FA: Wrong deprecation calculations

Dear Value Consultant
I already calculate deprecation with wrong percent cause from the beginning I assigned the assets item to wrong accounts category
Now what I can do? my case the assets is calculated deprecation for 3 period past and already post those journal in GL , I want to to reassign it again to correct category and calculate correct deprecation for previous month
How I can handle this case ?
Facts:
The transaction accounting for deprecation asset is already post from GL but with wrong amount (for three-month back)
How I can correct the previous transaction, create new transaction with correct value, and correct assign category
Thanks

Since you have already posted your prior 3 months of depreciation in GL there is nothing you can do to correct the FA interface data for those months.
In the current period you can assign your assets to the correct categories. You can do this manually for a small number of assets. For a large number of assets you can use the mass reclassification functionality in FA. That will move all assets that you specify to the correct category.
When entering your criteria do NOT choose the amortize adjustments option. If you do this Oracle will calculate the change in depreciation and divide it evenly over the remaining life of the asset. By not choosing this option Oracle will calculate the change in depreciation and book it all to the current period.
In order to correct your depreciation balance in GL you will have to manually enter a journal for each of the previous 3 periods to get the correct balance. But if you do this you will have to make another correction in the current period once Oracle posts the depreciation journal to correct the life to date depreciation. OR, just leave the previous 3 periods alone and let Oracle do the correction in the current period.
I hope that this helps you.

Similar Messages

Wrong depreciation calculated for base value 04 + EA-FIN activated

Hi,
after activating EA-FIN, depreciation for assets using base value 04 (= half of replacement value) is calculated wrong.
While AW01 for a particular asset shows depreciation values based on the FULL replacement value (like it would be base value 03) AW01_AFAR (the u201Coldu201D asset explorer) shows the correct depreciation for base value 04.
The wrong base value can also be seen using the "display depreciation calculation" button in both transactions.
There are no enhancements for base value determination active.
I didnu2019t find any SAPNET notes nor SCN entries regarding this case, any ideas?
Best regards, Christian

For what it's worth, I did a search and didn't find anything either.
It sounds like you've already tried this, but if the base value (the actual $$ value) is different in the trace on both tcodes then you have a problem. I would be sure to recalculate the values when you enter AW01 and AW01_AFAR to ensure that it's correct before looking at the trace.
The formula for the replacement value is:
( u_ganlc-kansw + u_ganlc-answl +
               u_ganlc-kmafa + u_ganlc-mafav + u_ganlc-zusma +
               u_ganlc-mafam + u_ganlc-mafal +
               u_ganlc-kaufw + u_ganlc-aufwv +
               u_ganlc-aufwp + u_ganlc-aufwl ) / 2 .
I'd look at ANLC for the asset and do the calculation yourself to confirm the value.
You've probably done all of that so I predict an OSS message in your future !
-nathan

Wrong excise calculations in MIRO

Dear All,
    we have created a PO and partial MIGO and MIRO has been done and all the entries has been posted correctly. Now while doing MIRO for the remaining partial quantity excise values are calculating wrong in MIRO. GRN has been done and part 1 and part 2 entries also posted. the tax code has 12% , 2% , 1 % and VAT 5.5% . In part 1 and 2 12% amount 2734.00 has been posted. while doing MIRO ED value is calcuating as 1367.00.
i have checked in FTXP and in J1ID the values has not been changed. Kindly suggest how to proceed.
thanks and regards,
RGS

thank you so much..!! i check the table J_1IGRXREF as the per link suggested and found only half of the amount is updated there. i.e., 1367.00
Again i checked the table with the excise invoice number and found two entries of 1367.00 with two material document both those two material document has the same accounting document.
i..e,
material document 1          1367.00           accounting document 1
material documnt 2           1367.00           accounting document 1
however only one material document i can able to display in MIGO with 2734.00 when i display the other document it says document does not exist.
can i suggest to reverse the GRN and then to do it again ?

