Legal Entity on invoice is incorrect.

Legal Entity on invoice is incorrect. This started occuring after our 12.1.3 upgrade.
We began receiving an error when trying to create draft invoices ("Invoice type not found for invoice organization"). So we ran IMP: Create Invoice Organization Transaction Types for the operating unit as indicated in Doc ID 1484742.1. Since we have run that the legal entity has been incorrect on our invoices, but accounting is correct. We do have many Legal Entities under the same Operating Unit and different organization on the project that is linked to the correct legal entity.
Any help is greatly appreciated.

I am not sure if this is possible.

Similar Messages

Legal Entity wise AP invoice approval workflow

HI All,
I m in the process of configuring AP Invoice approval workflow for multiple legal entities. Can someone pls instruct me how to set up different workflows for different legal entities.
My requirement is as follows:
Legal Entity A
If User Test 1 create AP Invoice then his invoice should go to approver1
Legal Entity B
If User Test 2 create AP Invoice then his invoice should go to approver2
I have done the set up for one legal entity and its working fine. I have used action type as " approval-group chain of authority" and used Approver type as HR People and assigned relevant approver to it. My problem is how can i segregate legal entity wise approvers. Because now both legal entities invoices are directing to same approver.
Thanks .

Hi,
Using the Sysadmin responsibility, please submit "Workflow Background Process" with the below parameters and see if it helps:
Process Deferred: Y
Process Timeout: Y
Please also see the following notes;
How to Manually Process the Events from Workflow Queues When The Deferred Agent Listener Won't Start [ID 953103.1]
Workflow Background Process Does Not Progress Shipped Lines: Stuck in Fulfill - Deferred [ID 804133.1]
Hope this helps!
Best Regards

EBusiness Tax in AP - Limit tax rate selection by legal entity

We have several Legal entities in United Kingdom. All these entities have separate balancing segments (3278, 3342, 3236, etc.), and all these entities are used in one Operating Unit WU_GBP_OU in AP.
Since all these entities are in UK, we have only one Regime, Tax, Status and Jurisdiction (all of them are being named UNITED KINGDOM (GB) VAT). Tax Rates are created for every legal entity, since accounting is taken from Tax Rates and different balancing segment value should be used.
This setup is working fine for us, except one thing – users can see a full list of Tax rates in the AP Invoice Tax Details screen. Sometimes they select incorrect tax rates (assigned to a different entity) and this leads to fixing the data later on.
Question – How this list could be limited to display only tax rates that are tied to specific legal entity. There is a field on the invoice header called Legal entity, but since the subscription is done at Tax Regime level, I was not able to limit which Tax Rates should be displayed.

Hi Gurus,
I reviewed Notes in Metalink, so my understanding as follow.
Legal entity maintenance should be as legal registration wise.
Ex:- we have registered mfg unit in Newyork so we need to create 1 LE for Newyork, and same sector we registered in Chicago we should have another LE in Chicago vis versa.
Note:- when i post this query my intention was juridiction code , but juridiction code will not restrict our Tax setup(Types of taxes), this is what i understand after gone through the manuals.
If my understanding is wrong, please correct me.
Regards
Prasanth

Can the country code of a legal entity be changed?

We have a business situation where we need to transfer 100% ownership of a company from one wholly owned sub to a new wholly owned sub in a different country. This wholly owned sub is a large transaction volume and greater than 250,000 item/BOMs. Our question is can we simply change the current Legal Entity's name, address and country to the new company and country? We would create a new entity to handle the wind down and liquidation of the current wholly owned sub. If this is possible, it would save us the work is setting up the new entity, inventory orgs, etc. and the conversion of POs, invoices, items, BOMs, inventory, etc.

Hi Sandeep and thanks for your quick response.
Our business problem is that this entity is very high volume pertaining to open purchase orders and invetory transactions. In essense the business stays exactly the same, the only change is that it will move to another country with an ownership change. We want the current R12 ledger, company and inventory orgs to stay the same. If the new entity cannot assume the current structure, we have a huge setup and conversion task to make the change.
Again thanks for your quick response.

