Pyament terms Authorizations in AP

Hello Experts,
Payment terms Authorizations in AP invoice >> while creating AP invoice when we go to Accounting Tab and change the Payment terms, it says "You are not permitted to perform thi action".
Although, user has got "Payment Terms" Full Authorizations already...
Help Required

Hello Shazad Nazir,
You have to check other related authorizations like edit document.
Thanks,
Gordon

Similar Messages

Payment Terms Authorization Issue

Hi All,
We have set business partner master as read only to all our users except one.
In Purchase log in , the user needs to change payment terms. So , we set Payment terms right as full authorization but still the problem persists. After setting Business Partner Master As Full authorization instead of Read Only the problem solved.
But , we do not want this.
Is there any workaround for this ?
Thanks
Malhaar

Hi Datta,
Payment terms right comes in System Administration - Setup - Business Partner.
As you said it is not present individually under Purchase.
If i've overlooked anything please help me.
We are on SAP 8.8
Thanks
Malhaar

APP with Pyament Terms

Hi friends,
I did an invoice with payment terms 45 days. (25 days 2% discount, 30 days no disucound).
But when I run APP in F110, it encounters the follwoing issue. But if the give the payment terms "PAY IMMEDIATELY', APP runs fine.
Company codes US10/US10 do not appear in proposal 01/22/2009 PMTW6; correct
Message no. FZ003
Diagnosis
No data exists for the specified paying company code US10 and the specified sending company code US10 in payment proposal 01/22/2009 PMTW6.
System response
The payment proposal cannot be edited.
Procedure
Check the flow trace and payment proposal list in order to determine why the specified company codes are not contained in the proposal.
Pl suggest why app is not running if i give payment tersm.
Points will be assigned immediately.
Venkat

Hi,
as per your question you configured a payment term of 45 days(25 days 2% discount, 30 days no disucount).
you create an invoice before 45 days ago.(make sure that posting period is open)for that particular vendor and in the vendor master data you attach the terms of payment(assuming that terms of payment configuration is correct).
Now as per your terms of payment of you run APP after 25 days from the creation of your invoice the line item will appear in APP Proposal and at the time of payment you can see the system will calculate 2% .Before 25 days from the invoice creation this line item will not appear in APP proposal, because APP is an automation process .....the programme running in background will not consider that open invoice line item due the payment terms attached.
even on 26 th day the line will not appear in APP Proposal. it will appear at the 45 th day of the creation of invoice....on the 45 th day you will see in the vendor ledger the line item is showing due.beyond 45 days the line item will appear as open item if you do not pay to the vendor and it will be seen as over due . then also you can pay ....after 45 days the system will calculate any percentage on the invoice amount as per your terms of payment.
with Regards,
sudipto

Table for PO Discount Payment Terms

Hi Experts,
I want a report which contains the PO numbers which are having Discount Pyament Terms only. Please suggest from which table can I get.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
kris.

Hi,
Try with EKKO (purchasing document header).
Best Regards,

Payment terms at header level

Dear All,
Please let me know what will be the terms of payment at header level, if I have 2 line items and these 2 line items have different payments terms.
Thank You.
Regards
Madhu

Hi!
Payment terms are copied from customer master. So the standard SAP way would be to determine the Payment terms from customer master and copy it in the header. And when you add a line, the Payment terms get copied from header to item level. But while doing pricing or through user exits pyament terms could be changed.
But the header level will remain same as in the customer master, untill explicilty changed. There is no flow of payment terms from item to header.
But at the time of billing the delivery will split into two invoices because of different payment terms.
Hope this solves your problem.
ABhishek

Bidder gets "no authorization for the action" when creating response to RFx

Hello. I am working with SRM 7.0. As a bidder with
Portal Role: RFx Respondent
SRM Role: /SAPSRM/BIDDER
I was trying to create a response for an RFx by highlighting one of the eRFx in the query result list and clicking on "Create Response" button. I was given a pop up window with error "User is not authorized for the action". This happens to all eRFx in the bidder's list. I was able to properly launch the RFx by clicking on "Display Event" though. Any pointers in this regard would be highly appreciated.

