Second authorization at invoicing

Hi,
This may be due to drounding factor, but is there any "tolrance" taht could be set on the invoicing end?
Problem: - For very big orders, say $10,000 worth or more, while booking the sales order, an authorization is generated via iPayment to Verisign.
Now, when the sale order gets invoiced, the invoiced amount due to rounding, becomes slightly greater than $10,000, say $10,000.1 .
And this then fails getting authorized during remittance. So then , another authorization needs to be generated.
Only problem is that until the time that Verisign voids the previous authorization, it is 1-2 days , and the customer stays billed at twice the amount.
How to avoid this? There is no point providing a tolrance limit % on the custoimer, as that is applied and relevant only for "holds".
Any advice?

Swapna,
Thanks for replying. Not sure if it is due to discounting or not. I can ask for more clarification from user.
But generally, it is a a difference of 1 cent or so on large orders.
Bashobi

Similar Messages

Amount authorization in invoice verification

Dear all,
I am facing a problem while third party sales. During MIRO, Invoice verification, i enter the PO and the amount when i get try to save, i get the message- no amount authorization for customers/vendors in the company code.
Thanx in advance.
Regards,
Pankaj

Hi
Check the tolerance groups defined for your comapny for posting invoices with certain amount in IMG - MM - LIV - Authorization mgment - define tolerance groups & assign users to tolerance groups. We define the groups to limit posting invoices exceeding certain amount here.
Thanks

Insufficient Authorization old Invoices Will Not Release to Accounting

I have some old invoices that will not release to accounting. Instead of trying to secure a new credit card from the customer how can I remove the credit card information/or trick the order into thinking it doesn't need it so that I can get the open billing documents to the customers open account?
Please any help will be appreciated.
Again the error message is insufficient authorization, need to get these documents released to accounting.

That is true...if it has been partially utilized in another Billing doc, then it wont let delete the lines...
So when this hapenned to me, this is what i did....and maybe this is not the best practice.
I first got a Manual authorization in the sales order. Now generally we get the auth. from a 3rd party application Delego. So when we did the manual auth, we just entered a fake Auth number. This way, we tricked the system to let us post the Invoice to accounts. But definitely it posted to the card receivable account insted of the customer account. Now the settlement of this item would fail because the Auth number is not valid but the settlement fails only after it does the additional G/l posting to post to the Clearing account. To clear off this clearing account posting, we created a credit memo for the same amount and again with a fake Auth so now when this credit is processed for settlement, it also fails but reverses the provious debit...so that all accounts are now all balanced out.
So now remains the customer....so we finally did a Debit memo equal to the original invocie amout and now this posts to the customers account.
I was unable to find any other solution and was skeptical of doing any enhancement or changes just for a single case. Pls also let me know if you come across any better ideas.

Authorization on Invoice Plan in ME22N

Hi All,
We have been having issues with out Invoice Planning in ME22N, where if a user goes into the plan, it recalculates it, and we are paying our vendors multiple times.
We created a message with SAP, and they said to do code changes to restrict users from going into it.
I was hoping to do it thru security. Does any body know if we can restrict by program/screen number.
Basically we have a role with me21n/me22n access. I was hoping to break out access so users can still get into me21/22n but only certain users can get into the invoice plan.
To recreate the issue, just go into ME22n, under the texts tab,go to the item level and go into the invoice tab. There click the invoice plan.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Chris

Hi Chris,
This isn't the auths-only solultion you are after but I don't think SAP are too far off.
You could use the enhancement framework to perform an additional check when going into the plan. You grant update access to your specific users and if the auths fail then your other users are either prevented or go through in display mode only.
I doubt it would be more than a couple of days work for a developer to do this.
Cheers

Creation of A/R Down Payment Invoice based on Sales Order not logical

When creating a A/R Down Payment Invoice based on a Sales Order you
have the option to create multible ones. Which by itself could be
usefull to create one of 50 % for a certain day and decide they need to
pay another 25 % at a later date.
But SBO does not track what already have been posted. Therefore you can
create a sum more then a 100% without warning or blockage.
Tested this in SBO 2007 A SP:00 PL:00
Scenario:
Sales - AR>Sales Order
Create and post a Sales Order
Sales - AR>A/R Down Payment Invoice
Create an A/R Down Payment
Select the BP and copy the Sales Order
Set DPM to 40%
Post the A/R Down Payment
Sales - AR>A/R Down Payment Invoice
Create an A/R Down Payment
Select the BP and copy the Sales Order
Set DPM to 100%
Post the A/R Down Payment
Sales - AR>A/R Down Payment Invoice
Create an A/R Down Payment
Select the BP and copy the Sales Order
Set DPM to 70%
Post the A/R Down Payment
Making the total for the Sales Order 210% worth of Down Payment
Invoices without warning/blocking. I would expected that you would only
be able to set the rest sum %. For instance first scenario I entered
60% therefore setting the second Down Payment Invoice to a max of 40%
Untill you have used up the 100% and you cannot select the Sales Order
in question..
If multible users do the same work, SBO doesn't show that it has
already been done. Same if you forgot you already created it you can
still create one. Plus sometimes it will happenyou create the Down
Payment Invoice and not paying attention you create the first one with
a 100% and later with the intended percentage..