Double Cost A/c impact of brrow & lent and Intrcompany in same legal entity

Hello Experts / Dina,
Could someone please explain me the double cost accounting impact on borrowed and lent process and inter-company accounting in same legal entity scenario?
Example – Lets say US company X-star running the project on Mobile Apps development in US consulting division (Project Organization) and the resources from marketing division (Expenditure organization) are working on it on developing marketing campaign and decided to share the cost 100%.
Using Borrow and Lent:-Assume MIS cost is charge of USD 100 on Project Mobile Apps Development. A/c is
Debit- US Company-Marketing (Expenditure Org)-MIS Cost A/c (Expense A/c)-100 USD.
Then if you use borrowed and lent accounting method the accounting entries will be generated as
Debit- cost to US Company –US Consulting (Project Org) – MIS Cost A/c (Expense A/c)-100 USD
Credit- cost to US Company-Marketing (Expenditure Org)-MIS Cost A/c (Expense A/c)-100 USD.
In this case cost on Expenditure organization is totally reverse and cost is only charge to provider organization.
In Inter-company scenario:- But let say if you are trying to implement the same scenario using inter-company accounting.
Then MIS cost charge of USD 100 on project will derive the same accounting as mentioned above.
Debit- US Company-Marketing (Expenditure Org)-MIS Cost A/c (Expense A/c)-100 USD.
Revenue will generate below accounting.
Credit- US Company-Marketing (Expenditure Org)-MIS Revenue A/c (Revenue A/c)-100 USD.
And payables intercompany invoice in provider organization will generate below accounting.
Debit- cost to US Company –US Consulting (Project Org) – MIS Intercompany Cost A/c (Expense A/c)-100 USD.
Now the question is why in Inter-company scenario (2nd case example ) the cost of expenditure organization is not reverse similar like in borrow and lent scenario? I guess implementation of intercompany scenario results in double costing for same company (within legal entity).
But this might look properly when you implement inter-company approach across legal entity as company can report separate expense and (internal-external) revenue across company.
Similarly like inter-company scenario when you use inter project billing, you end up in creating double costing. Am I right?
Please let me know whether my understanding is correct?
Your reply on this will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
:-)

Hi
Here are my responses along side your questions:
1.With borrow and lent you cannot only cross charge within the same operating unit but also cross charge across operating unit only within same legal entity. Am I right?
No. Borrow and Lent works only within the same operating unit. This functionality does not involve supplier and customer invoices, only accounting entries. When you cross operating units you must use the intercompany billing process.
2.On the below example explained below sec 2.1; this perfectly works fine in scenario where organization within legal entities are agree to share the revenue.
But what if the organizations agreed to share the cost? In that case it should generates the accounting mentioned below in section 2.2. Am I right.?
2.1>; (Example provided by you- share revenue)
Debit org B on "Internally Purchased Cost" account
Credit org A on "internal Revenue" account
2.2>;(same Example used by me with diff scenario of sharing the cost)
Debit org B on "Internally Purchased Cost" account
Credit org A on "Labor Cost A/c" account
If so then isn't it nullifying the cost generated by Org A previously.
2.2.1>;
Debit Org A on "Labor Cost A/c"
after generating borrow & lent
Debit org B on "Internally Purchased Cost" account
Credit org A on "Labor Cost A/c" account
Resulting in general ledger module showing the cost on Org B "Internally purchase cost"
Am I right?
In my example the credit of the provider organization is on account - Internal revenue. This is not considered as revenue share, since the revenue of org A from its customer agreement is not decreased.
Internal revenue and internal purchased costs are two accounts that are different from the norma business accounts. When you report in GL for the organization A you will get external revenue of 1000, labor cost of A of 300, and internal purchased cost of 400. So margin of org A is 1000-300-400 = 300.
When you report in GL for the organization B you will get internal revenue of 400, labor cost of 370, and org B margin is 400 - 370 = 30.
When you report in GL for the entire company (summary of bot organizations) you will have - External revenue of 1000, labor cost of 670, and total margin of 330.
Note the margin of the company is shared by org A -300, and org b - 30.
To get the report of the total company I did not included the internal trading accounts - the internal purchased cost and the internal revenue.
In the approach you provided you credited the cost of org B, rather than credit an internal revenue account. That is also a legitimate approach. However for audit use I could suggest to use a separate account for crediting the costs o org B, and not the same original account of labor A/C.
3.But lets say now if organization are agreed to share the cost but instead of using borrow and lent, they are agreed to use inter-company functionality then
accounting entries will result mentioned below.Am I right?
3.1>;
Cost - Debit Org A on "Labor Cost A/c" account
Inter-comp Invoice - Debit Org A on "Inter Receivable A/c" account
Credit Org A on "Inter-revenue A/c" account
Payables inter invoice - Debit Org B on "internally purchase a/c" account
The accounting results of both processes could be the same. The difference is the introducing of AP & AR invoices and the need to run payments on both sides. In any case on org A you always debit an account which means internally purchase, cost purchased from another organization. On org B you always credit an account that could be named internal revenue or cost reimbursement or cost reduction, etc.
Now my worries are if both the process agrees on same principle of sharing the cost design for
same purpose then why results in different accounting by finally creating double costing on Org A and Org B as well. Am I not sure whether my understanding is correct. Please help.
Also mentioned by you earlier..
"In GL you may want to offset both the internal trade accounts on a balancing value of cost center. So the internal revenue credit will offset the internally purchased cost debit."
I am not sure how you can offset the internal revenue and cost account for Org A in GL. (is this done manually??) Could you please explain in detail if possible?
My note about the need to offset in GL is related to the method of reporting. As explained in the example above, when reporting on the entire company you need to omit the internal trade accounts. The method I use is to set up additional cost center value in GL which is not related to any real organization. This cost center is used for offset entries.
I take the balance of internal purchased cost from of organizations and create a journal entry of the same amount but negative for the offset cost center. The same is done for the balance of internal revenue of all cost center. As a result the total internal purchased cost and the total of internal revenue at company level (accross all cost centers) is zero. Now you can report on the entire company without the affect of the internal trade. Those journal entries may be created automatically by allocation rules set up in GL.
Dina