Hi Jay
drill this note code howeve rit is appliacable for srm600. u will get clue
Note 1151053 - Invalid authorization error is displayed to the user
Symptom
During RFx creation even though user has permissions to create a new document system throws a error message:"User is not authorized for the action".
Other terms
Authorization Checks, Bid Invitation, RFx, Not Authorized for the Action.
Reason and Prerequisites
This error is caused by a program error.
eze:- please help Jay. he is facing the same issue whice you encountered long back
Muthu
Edited by: Muthuraman Govindasamy on Jan 20, 2010 10:23 PM

Not able to access the module from user level i.e., other than Super user.

Hello Friends,
I created company with super user and normal user, for a normal user gave the rights of sales. When logged in with normal user try to create sales order i am experiencing following system message "To generate this document, first define the numbering series in Administration module [Message 131-3]".
Could you please advise me in this regard.
Thanks,
Rayudu

Hi,
Please check the following thread which is being discussed:
Re: "Define the numbering series in Admin module"
For the issue you have reported, kindly refer Note 1057873, which will resolve your issue.
Note says:-
Symptom
When trying to open a document a user gets the system message:
'To Generate this document, first define the numbering series in the Administration module'
Other terms
Authorizations, Document Numbering, Series, access
Reason and Prerequisites
SAP Business One Functionality, Consulting
Solution
A document numbering series have been defined and the user have authorisation to the document type in:
Administration -> System Initialisation -> General Authorisations -> Sales-AR/Purchasing-AP
All document numbering series are also given a Group.
Administration -> System Initialisation -> Document Numbering
Double click to the left of the row to view the existing numbering
series for the document type. The field 'Group' is here. By default this value is 1.
For the Groups there is a separate authorisation.
Administration -> System Initialisation -> Authorisations -> General Authorisations -> Administration -> System Initialisation -> Series
After expanding the 'Series', give the user authorisation to the
Serie/Group that is defined for the document numbering serie it is trying to open.
Also, check for more similar threads in the forum which could help you.
Regards,
Jitin

Customer Advance Payment - Distribution to customer and risk deposit accoun

Dear Sir,
We have one scenario where we receive advance payment from the customer and want to show 90% to customer account and 10% to a GL account for Risk Deposit.
How we can achieve this using Terms of payment or any other concept other than adding two line items while posting the advance payment.
Thanks in Advance.

You can meet your requirements with
1. Special GL indicator (let say C- Customer deposit)
2. Instalment pyament terms.
First at the time of entry itself in Incoming payment take 90% as regular payment and the balance as a special GL "C"payment.
Also craeate a payment term with 90% immediate and balance at a later time as you wish.

Roles/Profiles for ALEREMOTE

hi all,
can anyone let me know all the Roles/Profiles required for the User ALEREMOTE in a production system.
I understad that the roles sap_all, sap_new , s_bi-wx_rfc and s_bi-whm_rfc can be used in the development and the Quality systems but am told that the roles SAP_ALL & SAP_NEW are not supposed to be used for ALEREMOTE in the Production systems as it would give all authorizations to all the users.
so, could anyone kindly let me know the various roles/profiles that need to be assigned to the user ALEREMOTE keeping in mind that SAP_ALL & SAP_NEW are not allowed and at the same time all the transactions w.r.t BW3.5 should go through successfully.
kindly revert back at the earliest as we are in the process of going to the BW Production.
Thanks & Regards
Manicks