Wrong percentage calculation in Hierarchy

Dear All,
I have a hierarchy Customer Group->Customer Name->Document No. I am calculating percent of Total for top 20 customers.
Problem here is that percentage is calculated correct till the Customer Name Level but fails for document No level.
Please help.
Thanks, Franco.

Hi Franco,
According to your description, you are Crete a calculated measure to return the percentage on each hierarchy level, the problem is that percentage is calculated correct till the Customer Name Level but fails for document No level, right?
Based on my research, the issue can be caused by that there a unknown members on the document No leavel. So the total value is bigger than that on other hierarchy level. You can use exclude the unknown member to calculated percentage.
[Measures].[Sales LCY]/Sum({[DimCustLedgerEntry].[Customer].[All DimCustLedgerEntry]-[Dim].[Hierarchy].&[Unknown]
},[Measures].[Sales LCY]) ,FORMAT_STRING="PERCENT".
Reference
https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/sqlserver/en-US/0a4324af-dc41-4953-94b9-0c2f2a3d2668/mdx-custom-set-excluding-unknownmember
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms170707.aspx
Regards,
Charlie Liao
TechNet Community Support

Infotype 0008 - Wrong Salary Calculation

Hello,
We are having a problem with Infotype 8 annual salary calculation in 4.7. We have 173.33 working hours per month and Capacity utilization level 100%. The way It is calculating annual salary below..
Monthly Salary = 5000
It's multiplying working hours 173.33 with 12, so it comes to 2079.96.
Then monthly salary is getting multiplied by 2079.96 x 5000 = 10399800 but what we want to see is 12x5000 = 60000 in annual salary amount instead of 10399800.
Please help if you have come across this kind of problem.
Thank you very much.

Hi Mohammad,
The system is treating your pay amount as an "Hourly" amount rather than a "Monthly" amount. Please check your assignments to the Personal Calculation Rule in table V_503_B. This tells the system whether the Employee Subgroup is treated as hourly or salaried. If your position is assigned to the proper Employee Subgroup, the proper amount will default in IT0008-Baisc Pay.
Paul

PO GR wrong amount calculated

Hello Experts,
I have an issue to disscuse about PO/GR.
Scenario,
PO qty 3000000.00 lb
Material xxxyyy (raw material)
Recieved (GR) 20000 qty amount 5000 dlls
but the price was incorrect and user reversed the movement and the price recalculate wrong again the amount so now the result is that GR won't match against what we have to pay.
I there a solution directly in FI to handle the difference of what we have in GR and what we going to pay?
Thanks in advance for your comments
Regards

Hi,
System takes amont from material master, check Your std or mvt price for this material and if it's necessery chenge it - keep in touch with controlling departement if You will going to change std price.
Regards
Lukasz

Wrong taxes calculated for KY0D

We have tax area KY0D (Metro Louisville/Jefferson County) set up for tax type 51 & 53 for residence tax and 50 & 51 for work tax. If the associate only works a percentage of the time in KY0D (say 65%), taxes are calculated correctly for all tax types when payroll is run.
Now say the associate works the other 35% of the time in a tax area that also has tax type 51. When payroll is run, the taxable earnings for tax type 51 for KY0D are 65% of 65% of the total earnings. This is incorrect.
Does anybody have any idea why this is happening? It only happens if the associate has that second tax area that also has tax type 51.
Any help is appreciated.
Thank you!
Mary

Hai,
As per your condition type - Calculation type their is no restriction for line items in general.
In case if you want to include the value (fixed or calculated) has to go only for line item 10,
1. create a access sequence with line item (POSNR)
2. Attach the sequence for the conditon type
3. By maintaining condition record it will allow the taxes only for the first line item.
Regards,
Mani

Wrong tax calculation for minimum sales order scenario

Hi all! We are trying to use minimum sales order value for our sales order processing in CRM. The sales order value and the calculated tax looks fine when the sales order is created. Eg.
Quantity = 10
PR00   $4 each    Total value of $40
AMIW $50
AMIZ   $10
MWST $6.25 (tax of 12.5%)
When we create the billing document in CRM, the net value is shown as $50. However, when we look at the Conditions, the tax is calculated based on a tax base value of $100 and hence ended up with $12.50.
Quantity = 10
PR00   $4 each    Total value of $40
AMIW $50
AMIZ   $10
0TTE   $0
MWST $12.5 (tax of 12.5%)
Does anyone know what I might have missed out that would cause this problem?
Any comments would be very much appreciated.
Cheers!
SF