Problem in creation of legal entity in R12

Hi,
can any one tell about the legal entity error:
Error
A value has been provided for a non-enabled or non-existent descriptive flexfield segment. (SEGMENT=REGION_1) (VALUE=India)
A value has been provided for a non-enabled or non-existent descriptive flexfield segment. (SEGMENT=REGION_2) (VALUE=Tamilnadu)
A value has been provided for a non-enabled or non-existent descriptive flexfield segment. (SEGMENT=TOWN_OR_CITY) (VALUE=Chennai)
ORA-29273: HTTP request failed ORA-06512: at "SYS.UTL_HTTP", line 1674 ORA-12545: Connect failed because target host or object does not exist in Package xle_legal_address_swi Procedure create_legal_address

its due to the number ranges that is specified in the partner determination ... chech what is the number range assigned in the parner determination ,,, so once u check that u have to manually enter the number between that range only .. this should solve ur problem...
path to check the number range is as below :
spro-img-logistic generalbusiness partner-customers---define account groups and field selection ---
at this point click position button at the bottom and give ur account group .. select ur account group and click detail button .. now inside that u can see the specified number range .. dafault is 08 ( means u can specify between 400000 to 499999)..
and some times u may not have defined number range... check urs and create accordingly ... this should solve ur problem...
rewards if solved ..
thank you
madhan

FUTURE VERSIONS Legal Entity / Cross Operating Unit Direction

Hello,
I am aware that the Multi-Org Team is in the process of redesigning MO to allow a lot more Cross-Operating Unit (built into Legal Entity?) functionality over the next 18 months to allow users to work in a responsibility but across Operating Units. e.g. allow cross-Operating Unit Receipts in AR.
Is there a Statement of Direction for new MO work or some initial analysis I could get hold of that would assist us in planning our roadmap for the next few years? Dates are less important than direction / functionality of what will be available. I'm aware this may not be available for public distribution but we'll truly appreciate all help.
We are one of the larger European sites, currently running 57 books on R11i single-instance (GL, AP, AR, FA, PO, SSP5). We have upgraded to 11i and EFCed last year. We are now in the process of strategic planning for a complete restructure of our Financials system to match a new legal and operating structure. We are looking ahead 2-3 years down the track here.
If there's someone in Oracle (or elsewhere) I can speak to get this information, I know SAS will be quite happy to do this - also we are quite aware that the information implies no commitments from Oracle.
Thanks and Regards
Jay Jewell
IT/Business Consultant (STOUD)
Scandinavian Airlines
ph: international (00)-46-8-797-4337
email: [email protected]

Shaan- the Org Hierarchy is where I can't see the connection: Legal Entities in the org hierarchy are HR organizations, but Legal Entities used in Intercompany Billing setup (e.g. Provider/Receiver Controls page) are GL Legal Entities setup in Accounting Setup Manager. Do you know how does the system connect HR LEs to GL LEs?
Regards,
Adrien

What is a Legal Entity and Operating Unit??

Hi,
Could someone let me know what exactly is a Legal Entity and Operating Unit. The definition or explanation in the documentation is not satisfactory or clear. What are the differences between the above.
And where in the per_all_assignments_f table is the Legal entity stored. I know that the Legal entity is stored in the Statutory information in the assignments screen. Also can someone let me how based on the company code in the organization the legal entity is linked. Where in the tables is this link maintained?
Could someone let me know the above.
Thanks
Shekar.

