Exempt amount is not considering in IT 195

Hi,
SAP has provided an scenario where in IT 195 after adding non exempt rule,we can exempt the amount which need to be garnished by way of clicking the exempt radio button given in the bottom of IT 195 and here you can give how much money to be exempted and how the deduction can take place.
When i have given this exempt,for example the dedutoin for child support is $ 500 and in that order i am giving exempt as 300 that menans system has to exempt 300 for garnished amount.if over all garnished amount adding all the oreders are $1000 then system should consider 700 only.
system is not considering this amount,i checked the log table etc,,system is taking this amount but the end result its not considering.I checked all the required proecessing classes etc,everything is fine.
I am unable to locate the problem,is there any pack to updated,i am working on ECC 7.0,this is the latest version.
please let me know if you have any inputs.
thanks
kknl

not sure i never worked on us pay rolls just a guess
Did u maintained the limit exempted wage type
Edited by: Sikindar on Jan 17, 2009 9:44 AM

Similar Messages

Exemptions in Infotype 0580 not considered in Income Tax Calculation

Dear All,
The following fields or options are displayed, when we execute the infotype 00580 i.e. Previous Employment Tax details.
1]Salary as per provisions u/s 17(1)
2]Value of perquisites u/s 17(2)
3]Profits in lieu of salary u/s 17(3)
4]Exemptions u/s 10
5]Professional Tax
6]Provident Fund
7]Income Tax Deducted
8]Surcharge Deducted
9]Education Cess Deducted
10]Medical Exemption
11]Leave Encashment Exemption Amount
12]Gratuity Exemption
13]VRS Exemption
14]Number of LTA Exempt
15]LTA Carried Forward*
I have entered amount in 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,11,12 & 13 and processed the payroll. The amounts entered in 11,12 & 13 are not being considered in Income Tax calculation while all other are considered.
Can anyone tell me what is the problem and what I have to do for those amounts to be considered for Income Tax calculation.
Regards
Sudhir Shrisunder

Hi Sudhir,
Can you check if following wage types are present in system by processing of INPET-
Leave Encashment Exemtwage type (/4V7) - This wage type stores the amount entered as the sum of all leave encashment exemptions availed. It gets processed only on the event of the separation of the employee from your organisation. The value of this wage type gets deducted from the maximum exemption limit for leave encashment exemption
Gratuity Exemptionwage type (/4V8) - This wage type stores the amount entered as the total gratuity availed. It gets processed only on the event of the separation of the employee from your organisation. The value of this wage type gets deducted from the maximum exemption limit for gratuity exemption amount.
VRS Exemption wage type (/4V9) - This wage type stores the amount entered as the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) exemption amount availed. VRS Exemption wage type (/4V9) gets processed only on the event of the separation of the employee from your organisation. No tax exemption is given, in case the employee has availed of the same with any of the previous employers
If these wage types are present then calculation is correct.
Plz note that the value of these wage type get deducted from the maximum exemption limit of the corresponding exemption amounts. Exemption has already compared been considered for them and tax component were computed correspondingly.
Let me know if stll not clear.
Regards,
Praveen

In FBL1N system not showing W/tax exempt amount.

Hi,
In FBL1N system not showing W/tax exempt amount.
Regards,
Nilesh Surve.

Hi,
we are doing implementation for country India.
I have checked report out-put & it is not giving correct figures. Also our client require with holding exempt amount in vendor ledger so that they can immediately extract vendor report with TDS details.
Regards,
Nilesh Surve.