Hi Devi,
If you want to do the billing in CRM, then you need to use the billing pricing procedure in CRM. Below is the list of the configurations I usually do:
1. Create new transaction type if needed
2. Create new item catagory if needed
3. Assign item category to transaction type if 1&2 is created
4. Create new document pricing procedure
5. Assign pricing procedure to sales organisation and new document pricing procedure
6. Create new billing type if required
7. Creat new billing category if required
8. Assign billing item category
9. Assign revenue account for sales transactions
10. Assign accounting document type to billing type
11. Create new sales order type in R3 if 1 is done
12. Create new item category in R3 if 1 is done
13. Make sure that item category is assigned to the new sales order type in R3
14. Create delivery item category in R3. This has to be the same item category as that in the sales order as the system copies the item category of the sales item into the delivery.
Hope that helps.
Regards
SF

Wrong sales calculation

hello.
make 2 restricted key figures.
1 is sales for 1-30 past days from report data
2 is sales for 31-60 past days from report data
when i begin analyze this data, i see next numbers:
200973 1000/1402 197 Ì
Ðåçóëüòàò 197 Ì 152 Ì
what's up with second key figure? why result show 152 but detail is empty??
key figures are simple:
calday 0-29 and 30-59
key figure - quantity
and that's all.
help plz. thank you.

found the problem.
there are condition on query. so results calculated without that condition... on hole selection...
is that correct?

Wrong Interest calculation

Hi Friends,
I am doing interest calculation and my requirement is such that for example if I am doing posting ( for eg 1000 on 31/01/2010) for project in month of Jan 2010 and project is settled in Jan itself so now 1000 is in AUC. Now If I am doing interest calculation in Feb 2010 , then I want that interest should be calculated for 01/01/2010 to 31/01/2010( for entire Jan 2010), which is not happening right now and if in CJZ2 I am puting 02/2010 and project and executing then system is considering 1 day of Jan( 31st ) and 28 days of Feb 2010.
Can I overcome this thro config or custome development would be required for that?
Any pointers.
Regards
Ashutosh
Edited by: ashutosh p on May 7, 2010 5:58 AM

closed

Wrong arithmetic calculations

HI all,
I've got this piece of coding:
DATA ls_static_attributes TYPE ztype.
DATA lv_amount TYPE BPREI.
ls_static_attributes-netpr = '123'.
ls_static_attributes-menge = '1'.
ls_static_attributes-bpumn = '1'.
lv_amount = ls_static_attributes-netpr * ls_static_attributes-menge .
well the value of lv_amount is different when the code above is inserted in a report rather than in a method of a class.
In particular, in a report it correctly contains '123,00' whilst in a class I'm getting '123.000,00'.
I tried to debug and I've seen that after the assignment:
ls_static_attributes-menge = '1'.
the variable ls_static_attributes-menge contains (1.000) in a report whilst in a class it contains (0.001).
Could anybody shed more light on this?

Hi Clemens,
probably the ztype has amount or qauntity field which are by default connected to a currency key or unit field. Check the respective currency key or unit fields.
quantities and units are only used for output, not for internal calculations, it's why I think the fixed-point arithmetic is the only possibility. Usually people don't change it but some standard programs are provided without this option checked, developers are usually getting screwed when they implement the "userexit" subroutines of these programs.
Sandra

Wrong depreciation calculated

Asset transfer date 03/31/02008
Ord Depr start Date 12/01/2007
Useful life 5years
Go Live 04/01/2008
APC transaction 238,397.18
Monthly depreciation shd be 3973.29
but for April 5297.67 as the system is dividing yearly depreciation by 8months
Now the problem is 5297.67 has been posted for April but going forward we want to show the correct amount 3973.29
I have changed the Ord Depr start date to 04/01/2008 so we have close fig 3807.79 how can we correct this??????