Dear Shekar
what exactly is a Legal Entity and Operating Unit?
ANS: According the Book or user guide definitions says:
GRE/Legal Entity: Use this classification to represent the following organizations:
Ultimate Legal Entity: this represents the enterprise, and typically, the enterprise is the highest (global) level of a business organization.
Legal Entity: this represents the designated legal employer for all employment-related activities. The legal authorities in a country recognize this organization as a separate employer. In an organization hierarchy, a legal entity may report to an operating company or to the ultimate legal entity.
Consolidated Legal Entity: this organization acts on behalf of multiple operating companies that are not legally registered, or simply on behalf of the enterprise in a country.
See Shekar the Legal Entity is taken under Classification is we know that the organization is going to show the Taxation to the Government. where as if u take typical UAE countruies here every store is an LLC and they submit the taxing for every store or shop.
Where as Operating Unit is generally used for the different lines of business which are under that Business GRoup
Say for an Example:
ABC is the Company name and that has its root in UAE, Qatar and Oman
then it is like ABC Business Group > UAE Legal Entity > REtail/Property/Furniture etc are the Operating Units.
Hope this information is helpful and clear to you or else let me know if you have any concerns.
Coming to the Company Code we use the code for the Inventory Organizations so that the clients will not get confused with the existing code and the system code so generally we use the same codes for it.

Balancing Segment Value assignment to Legal Entity using Account Setup Mgr

Hello,
This is on r12.06
By mistake- I did not assign BSV at Legal Entity level, insteady I directly assigned at Ledger level. Now, I am getting following error when running "Accounting Program" standard program
The subledger journal entry contains lines with balancing segment values that are not assigned to any legal entity. Unassigned balancing segments cannot be used to balance a subledger journal entry with balancing segments already assigned to a legal entity. Either update the balancing segment value assignments for the ledger ADP/Claims Solutions Group or update the balancing segment values used on the subledger journal entry Upon research, It was discovered that that the Balancing segment is assigned only at ledger level and it is not assigned at Legal Entity level in account setup manager.
When I attempted to assign the BSV at LE level, it is not showing the BSV in list of values.
I even end dated BS at ledger level and tried again but still the concerned BSV is not showing up in LOV at Legal entity level.
Now I am completely stuck. Any idea what am I missing? Why, the new BSV is not showing up at LE level LOV when attempting to assign BSV at LE level?
Thank you for reading this post in advance.
Regards,
R

Once a BSV is assigned to the ledger it does not appear in the LOV of BSV-LE assignment field. Pl see if you can delete the BSV from ledger assignment, then only you can re-assign to LE. In my opinion, it allows you to delete the BSV from ledger level if you have not already used it in transactions. In your case, I wonder if it will allow you to delete it. If not, you have to raise SR with Oracle support.
Thanks
Tarun

Why do we need Legal Entity?

Hi,
I have read some of Oracle manuals and the discussion on the web. However, I still don't get why we need Legal Entity in EBS. What's difference between Organization Unit (actually I read some on the web)? Since we just need Org_ID in the subledger tables for various operational units, why we still bother to create Legal entity? In some web sites, it always mentions it is used for taxation purpose or repoorting. But I can't find any reports which is generated reply on the legal entity.
I am so confuse on this. Can anyone clarify my mind? thanks a lot in advance.
Regards,
Edmond

Hi Edmond,
the purpose and usage of Legal Entity is not as visible as that of Operating units / Inventory Orgs, however it gained its importance due to the way Configuration has been designed. I would say it is more of a configuration compliance than a feature that meets business expectations ...
You can create a Ledger without Legal Entity, which is allowed by the system, whereas you cannot create an Operating unit without having a legal entity in place....
All security features, transaction controls, reporting requirements are extracted at the Operating unit level ..
When will the legal entity be used during the application operation/reporting?
From Reporting perpective, it plays a vital role.... The reporting requirements of any organization is classified as two, one is BUSINESS need another is LEGAL/STATUTORY need. Now the statutory auhtorities would demand information from a company that has a separate legal presence ...the Statutory authorities are not keen on how many operating units we have under one particular establishment ...it is purely the way how we operate internally ... All custom reports or standard reports available at the Operating
unit level gathers information of the respective legal entity as well....So when i plan my Multi org structure or configuration i should design my operating units in such a
fashion, that it must be grouped under appropriate Legal Entities.
Oracle mentioned about that legal entity is used for taxation and financial reporting. How can we do that?
Legal Entity definition and BSV assignments are used by the system internally on various configurations and also at transaction processing stages, which incidentally includes taxation
aspects and financial reporting .... the statement refers to the system design and not a feature available for configuration ...
What is the difference that more than 1 OU are assigned to 1 single legal entity VS only 1 OU is assigned to 1 single legal entity?
The difference in first case is that, (i.e. 1 OU = 1 LE)
Your operating unit data reflects the Complete Legal Entity Data, hence there is no specific report that needs to be designed for legal entity.
The difference in second case is that, (i.e. 1 or more OU = 1 LE)
every operating unit contains partial information of your Legal Entity and not complete, hence in order to know your Legal Entity's performance or statements, you are to define a report which would club data pertaining to all operating units under it...
If a legal entity is assigned to a ledger, what's the difference if balancing segment is assigned to the ledger VS the balancing segment is assigned to the legal entity?
Honestly, there is no difference since you are allowed to create transactions for all of those BSV's values, there is no system restriction or validation happens during data entry ... However there could be a valid justification from system design/architectural perspective which we may not be aware of .. But there are differences like, when you do not have BSV values at LE level, it impacts certain configuration.... etc ....
All of your questions are very valid, i have only given my views/comments, these are not FINAL answers... :)
Regards,
Ivruksha