Credit check not consider in case of expired Bank Gurantee

Dear Experts,
We are using credit control for Bank Guarantees also, when i have created bank Guarantees(through F-49)we are giving Expiry date for BG in Due field. It is working fine for credit check for customer.
But after expiry of BG also system considering BG amount for credit control, system suppose to not consider the BG amount since BG got already expired.
Why system taking consideration for expired BG's for credit check?
How to overcome the above issue?
Useful answer will be rewarded without fail.
Edited by: akdevavarapu on Feb 16, 2010 5:24 AM
Edited by: akdevavarapu on Feb 16, 2010 5:36 AM

Hi there,
If you want your system to check for the credit limit to be checked, go to transaction OVA8, select your combination of Credit control area, credit group and risk category and press details.
Set the field, No of days (released documents are still unchecked) to 0 or the days what u need.
For eg. if u set the date to 10, the credit check wont happen for the next 10 days from the last checking date.
So if u want ur system to check for credit once your BG expires, u have set the date to 0.
Thanks
Krish

Infotype 0008 wage types are not considered while payroll

Hi Experts,
When i am running the payroll, all the wage types of infotype 0008 is not considered. Neither it is being stored in RT. But all the wage types of infotype 0014 and 0015 are correctly being considered in the payroll. Plz help
Regards
Tarun

Hi,
Plz see the XVAL log that i am getting while running payroll. Do let me know if you need any other information. I can call you now if you say.
PIT   XVAL P10            Valuate pay elements
    Input
        IT
Table IT
PCRlGr Wage salary type               WC C1 C2 C3 Assign: AltPa CA BT Abs.
Var s. Unit    Rate                      Number       Amount
3      /806 Partial period factor 6   01
                         100,000.00
3      2000 BASIC SALARY-NEW          01
                                                                  8,000.00
3      3000 BUS DEDUCTION-HPL         01
                                                                  1,000.00-
Processing
     /806 Partial period factor 6
/806 Partial period factor 6
Rule   ESGPCR VaKey    Operation
XVAL      3            VWTCL 10
XVAL      3   0        ADDWT *
2000 BASIC SALARY-NEW
2000 BASIC SALARY-NEW
Rule   ESGPCR VaKey    Operation
XVAL      3            VWTCL 10
XVAL      3   1        ELIMI *
XVAL      3   1        RESET RA
XVAL      3   1        RTE= /801
XVAL      3   1        RESET *
XVAL      3   1        MULTI RAA
XVAL      3   1        AMT/KGENAU
XVAL      3   1        ZERO= R
XVAL      3   1        ADDWT *
3000 BUS DEDUCTION-HPL
3000 BUS DEDUCTION-HPL
Rule   ESGPCR VaKey    Operation
XVAL      3            VWTCL 10
XVAL      3   0        ADDWT *
Output
IT
Table IT
PCRlGr Wage salary type               WC C1 C2 C3 Assign: AltPa CA BT Abs.
Var s. Unit    Rate                      Number       Amount
3      /806 Partial period factor 6   01
                          100,000.00
3      3000 BUS DEDUCTION-HPL         01
                                                                   1,000.00-

Open Purchase Orders not considered as requirement for MRP Run

Hi ,
We are facing a issue of Open Purchase orders not appeared in Stock requirements list and also it is not considered as requirement for MRP Run against reservation.
As aresult for a reservation demand of 10 units we are ending with Open POs 10 units and a additional planned order 10 units.
Material Type : ERSA
MRP Type : PD (or VB)
Lot size : EX ( HB if MRP Type is VB)
Could you please throw some light to correct our settings to MRP to consider Open POs?
Saravanan

Can you check to see if there is a re-order point set up for this materia? That could be causing the problem too.

In fbl1n report for document type RE withholding tax amount is not showing

in fbl1n report for document type RE withholding tax amount is not showing
in sap note 363309 determines
Solution
Remove the field which contains the withholding tax information (field BSEG-QSSHB) from your display
variant.
If you want to display the withholding tax information, double-click on the document number and
subsequently choose 'Withholding tax'.
my doubt is we remove the field BSEG-QSSHB in layout how can show the withholding tax amount in FBLIN report
how to remove from the layout
please clarefy
bhayyapu

Hi,
If you want to check amounts of withholding tax for the vendors, you have some options to view it. You can access the WITH_ITEM, LFC1 tables by SE16. You have too the S_P00_07000134 report. This report is developed for the Colombia but I already used for the another country with the ABAP development for this country.
Also you can use table join BSIK and WITH_ITEM by SQVI for the open items and BSAK and WITH_ITEM for cleared items. It is more simple and fast.
JPA

Open items not considering in credit check.

