Pension Calculation wrong

Dear Experts,
When the user is paying Basic adjustment for employee the PF contribution is calculated correctly (BasicDABasic Adjustment) x 12% but for the pension calculation the system is calculating only Basic+DA x 2% and Basic adjustment is not included. T539J is configured for Basic adjustment against pension wage type for 2 % but still getting the same difference. Please guide me
Thanks in Advance
Upen

Upen it means Basic Pay Adjustments were not included in the the Pension Caluculatioin right ?

Similar Messages

Pension calculation with wage type max. limit

Hi ,
Pension for my client is to be calculated as 5% of Basic, Child, Social and Housing.
Basic,Child and Social are pay components.Housing is not a pay component but for pension calculation is to be taken as 60% of basic for which we have created a wage type.
Now the issue is the housing amount is not to exceed 8000, i.e. if my basic is say 20000 my housing becomes 16000 but for my pension calculation I have to take only 8000.
Where do I maintain it or how do I call it to calculate in a rule.
Any help is appriciated
Regards
Uday

store a constant in table t511k as 8000.
write a small rule to compare the value of housing wagetype with this constant value, and repalce it with constant value if value greater than 8000.
Hope this helps.

GR/IR clearing account calculating wrong price

HI
I am facing the problem with GR/IR clearing a/c, when the user is creating MIGO transation with ref Scheduled agreement PO, its calculating wrong price.
My scenario is :-
Scheduled agreement PO has been created in USD currency (Qua 370*356.07)
While I am doing the MIGO itu2019s not calculating correctly.
I can give some more information below
Company code currency is RUB but transaction currency is USD
PO is creating in USD
Material ledger is activated for this material
Currency exchange rates are updated in daily basis
When I am doing the MIGO the document was created like below
1709250    Duties accrual                     603.152,52- RUB             19.761,89- USD
1100100    Comm.Inv.fin.pr.                 4.624.163,80 RUB            151.507,60 USD
1614000    Transit match.acc.                 422.859,09- RUB             13.870,37- USD
7774100    Pr.diff.oth.goods.               3.598.152,19- RUB            117.875,34- USD
Actually posting is (370356.07=131745.9)
*But here it is showing 13.870.37
I am very thanking full for your Inputs.
Thanks
Ramakrishna
Edited by: DRS12345 on Oct 27, 2010 11:31 AM

Hi,
What has already been posted in SAP has been posted. One alternative in front of you is to create adjustment postings in PCA to post to the correct Profit Center. You can use transaction code 1KEL or 9KE0 for the same but it may not work as most probably you will the GR/IR clearing account set to "Post automatically" in the GL Master. In such a scenario the only option would be to have customized program to create IDOCs with Message Type "PRCMAS" to post the adjustment postings in your system.
regards

Absence Deduction is calculated wrong for one employee

Hi, We have an employee who changed his absence booking for the year and all of sudden his absence deduction is not calculating properly. His total absence quota was 20 days. He initially booked all 20 days and then cancelled them and created a new booking for 9.5 days but his deduction is saying 16.5 days.
Is there a way I can check his records why it's only happening to him. Also I am new to this so not sure where to start investigating. I did check the deduction rule and it's ok - calculates correctly for other employees, only this particular employee is calculating wrong.

Hi Joe,
I did replicate it for another employee belonging to the same group and it calculated correctly. And the 9.5 days already excludes holidays and weekends. Not sure what else to check at this point. Although the only difference in the records of the 2employees is that the problematic employee has a negative carryover from previous year. not sure exactly what that means.

Scheduling Agreement JIT / Forecast calculating wrong

Hello experts,
I´m with a problem with JIT / Forecast.
The forecast are calculating wrong values. For example:
Cumulative quantity calculated: 584
JIT schedule:
DATE             TIME         Order Quantity       Cml. released quantity        Open Quantity
06.01.2012     00:00     32          32
10.01.2012     00:00     352          384
13.01.2012     00:00     128          512
17.01.2012     00:00     88          600              16
Forecast schedule
DATE             TIME         Order Quantity       Cml. released quantity        Open Quantity
20.01.2012     00:00     112          112
24.01.2012     00:00     224          336
27.01.2012     00:00     128          464
31.01.2012     00:00     200          664
The values of forecast are calculating by Cumulative quantity calculated that is 584 and I dont have any Open Quantity and in this case I need to have Open Quantity in Forecast.
The forecast must not be calculated by the amount in transit
Help me.
Tks
LFC

Hi ashish
Check the planning delivery schedule tab and go to item data -> delivery schedule header and check wheather any proper information has been filled or not
Regards
Srinath

Error In Posting to accounts - PF calculated wrong

Hi,
I am getting error in Posting to accounts- error - Posting balance is not cleared (Period -
Following Wage types are calculated wrong -
Expense
MF90 PF adm chrgs * 1,00,000 = 715,000.000
MF70 EDLI contri * 1,00,000 =6,500.000
Balance sheet
MF90 PF adm chrgs * 1,00,000 = 715,000.000-
MF70 EDLI contri * 1,00,000 = 325,000.000-
MF80 EDLI adm chrgs * 1,00,000 =6,500.000-
/3P2 Professional Tax Basis = 8,387.096-
Symbolic accounts assigned are as standard - no changes made
Please help me solve this.
Thanks in advance.
Monica