What is Unknown Legal Entity for Sale Country (Error ID: 30266)

When I want to buy a app on APP World, I got this "Unknown Legal Entity for Sale Country (Error ID: 30266)"
I have already added a PayPal account in APP World. What is this? Why this happen?

The same problem, how to solve it?

Legal Entity and Operating Unit Setup

Hi,
we are in a process of implementing Oracle Financials R12.1.3 to a group of company (Ex:"A").
That parent company ("A") associates with another three subsidiaries (Ex: A1, A2 and A3). All these four companies can share the same ledger and operating in one country.
So I'm with bit confusion whether It can use One Legal Entity with four operating units or do we have to create four legal entities?
Awaiting for clarifications and Thanks / Lathika

Hi All,
You have to think beyond application functionality, if there these 3 subsidiaries are registered with different name under local governance law then you should create separate Legal entity for each company or subsidiary.
Regards,
Abdul Hafeez

"This organization could not be verified as a legal entity." with correct, verified information.

Trying to sign up our company in the iOS Developer Program. I filled out all the information correctly but still receive the error "This organization could not be verified as a legal entity.".
I even used Apple's pop-out window to look up my company and find our D-U-N-S NUMBER:069013226
Additionally, I have verified all the other information is correct on DnB.com
What can I do to correct this error and enroll my company into the iOS Developer Program?
Thanks,
Matt

I did not see anything about faxing information to them. Purhaps because I chose this option? :
"Yes, I am the owner/founder and have the legal authority to sign and bind my company to Apple Developer Program legal agreements and contracts."

OPM R12 - Changing Fiscal Policy of a Legal Entity.

Hi,
Can anyone share the effects of the following scenarios,
1. Changing 'Valuation Method' in Fiscal Policy of a Legal Entity after some periods (From STND to PPAC/PWAC/PMAC)
2.Is it possible to have organizations with different costing methods (STND, PPAC, PMAC) under a single L.E. On what valuation will the accounting entries get generated?
- Prakash Srinivasan
Edited by: user11969666 on Dec 30, 2009 12:04 AM

Hi,
Have anyone tried this ever before. Please let me know.
- Prakash

Intercompany elimination at legal entity and profit centre level

All,
I have a question regarding intercompany elimination. As far as I understand, BPC can only hold one Interco dimension per application. If you want to perform an intercompany elimination for two dimensions which do not roll up into each other, two separate applications are needed. Please see example below to clarify:
Data is reported the following way:
Legal entity Profit Centre Account Interco Value
The problem is that the profit centre hierarchy does not roll up into the legal entity hierarchy mainly because there are profit centres set up as legal entities. Consequently, the legal entity hierarchy and the profit centre hierarchy are two independent hierarchies.
The business requirement is to have an intercompany elimination at profit centre and legal entity level at the same time (hence requiring two Intercos at the same time). This is needed as some of the profit centres are set up as legal entities.
Can someone advise me as to how to resolve this issue? Did anyone come across a similar problem?
Please let me know if you require any further clarifications.
Marc

Hi
Try to use 2 application for the interco elimination
for the 1st appls ur entity will be the entity dimension and use intco as intco dimension
for the 2nd one use the profit center as entity and build a new intco
As per interco logic this is using the Intco property in the Entity dimension and Entity property in intco dimension
it is very impossible to do this in one application
Thanks
CSD

Legal Entity on invoice is incorrect.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for