Dear Experts,
We have implemented credit management in our new role out company code with the same credit controlling area for both company codes.
As per our configuration at the time of sales order creation, credit limit has to be checked and check the open items and oldest open items. It is working fine in old company code, but in new company code its not considering the open/old open items its only checking the credit exposure value. But the old company code its checking the credit exposure and open items and old open items.
In OVA8 we have configured the below way
selected the Dynamic check box - reaction C
selected the Cretical fields check box - reaction A
selected the Open items check box - reaction A
selected the OldestOpen items check box - reaction A
The above credit management is working fine in quality for both company codes, but in production its working fine only old company code.
I have already checked the all relevant configuration and requests, there is no issue in configuration.
Please let me know the possibilities for not considering the open items for credit check

Hello
You are absolutely right , the automatic credit control is at credit control Area level and not at company code level. Need to know few things from your end.
why business has not set up the new credit control area, when new company code has been configured. I think this would have made more sense .........
however its bit strange that sales recevables are not getting considered in the credit check, only in production ....... I think you need to keep your search on in SDN as well as try to search for any sap not in Service market .......
Once you get the answer; hope you update the thread ........
wish you luck in your search ......
Cheers
Big Screams ...........

The page total amount is not correct on discoverer plus 10.1.1.48.18

on my discoverer report, there is sunnary field based on a column.
for example, I have a salesrep expense discoverer report.
the salesrep name is the page item, each page has one salesrep, under the page item there are many line which show the expense detail amount, there is a column called expense, under the expense column there is a total amount summary field to sum the expense for this salesrep.
Sometimes, the total amount is not the sum of the expense column, sometimes the total amount show negative zero as: -0.00. What I thought this maybe a number round issue.
Does anybody has similar issue? how to fix this ?
Thanks

I actually used toad to run the query and exported to EXCEL then sum it in excel, I got the correct total amount.
the following is the SQL query, we use the total feature to sum the commission:
select
pt.payee_salesrep_id,
sr.name||','||sr.attribute9 salesrep_name,
sr.attribute15 employee_number,
pt.payrun_id,
pr.name payrun_name,
decode(pt.incentive_type_code,'COMMISSION',2,'PMTPLN',4,'PMTPLN_REC',1,'MANUAL_PAY_ADJ',2) Sort,
decode(pt.incentive_type_code, 'PMTPLN','To be Applied in Future','PMTPLN_REC','Previous Payments Affecting Commissions',q.description) Variable,
sum(decode(pt.incentive_type_code,
'COMMISSION',decode(q.attribute3,'ARR 12-36',apps.sg_oic_reports.get_multiple(q.name,to_number(ch.attribute16)),1) sign(pt.payment_amount) abs(pt.input_achieved) ,
pt.payment_amount)
) Revenue,
sum(pt.payment_amount) commission
from apps.cn_payment_transactions pt,
apps.cn_commission_headers ch,
apps.jtf_rs_salesreps sr,
apps.cn_quotas q,
apps.cn_payruns pr
WHERE pt.quota_id = q.quota_id
and ch.commission_header_id(+) = pt.commission_header_id
and pt.payee_salesrep_id = sr.salesrep_id
and pt.payrun_id = pr.payrun_id
and hold_flag <> 'Y'
and pr.accounting_period_id>2005012
and pt.payment_amount<>0
group by
pt.payee_salesrep_id,
sr.name||','||sr.attribute9,
sr.attribute15,
pt.payrun_id,
pr.name,
pt.incentive_type_code,
decode(pt.incentive_type_code,'COMMISSION',2,'PMTPLN',4,'PMTPLN_REC',1,'MANUAL_PAY_ADJ',2) ,
decode(pt.incentive_type_code, 'PMTPLN','To be Applied in Future','PMTPLN_REC','Previous Payments Affecting Commissions',q.description)
having sum(pt.payment_amount) <>0