hi Manicks,
check oss note 150315-BW-Authorizations for Remote-User in BW and OLTP. hope this helps.
Symptom
1) The ALE user fails security in the BW side
2) Missing authorizations when executing Customizing of extractors
3) No IDocs could be sent to the SAP-BW using RFC.
4) Automatic source system connection failes with error R3220: No RFC-Parameters in source system defined
5) When collecting content in BW, warning message RSAOLTP035 comes up
Other terms
Authorizations, SAP_ALL, S_BI-WX_RFC, S_BI-WHM_RFC, S_RS_ALL, ALEREMOTE, BWREMOTE, RSAOLTP 553, RSAOLTP553
Reason and Prerequisites
a) In the BW there exist two user:
   i) a human administrator, using S_RS_ALL
   ii) a user called BWREMOTE (or similar), used to receive the data from the OLTP, using S_BI-WHM_RFC
b) In the OLTP there exist also two user:
   i) a human administrator, needing authorizations to create users and RFC-destinations.
   ii) a user called ALEREMOTE (or similar), used to ...
       1) ... connect the OLTP to the BW
       2) ... extract the data
       3) ... send the data to the BW
       4) ... show monitoring dialogs for tasks 1 to 4, the profile S_BI-WX_RFC is used (<i>however does
not suffice on some points since some authorizations are
missing in the delivered profile</i>)
       5) ... make customizing of OLTP extractors
       for this, additionally the authorizations to execute IMG-functionality, to execute Transaction SBIW and to maintain the applications, which shall be customized, must be given during the customizing functionality is used.
Solution
1) The profile S_RS_ALL resp. S_BI-WHM_RFC must contain (at least) the following authorizations:
Profile
2) The referred functionality is b) i) 5), thus
   the authorizations to execute IMG-functionality,
   to execute Transaction SBIW and to
   maintain the applications, which shall be customized,
   must be temporarily given to ALEREMOTE, if you want to execute the
   functionality from BW-side. The permissions for executing the
   customizing is not included in the profile S_BI-WX_RFC, since
   this is a critcal functionality.
   However there is the possibility to execute the customizing
   in the OLTP by a human administrator by hand, using Transaction
   SBIW.
3), 4) For sending the Idocs and reading RFC-destinations
   the profile S_BI-WX_RFC is incomplete.
   Please check, if the following authorizations are included:
Profile
---   S_BI-WX_RFC <PRO> Business Information Warehouse, RFC User
--   B_ALE_ALL    <PRO> All authorizations for ALE/EDI
--   S_APPL_LOG_A <PRO> Application log: All
--   S_BTCH_ADM   <PRO> BC: Batch - Processing authorization
--   S_BW_RFC     <PRO> BW: Authorization Profile: Other
--   See above, same sub-profile as in S_BI-WHM_RFC
      ---   S_IDOC_ALL   <PRO> All authorizations for IDoc functions
- BW AddOn BW-BCT 1.2B:
These authorizations have been delivered with BW AddOn Patch 2 (see 158489 for the AddOn Patch information), except release 45B. For 45B, the authorizations are delivered with BW AddOn Patch 1.
- PI2000.1:
For 4.6B and 4.6C due to delivery errors, this profile also is incorrect. Please transport it from the BW into the Oltp (it is the same in any system and release).
- PI2000.2:
For 4.6C due to delivery errors, this profile also is incorrect.
Please transport it from the BW into the OLTP (it is the same
in any system and release).
- PI2001.2:
For 4.6C due to delivery errors, this profile also is incorrect.
Please transport it from the BW into the OLTP (it is the same in any system and release).
Alternatively, import the sapserv* transport BRSK002208 under the directory
general\R3server\abap\note.0150315 into your OLTP-System.
For help on the sapserv* transport refer to Note 13719.
5) If you have PI-Basis 2005.1 in your source system, you need to attach role SAP_RO_BCTRA to your user in the source system. Otherwise, the functionality mentioned in the message is not available. The system continues to function as before, you may ignore the warning.

