.

    Adobe Reader 9 can't save the old FDA forms. FDA must update their forms.

Maybe you are looking for

  • Problem generate report using ireport-0.5.1 on tomcat 4.1 + jdk1.3.1

    Hi, Below are my project environment:- JDK 1.3.1 Tomcat 4.1 Jasperreports 0.6.1 iReport 0.5.1 I manage to compile and generate the report in iReport. However when i write these code to export the jrprint temporary file to PDF file, the following erro

  • I message needs to be enabled to send this message

    i cant use i message because it says "i message needs to be enabled to sen this message"  but how? i dont know how to enable it!!! pls help and thx ps: im using iphone5

  • Ipod touch - Glittery screen !

    Does your IPT screen look "glittery" with full brightness on a black background? Picture (it shows more than you can see in real life) - you have to look really close to see it in person. It's not dead pixels (or stuck), there's one stuck pixel on th

  • FMS on DocDate

    i am trying to get date by using FMS in deposit SELECT $[$39.1.1.1.DATE] i am using the aboe query it works but the result comes on 20100119 but i want this on 19-01-2010 . need  solution on this.

  • Credit on my account

    I recently closed my account because I moved to an area that Comcast does not serve. I paid my final bill, but now my account shows that I have a credit of $56.74. Why is there a credit on the account? How do I get this money back?