Dear Florence,
As said by you, the Ord Start date was 12/01/07 and the Go live date is 04/01/08.
The depreciation for the year should have been 47679.48 based on 3973.29 pm, However, it has calculated total depreciation to be posted from 12/01/07 and not 04/01/08, which is perfectly alright.
The reason for the higher depreciation p.m is because in the Posting rules, you would have ticked the 'Smoothing', which will result is distributing the extra charge over the full year. If you do not apply this tick, the excess is charged in the first period of depreciation and the subsequent periods would show a correct monthly depreciation charge.
Hope this makes your point clear.
Assign points, if useful.

Wrong depreciation calculation for upload assets

Hi
I am uploading for US company with FY as Jan to December.
I have to upload assets with value as on 31stJuly 2010. It means SAP should calculate depreciation from August 2010.
Depreciation is on life basis
One asset purchased on 01.11.2009 with Value $ 585.59. WDV as on 31st July is 355.21. Total life is 23months. In AS91, depn start date is 01.11.2009 with useful life as 01 year and 11 period. In expired life, its showing as 94 under period column.
Now in asset transfer config, i gave the transfer date as 31.07.2010 and last period of depreciation in previous system, i gave it as 7th period of year 2010 (ie. July 2010)
Now when i saw depreciation in AW01n for august 2010, it shows that remaining depreciation is fully written off in august 2010.
Its not flowing to next month.
Any idea why is writing off depreciation fully in next month itself

Hi..
After transfer old asset to new asset system automatically transfer all the balance to the new asset including depreciation Up to July
After that please check in the new asset master in the depreciation area tab depreciation start date...it must be 1st August
So based on that date depreciation will be calculate
I hope you will get some idea based on this suggestions.
Thanks and Regards
sudharshana vamsi

Wrong Depreciation Calculation

Dear Gurus,
We have an asset and we have attached depreciation key S01 to it which is 4.75% straight method . But its calculate depreciation as 4.5% in stead 4.75 . Please guide me where I can check this error and solve it . I have tried in forum but not able to solve it . Please guide.

Dear Raj
Please check the Depriciation % u mentioned in the Multi level in T code AFAMS
and Check wheather you assigned the same in depreciation key in T code AFAMA or not
Regards
CA.Prasad

Wrong Layout calculation

The following code should paint four rows of Panels touching each other and occupying the whole frame.
But (depending on the frame size) there is sometimes one extra pixel row at the top and bottom (so height of all components is less than available height). I can see why: if you have to distribute extra height to four components and height is not divisible by 4 .... I think this is a bug with layout (GridLayout is allso buggy) because if sum of all weighty == 1.0 than components should occupy the whole frame - but as you resize the frame, components 'jump' one pixel up and down.
There shouldn't be any space between panel line borders but it is.
import java.awt.*;
import javax.swing.*;
public class LayoutTest {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
    final int PANELS = 4;
    JFrame ljf = new JFrame("Layout test");
    //ljf.setUndecorated(true);
    ljf.setDefaultCloseOperation(WindowConstants.DISPOSE_ON_CLOSE);
    JPanel ljp_out = new JPanel();
    ljp_out.setBorder(BorderFactory.createLineBorder(Color.BLACK));
    ljp_out.setLayout(new GridBagLayout());
    for (int i=0;i<PANELS;i++) {
      JPanel ljp_inside = new JPanel();
      ljp_inside.setBorder(BorderFactory.createLineBorder(Color.BLACK));
      GridBagConstraints lgbc = new GridBagConstraints();
      lgbc.gridx = 0;
      lgbc.gridy = i;
      lgbc.gridwidth = 1;
      lgbc.gridheight = 1;
      lgbc.insets = new Insets(0,0,0,0);
      lgbc.weightx = 1;
      lgbc.fill = GridBagConstraints.BOTH;
      lgbc.weighty = 1.0 / PANELS;
      ljp_out.add(ljp_inside, lgbc);
    ljf.getContentPane().add(ljp_out, BorderLayout.CENTER);
    ljf.setBounds(0,0,300,300);
    ljf.setVisible(true);
}