Not allow saving workbooks by authorisation

Hi,
how to do this? which auth objects to be used?
thank you

hi S B,
i see ... seems you need to apply correction
oss note 955715-Authorization check during saving of workbook.
you can ask basis to apply correction (tcode SNOTE)
Symptom
Saving of workbook possible even without authorization.
Other terms
Authorization
S_USER_AGR
Reason and Prerequisites
Authorization check was skipped when writing the workbook back to the server.
Solution
Apply the note to solve this issue.
FUNCTION RRMX_WORKBOOK_WRITE
Delta 001
Context Block
createmode = space.
endif.
Delete Block
if createmode = space and not i_t_blob is supplied.
Insert Block
<Start>Gopadi - Authorization check was skipped because i_t_blob was always supplied.
if createmode = space and not i_t_blob is supplied.
if createmode = space.
<end>

Reporting Auths get switched on automatically?

We have 0COMP_CODE made "authorization relevant" in our BW system, and have set up a custom auth object in RSSM, switched it on for specific InfoProviders ("Check for InfoCubes". We do not have it switched on system-wide, only in specific cubes.
Everything works as we expect, except that whenever new InfoProviders are created that contain 0COMP_CODE, it seems that the RSSM "Check for InfoCubes" automatically gets switched on for that cube! Is this what others of you have observed? What has sometimes happened to us then is the InfoCube gets transported with this switch turned on even if we never intended the authorization to be active in this cube.
Just wondering if this is the way it is supposed to work - if others of you have faced this issue.
Thanks,
Chris

hi Chris,
yes, it's the way it works,
oss note 746811
Automatic assignment of Custom Auth objects to new infoproviders
Symptom
If an InfoProvider is recreated and then activated, all of the relevant reporting authorization objects are automatically activated for this InfoProvider.
Other terms
Authorization object, create, activate, InfoProviders, InfoCubes, RSSM RSSTOBJDIR
Reason and Prerequisites
<b>This is due to strict security guidelines</b>, which prohibit data from being displayed until it is explicitly permitted.
Solution
The security guidelines cannot be altered.
If you do not require an authorization check, you must once again deselect the reporting authorization objects that were made; make this deselection in transaction RSSM under "Check for InfoProviders" --> "Change".

Authorisation Object for reporting

I created a Authorisation Object on an Infoobject .The list that comes up for selecting the Infocubes which should be effected by this doesnot show the Cube in which the Infoobject is used.
The list shows various ODS and Cubes and I dont know how they r related to this Authorisation Object.

hi,
check if relevant oss note 641614-InfoProvider in RSSM not displayed for authorization object.
the solution support package may out of date, you may try this ?
... You can avoid this problem by using the 1KYFNM field in the authorization object. In this case, all InfoProviders will be always displayed.
Symptom
An InfoProvider is not displayed in transaction RSSM for checking authorization objects. Consequently, the setting that indicates whether this InfoProvider should be checked for the authorization object cannot be changed.
Other terms
Authorization object, InfoProvider, InfoCube, RSSM, check
Reason and Prerequisites
The InfoProvider contains a referencing characteristic, which is authorization-relevant, as a navigation attribute. As a result, the usage is not found as the navigation attribute in the where-used list for the InfoObject in the authorization object and consequently, the InfoProvider is not found either.
You can avoid this problem by using the 1KYFNM field in the authorization object. In this case, all InfoProviders will be always displayed.
In addition, it will also be easier to implement a check on key figures at a later stage because once authorizations exist for an authorization object, no more fields can be added.
Solution
BW3.0B
Import Support Package 15
BW3.1C
Import Support Package 09 for 3.1C

Problem in Approval

Hi Exeprts
I have created a approval template for Goods Receipt and i have 2 app roves for this, but the problem is one user is approving successfully but when the second app rover open the message click the arrow to see the document is shows error at bottom that NO MATCHING RECORDS FOUND ODBC-2028 Messgae 131-183
please him me
Regards
Ashar Anwer