Hi Monica,
We have solved this issue in our company.
For this you have to create another wage types & make a "PCR" as it divide the 100000 amount from the technical wage types, & then instead of posting the technical wage types post the new wage types u have created.
Don't worry about statutory reports as in there SAP is using some factor which will give the correct value.
Regards,
Gaurav

Planned overhead is calculating wrongly in CK11N run, it is just more than double

Hi Gurus
1) While running CK11N overhead cost is calculating wrongly on base (material price). In my case I have maintained 1% Overhead on raw material for Duty in cost sheet. In my case no routing, and my FG is getting produced by process order. My Raw material cost is showing Rs. 2,364.45 but my Duty is showing Rs. 48.73, When I run CK11N for Finished goods.
When I Check the costing structure it is showing all the material for costing, if i drill down there it is calculating correctly for Raw materials. Say heavy furnace oil material cost is Rs. 36,140.16 /M.T and overhead is Rs. 361.40 and for all raw material it is calculating correct 1%. But for my finished goods it is just more than 2%.
As per my understanding over head is calculating for RM once @ 1% and later material cost + overhead cost getting calculated by 1% again.
Please see the attachment. I have furnished a statement for this also.
2) Also Please tell me the T-Code for costing run as actual cost. and how can I show a comparison report on planned and actual report for a product costing.
3) My scenario is this is a power generation Co. Not possible to maintain activity cost. What they want to do is. on the last day of a month they will take the trial balance for the plant/ business area and will set the percentage in cost sheet (Actual for current month / planned for next month) for admin, manpower and other costs based on raw material GL values.
So I have created a cost sheet where I have maintained base and assigned those RM GL/ Cost elements and other costs I have maintained in cost sheet based on row No. 10 (base) and assigned secondary cost elements and percentages assigned as per overhead type and plant, in cost component structure I have maintained same cost elements as set earlier in cost sheet.
Please find the file attached
Please suggest me if I M wrong.
Thanks & Regards
Subrata

Hi.
In itemization of CK11N over head is showing correct. But the material cost for RM is already after charging overhead. I have checked the itemization of Process order there for the first material was Rs. 144.56, but in the itemization view of CK11N it is showing Rs.148.90/- That means exactly after adding 3% overhead which I maintained in cost sheet.
Itemization of Ck11N
Itemization of COR2
Please Help
Thanks & Regards
Subrata

Delivery date getting calculated wrongly in delivery created via VL10D

Hi Gurus,
We have a strange issue, where in delivery date is getting calculated wrongly for replenishment delivery created via VL10D.
When we are creating via VL10D , delivery date is getting the additional 30 days from MaxDlvCrteDate . With initial investigation i see that VL10D has delivery creation profile 0101 for which no of days maintained in max delv creation date is 30 .
I assume that the delivery date is getting the additional days from delivery creation profile felid no of max delv creation date .
I have created the delivery on 24.03.2011, as per the route no of TL time is 9 days , So Ideally the delivery date should be 04.04.2011 , however system has calculated it as 23.04.2011
Delivery no No of days in MaxDlvCrteDate Delivery date
213443158 30 23.04.2011
If I create the delivery for the same PO using t-code VL10B, then delivery date is calculating correctly.
Not sure why system behavior is strange.
Please help me with your inputs to resolve the issue..
Thanks in advance

Please request one Abaper to solve this problem.
You cannot due nothing as the problem is in Code.
Regards
William

Subsequent debit tax calculating wrong

dear guru
while doing subsequent debit for the vendor the Excise duty is calculating wrong
my issue is like this
i have purchase 100 quty with value 10/kg total amount is 1000 for that
ED is calculated 140
Ecess calculated 3
S&H calculated 1
i have done goods receipt and posted invoice also
now i that part of the quantit i have returne
lets 50 kg i have retune for that MIRO,MIGO,JIS,J1iV i have done
next vendor will send the suplimentry invocie because the rate is increase for that 50 quantiy, for that i will do J1IH for the additional excise and i will do MIRO subsequent debit for the rate increse in miro the tax amount is calculating wrong, ie
lets for 50 quantity total amoun increased 100
ed should calculate 14 but it is calculating 28
for that i have to apply any note
pl tell me urgent
thanks
regards
jrp

My understanding about the Input Tax and Output Tax was wrong. In the issue reported
Input Tax Calculation should be:
Vendor A/C.............. Cr 30000-
Expense A/C............ Dr 29100
Input Tax A/C............ Dr 900 (@3% on 30000)---my understanding was wrong.
Input Tax 3% should be charged on Expense amount, in this case Rs 30000. But because in the editing option calculate tax on net amount option was not selected, hence SAP was giving the below entry, which is correct as well.
Vendor A/C.............. Cr 30000-
Expense A/C............ Dr 29126.21
Input Tax A/C............ Dr 873.79 (@3% on 29126.21) which is correct.
Hence, the Vendor amount should be Expense + Input Tax= 30000 * 3%=900 + 30000 (expense) = 30900.
Correct Entry should be:
Vendor A/C...............Cr 30900
Expense A/C............Dr 30000
Input Tax A/C............Dr 900
Resolved. Pankaj has given the correct answer.