Oops! I missed it that time. Let's look a little deeper.
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
import java.util.Random;
import javax.swing.*;
public class LayoutTestRx {
    static Random seed;
    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
        seed = new Random();
        final int PANELS = 4;
        final JFrame ljf = new JFrame("click below for change");
        //ljf.setUndecorated(true);
        ljf.setDefaultCloseOperation(WindowConstants.DISPOSE_ON_CLOSE);
        ljf.addComponentListener(new ComponentAdapter()
            public void componentResized(ComponentEvent e)
                tellTheTruth(ljf);
                System.out.println();
        final JPanel ljp_out = new JPanel();
//        ljp_out.setBorder(BorderFactory.createLineBorder(Color.BLACK));
        ljp_out.setLayout(new GridBagLayout());
        GridBagConstraints lgbc = new GridBagConstraints();
        lgbc.weightx = 1.0;
        lgbc.weighty = 1.0;
        lgbc.fill = lgbc.BOTH;
        lgbc.gridwidth = lgbc.REMAINDER;
        for (int i = 0; i < PANELS; i++) {
            JPanel ljp_inside = new JPanel();
            ljp_inside.setBackground(getColor());
//            ljp_inside.setBorder(BorderFactory.createLineBorder(Color.BLACK));
            ljp_out.add(ljp_inside, lgbc);
        ljf.addMouseListener(new MouseAdapter() {
            public void mousePressed(MouseEvent e) {
                if(ljp_out.getBorder() != null)
                    removeBorders(ljp_out);
                else
                    addBorders(ljp_out);
                ljp_out.validate();
                ljp_out.repaint();
                tellTheTruth(ljf);
                System.out.println();
        ljf.getContentPane().add(ljp_out, BorderLayout.CENTER);
        ljf.setBounds(0,0,300,300);
        ljf.setLocation(600,400);
        ljf.setVisible(true);
    private static void tellTheTruth(Container c) {
        String
            size = c.getSize().toString(),
            w = size.substring(size.indexOf("=") + 1, size.indexOf(",")),
            h = size.substring(size.lastIndexOf("=") + 1, size.indexOf("]")),
            s = c.getClass().getName(),
            id = s.toString().substring(s.toString().lastIndexOf(".") + 1),
            insets = c.getInsets().toString();
        insets        = insets.substring(insets.indexOf("top=") + 4);
        String top    = insets.substring(0, insets.indexOf(","));
        insets        = insets.substring(insets.indexOf("left=") + 5);
        String left   = insets.substring(0, insets.indexOf(","));
        insets        = insets.substring(insets.indexOf("bottom=") + 7);
        String bottom = insets.substring(0, insets.indexOf(","));
        insets        = insets.substring(insets.indexOf("right=") + 6);
        String right = insets.substring(0, insets.indexOf("]"));
        System.out.println("c = " + id +
                           "      \tsize = [" + w + ", " + h + "]" + "\t" +
                           "insets = " + "[" + top + ", " + left +
                           ", " + bottom + ", " + right + "]");
        Component[] cc = c.getComponents();
        for(int j = 0; j < cc.length; j++)
            tellTheTruth((Container)cc[j]);
    private static void removeBorders(JComponent jc) {
        jc.setBorder(null);
        Component[] c = jc.getComponents();
        for(int j = 0; j < c.length; j++)
            ((JComponent)c[j]).setBorder(BorderFactory.createEmptyBorder());
    private static void addBorders(JComponent jc) {
        jc.setBorder(BorderFactory.createLineBorder(Color.BLACK));
        Component[] c = jc.getComponents();
        for(int j = 0; j < c.length; j++)
            ((JComponent)c[j]).setBorder(BorderFactory.createLineBorder(Color.BLACK));
    private static Color getColor() {
        return new Color(seed.nextInt(256), seed.nextInt(256), seed.nextInt(256));
}

FA: Wrong deprecation calculations

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for