Hi Anwar,
Please see the SAP Note No. [1261872]
which says
Approval Status Report retrieves no results
Symptom
You work in a company where Data Ownership is enabled (Administration -> System Initialization
-> Authorizations -> Data Ownership Exceptions -> Checkbox 'Enable Ownership Filtration' is checked).
You generate an Approval Status report or an Approval Decision report (Administration-> Approval procedures),
you specify the required Document Status and you do not specify a user name.
When running the report the following error message appears:
No matchingrecords found '<Document name>'(<Table Name>) (ODBC-2028) Message 131-183.
The report does not return any results.
This issue might occur when two or more peers add documents that trigger the approval procedure
and when one peer is not authorized to see the other peer's document.
Other terms:
Authorization, Approval, System message, No Matching Records, Approval Procedure,
Data Ownership Authorization, Approval Status, Approval Decision, creator, Originator,
approval Template, You Are Not Authorized
Reason and Prerequisites:
Application error.
Solution:
This issue is candidate to be resolved in a future version.
Workaround:
You can specify the specific originator name in addition to the Documents Status selection in the report selection criteria.
Close the thread, IF issue solved.
Regards,
Madhan.

Non-profit purchases

We are a 501c3 organization. How do we get exempted from taxes in iTunes and the App store? Thanks!

Ran into this myself for my school.
They are not set up to handle tax-empt in the App store etc. There is a kind of pre-purchase voucher program available for schools where you purchase a set amount of "money" and then the person designated for your school can (i will use the term authorize but it is not quite an accurate representation) the purchase of the apps and pay for them using the prepaid account. They then get a "release code" that is used to download and install the software on the iPad, Mac or whatever. I do not know if this same program would be available to you.
Once I paid for some App store purchased software and then I asked. To try to get the tax refunded you would have to have a tax emept statement, copy of the billing, a picture of the credit card and something else but I don't recall what that was. It was enough of a pain that I just shipped it off to our purchasing department and let them worry about it.
Yep, Apple kind of did not think ahead about handling App store or iTunes purchasing on a small basis by tax emept organizations.

Authorisation requirment in reporting

Hi,
My requirment follows....
client currently create a concept for authorization topics for BW. and want to base these authorizations on the existing XYZ reports. First of all we need to find out which authorization objects do we need to differenciate customers. The target is to create a role for every customer which restricts his access to his own data.
Your task will be to create an overview of the status of the different potentially authorization relevant objects (Excel file). This file shall contain the object (based on the XYZ queries), the current restriction (like XYZ or the XYZ customer number), the current status of the infoobject regarding its authorization relevance in the different systems and a suggestion of the infoobjects which shall be authorization relevant for every infoprovider we use in the following queries.
could any one please help me out on this...
Thanks.
Kiran.

hi,
check if relevant oss note 641614-InfoProvider in RSSM not displayed for authorization object.
the solution support package may out of date, you may try this ?
... You can avoid this problem by using the 1KYFNM field in the authorization object. In this case, all InfoProviders will be always displayed.
Symptom
An InfoProvider is not displayed in transaction RSSM for checking authorization objects. Consequently, the setting that indicates whether this InfoProvider should be checked for the authorization object cannot be changed.
Other terms
Authorization object, InfoProvider, InfoCube, RSSM, check
Reason and Prerequisites
The InfoProvider contains a referencing characteristic, which is authorization-relevant, as a navigation attribute. As a result, the usage is not found as the navigation attribute in the where-used list for the InfoObject in the authorization object and consequently, the InfoProvider is not found either.
You can avoid this problem by using the 1KYFNM field in the authorization object. In this case, all InfoProviders will be always displayed.
In addition, it will also be easier to implement a check on key figures at a later stage because once authorizations exist for an authorization object, no more fields can be added.
Solution
BW3.0B
Import Support Package 15
BW3.1C
Import Support Package 09 for 3.1C

Pyament terms Authorizations in AP

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for