SECess is calculating wrongly

Hi All,
I am facing the problem with SECess. We are using TAXINJ.
In MIGO when I change the Base Value in Excise Item Details, only SECess is getting calculated wrongly.
Suppose
Base Value = 10000 which I change to 12000
for Base Value=10000,
BED=1000
ECS=20
SECess=10
but for Base Value=12000
BED=1200
ECS=24
SECess=11.99
Please Help
Regards,
Ritesh

Hi
if your changing the value in migo only your gettimg the problem ?
other wise nornamal ?
heck the setoff entry of s.e.cess it should be 100%
and check the rounding currency also. ( if the value diff minor)
Laxman

JDE worldsoft 9.1 Facing the problem of extending cost is calculating wrong

IN JDE worldsoft 9.1 we are facing the problem of extending cost is calculating wrongly.
at the time of shipment confirmation in table F42119 it is calculated with 100 that means with decimals if the extended cost i( Qunatity 1 * cost 100 = Extended cost should be100 but here it is showing 10000 )
Can any one help on this.

If I understand your problem correctly I would suggest looking into Sar# 8948245.
Nichelle

Upon editing the budget the system is calculating wrong rates

Hi all..
Upon editing the budget the system is calculating wrong rates, for instance i had to modify the budget for a perticular project for reduction in working months for our co -investigators.
Many thanx..

Hi
What budget method are you using? are you editing budget on forms or on the HTML self service page?
If you are using Forms, the cost amount could be entered in addition to entering the hours. For calculating the cost amount based on quantity entered, there is a need to develop the budget client extension. In such case you have to check the logic of that client extension.
If you are using the HTML pages, when you generate budget costs, the system would use the rate schedule you have setup as planning rates. Verify the values on that schedule.
Dina

Forecast calculated wrongly

Hello Team,
The problem is that movement types 631/632 (deliveries to customer consignment stock) were not taken into consideration.
I added them manually, but the figures in MC94 after this transaction is not relevant to MB51. And that is the reason that forecast was calculated wrongly.
Could you please help me in this. Help will be appriciated.

It may be you aquire the assets in Mid year and calculating the depreciation from that month,but system is posting total depreciation in that particular month by taking in to account all the previous month depreciation
Have check the depreciation by changing the depreciation start date to start of your Asset accounting year
Thanks
Ansuman
Edited by: Ansuman mohanty on Mar 31, 2008 1:10 PM

Mid month action_Pension (/3f4) calculation wrong

Hi All,
I get one problem , when payroll run for employee, whose action run in the mid of the month. for ex. 15.05.2010(Transfer action)
In that case the pension amount (/3f4) is calculating double or more than 541...which is wrong.
Kindly provde the input to resolve the same....
Regards,
Mahesh
Edited by: Mahesh Shewale on Sep 1, 2010 1:08 PM
Edited by: Mahesh Shewale on Sep 2, 2010 7:18 AM

Hi Mahesh,
Please make changes in User exit provided as per your requirement and then check the results
There are 2 user exit
EXIT_HINCALC0_002 for pension basis.
EXIT_HINCALC0_007

Issue in Balances in Pension Calculations....

Hi Everyone,
I am facing a peculiar issue in the calculation of employee and employer contributions of a Pension Scheme.
I have a Pension Scheme(lets call it Pension_Scheme1). It is of type Salary Exchange. The employee contributions are negative earnings.
Element -> Pension_Scheme1-> Classification Earnings
I have to check in the formula if the Gross_Pay for the Pay period is -ve, and if so the EE and ER contributions should not take place(ie. EE & ER conts = 0). If Gross_Pay is +ve then they should take place.
Now if I have 4 earnings in the curent Pay period as follows then,
Salary = 3500
Commission = -4000
Car Allowance = 370.83
Pension_Scheme1 = -175
Then in the formula the value of Gross_Pay_ASG_PROC_PTD(called in a message) = 3870.83
But in the Balances window of Quickpay the value is -129.17
I guess that the GROSS_PAY_ASG_PROC_PTD = 3870.83 is coming because of (3500+370.83 = 3870.83), but i want (3500+370.83-4000 = -129.17)
I want the value -129.17 to be referenced in the formula so that i can check the condition GROSS_PAY_ASG_PROC_PTD < 0 and then restrict the EE & ER contributions to zero.
My question is that can we know the value of balances during the Payroll run(Run Level Balance) instead of Balances after the Payroll run.
Can you please help me on this?
Cheers!!!
Sachin Shirke

Hi,
Check the processing priority of the element "Commission". It looks like the Commission element is getting processed prior to the pension element, hence the balance is not reflecting the value. The elements get processed in a Payroll run based on the processing priority - lowest to highest.
In answer to your question about getting the balance values during a payroll run - you can use debug() messages in the fast formula to print the value of the balances during the execution.
Thanks.
Anitha

Pension Calculation wrong

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for