Group cur. amount and local curr. amount are not matching in CO88 Settlemen

Hi Gurus,
    After settlement in CO88 for some process orders only in settlement accounting doc Group currency amount is not calucalted correctly against Local currency amount . Pls find details below
For one process order in co88 setllment accounting document local currecny amount 12312.89 RSD , In BKPF table i have chekced the doc has picked to convert it in to Group currecny (USD) exchange rate type M and indirect exchange rate from RSD to USD 71.96. The document posted on 30.6.2011 , exchange rate maintaied in TCURR table on 01.06.2011 as 71.96. SO The system has picked correctly upto this.
                As per this Group currecny amount should be = 12312.89/ 71.96 = 171.10
But system posted Group currecny as = 45.74 USD ,
       How the system posted 45.74 in USD. Pls suggest what could be the reasons for this .This is happening only for some process orders.
Thanks & regds
Ramachandra

thank you

System is not considering Planned Delivery time

Dear Gurus,
As iam planning for the month of January and running the MRP,schedulelines are getting generated but system is not condering Planned Delivery time maintained in the material master ie. 7days.Following is the example:
I have a FERT-X with a component A-1PC in its BOM and its planned delvery time from vendor is 7 Days.If iam running the MRP on 13/12/2010 for FERT-X 100 PCS for January1,2011 then the schedule lines are getting generated for for component A is on 01/01/2011.But PDT is maintianed in material master is 7 days and same has been maintianed in vendor inforecord.But system is not considering it.
Kindly help to resolve the issue.
With Regards.

I have one ROH which has two different vendors.
Two scheduling Agreemnt with target qty 100000 kg each.
Two different Vendor info record with Min. order qty maintained.V1-1000Kg,V2-6000Kg.
One source list with two vendors and with respective scheduling agreement.
Quota arrangement is there in which SOB is maintiained 50:50.
I hv the requirement of 3084 kg of ROH.
I run the MRP and two diiferent schedule lines are getting generated with 50:50 qty as mentioned in Quota arrangement.
Not considering the minimum order qty maintiained in vendor info record.
The above process is correct
Only One doubt In Quota Arrangement?
IS two schedule line is created after MRP run?
Generally System will select a vendor Whose Quota value is less
quota rating = quota base quantity + quota-allocated quantity/ quota
Edited by: Sundaresan . E. V on Dec 14, 2010 3:26 PM

Excise amount is not picking up in j1in

we are using taxinn
when we do the billing excise amount is picked up and accounting entry is passed accordingly
while doing excise invoice creation (j1in) bed amount is not upading? where we have committed the mistake
thanks in advance
joseph

Hi
Check whether under A/R BED Cond you have JEXT and under BED Perc you have JEXP ( default is JMOD under BED perc) for you tax procedure TAXINN . If you maintain this setting you will be able to see BED values. Also check in your billing document both the condition types has the duty values. If JEXT condition type does not have the duty values then maintatin 100% condtion record for this.
Regards
MBS

Error Message FF747 -The tax amount must not be greater than the tax base

Hello,
We are attempting to post an import vendor invoice through transaction FB60 for Israel company code . Since the tax charged by the vendor is not fixed every time , we are entering the tax amount in the FB60 screen manually , without selecting 'calculate tax'.The amount of tax is greater than the amount of expense as per the real business scenario. For example amount of expense is 100, amount of tax is 200 and the total amount charged by the vendor is 300 .However when we simulate the posting we get an error - The tax amount must not be greater than the tax base-Message no. FF747
We tried putting a very high percentage in the tax code also but it didn't help
We would like to go ahead with this posting. Could you pl throw light on the same . ? Is there any way (OSS note ) or a work around which can resolve the issue ?
Best Regards
Amit Kulkarni

Hello
This may be a work around in other cases , but since we want the amount to be updated in the BSET table for further VAT reports , we would like this to be posted along with the expense item

Target sost calculation not considered Current cost estimate in KKBC_ORD

Hi All,
We have an case wherein it observed that target cost calculation on SFG is wrong
in KKBC_ORD where system does not considered the current cost estimate.
We have all the necessayry customisation in place for Target cost version 0 for current cost estimate.
Below is detailsed case.
1 Process Order created in Dec 2011
2 Price Released to Mat master on 01.01.2012
3 Goods movement,Operation confirmad Material Issues, FG qty delivered @ std cost 0n 04.01.2012
4 Order Technically completed (TECO)
5 KKS1/KKS2 will be done at month end.
We know that In Process order, after deliver of FG the target cost on FG is not getting calculated,target cost will be updated only after calculating variance. it does
not calculate after delivery of finished goods, On Execution of KKS1/KKS2 variance will be calculated the target cost on FG and will be updated.
In process order (COR3 --> Cost analysis) Target cost ,Actual cost and Planned cost are calculated based on the following:
Total Plan Cost = Std Cost the material required to Produce X Planned Qty of the required material
Target Cost = Std Cost the material planned to Produce X Std Qty of material required to produce, for Produced Actual Qty
Actual Cost = Std Cost the material planned to Produce X Actual Qty of material consumed, for Produced Actual Qty
The variance is calculated on SFG and assemblies based on the difference between actual and target cost in KKBC_ORD. During creation of process order, the plan cost
will be updated with the valid standard cost upon the creation.
The target cost on SFG and Assemblies is only generated when there is good receipt from production order into inventory.
The target cost is generated using the valid / recent costing run for the correspondence SFG in KKBc_ORD.
All other target costs showed in COR3 (Menu Go to > Costs > Analysis) or KKBC_ORD before doing KKS1/2 is only statistical- However in our case Traget cost calculated
on SFG in KKBC_ORD not relevant with current cost estimate.
However Actual cost and Planned cost Calculated correctly.
Actual Cost= Current Standard costof the materilal(5.624,88)X Actual Qty (13.693)=77.021,48
Planned cost= Std Cost the material required to Produce (6.572,12) X Planned Qty (12.415)= 81.592,87
However Target cost is not considering the current cost estimate;It should be - Current Standard cost of the materilal(5.624,88)X Target Qty(13.958,124)=78512.07.
But Errorneously Target cost is showing 67.383,59 which causing unfavorable variance to standard.
It should be 78512.07-77.021,48= 1490.59 favourable var to standard in KKBC_ORD.
Any help,suggestion and input would be highly appreciated.
Thanks with Regards
Subrata

hi
target cost is your standard cost* actual confirmed quantity, not the standard quantity required
the variance calculated will be always the actual debit to the production order- actual credit of the production order
your actual credit for the process order is std cost* actual quantity delivered to the inventory= Current Standard costof the materilal(5.624,88)X Actual Qty (13.693)=77.021,48
actual debit to the process order is total actual cost which you can see in COR3 report .
By the way for which period you have calculated variance, target cost will be calculated based on that months standard cost
krishna

Blocked vendor master (Ordering address) not considered in PO

Hi Team,
Recently we have upgraded our system to ECC6 from 4.6. After upgrade,
the system is not considering the vendor master (Ordering Address) during
Purchase Order creation if it is blocked at purchase org level under
alternate data. Whereas it was picking in 4.6 system.
Kindly provide the reason for such behavior and provide the solution if
at all we want those blocked vendor codes to be considered.
Thanks.

Hi,
Please try below SAP note for the same
Note 1609717 - Vendors with blocked purch orgs are not replicated correctly
Note 1607331 - Unassign a vendor from its Organizational unit
Regards,
Sandesh Sawant

Exempt amount is not considering in IT 195

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for