Hello Petronella,
you are right that B1 is not checking the total value of DP created from the Sales Order.
The logic and checking procedure here is only between Sales Order -> Delivery/Invoice.
DP Invoice is considered as transaction related to document the receipt of the money (parallel to the sales process). Between the moment of basing of DP to Sales Order it is still possibility to adjust Sales Order as there is no posting behind Sales Order.
The question is what would be a checking procedure in case that on Sales Order there is based Delivery and DP? What would be the system priority to take into a consideration?
Regards,
Martin Slavik
Regional Solution Manager

BW Authorizations Hierarchies

Greetings All;
This is yet another question regarding BW Authorizations.
I have two fields 0COMPANY and 0PROFIT_CTR, both Authorization Relevant, both containing hierarchies.
I need to allow a user to see all profit centers for a given company <u>and</u> also selected profit centers for another company ...
example - All profit centers for company A and
Profit Center 1 for company B
... this must be an AND condition.
I've been through RSSM and PFCG but can't get it right.
I created an authorization object with ...
1KYFNM, 0COMPANY, 0PROFIT_CTR, 0TCTAUTHH
... and tried specifying a role with ...
Key figure = *
Company = ' '
Profit Center = *
Unique ID for Authorization = Y_COMPANY_A
... and ...
Key figure = *
Company = 'B'
Profit Center = *
Unique ID for Authorization = Y_COMPANY_B
... this shows me everything for both companies. As soon as I add ...
Profit Center = '1'
... to the second grouping I get an authorization failure.
It's possible I haven't specified the Authorization Definitions Y_COMPANY_A and Y_COMPANY_B (in RSSM) correctly, but I've followed all the documents I've found in SAP HELP and SDN.
Is it an issue with both the fields having hierarchies?
Any, and I do mean any, help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
Jim

Hi Jim,
If you replace '' with '1' in the second authorization, the variable (auth-based) is filled with '' from the first auth and with '1' from the second auth --> result is still no restriction in the ProfitCenter-Variable ('' and '1' = ''). Try to filter the query with company 'B' - do you see know a result? (At the moment your CompCode-Variable is filled with CompCode 'A' and 'B' but you don't have authorisation for all ProfitCenters combined with Company 'B').
I hope, this will help you.
Best regards,
Thorsten

Custom invoice blocked due to Quantity.

Hi All
This is regarding Intercompany India scenario.
Issue : Custom invoice #5109581820 has been blocked for quantity. There are seven conditions ( JCDB,JCV1,JECV,J1CV,JEDB,JSDB,JADC) maintained for custom vendor and one condition (ZCCC ) for custom clearing charges vendor.
Hence there are total eight conditions for customs. And the above mentioned invoice has been block for Basic customs duty (JCDB) and Ecess on total duty (JEDB) conditions. Question : 1) Why the invoices for Basic customs duty (JCDB) and Ecess on total duty (JEDB) conditions are blocked.
2) Why only the invoices for Basic customs duty (JCDB) and Ecess on total duty (JEDB) conditions are blocked and not for other conditions ?
Details are as follows:
1)In PO#4700279549 total PO qty is 100.140kg
And delivery have been done in partial for qty 80.150kg and 19.990kg
2)PGI also done in partially for the same qty.
3)Now first custom invoice #5109538999 is for qty 80.150kg.has been posted on dated 16.10.2008
4)GR for qty 40.110 has been done on dated 31.10.2008
5)On dated 03.11.2008 GR posted for qty 20.040 but cancelled again on same date.
6)Now custom invoice #5109581820 posted for remaining qty 19.990 but still for invoice #5109538999 for remaining(80.150-40.110=40.040) qty has not been received before second of custom invoice.
7)After 5.11.2008 GR posted for qty 20.00kg and on 06.11.2008 Gr posted for qty 20.040
That means total GR has been posted for custom invoice #5109538999.
Thanks and Regards..
Trupti

Hi Joan
Good question. First I tend to use this mail function, but then I decided to implement the workflow because
a) I was wondering how this works g and it is kind of sexy
b) I needed already a workflow for the Investment Management and wanted to stick on this technique
c) later we want to scan incoming invoices where we also will need to work with Workflows
d) the WF provides some functions like jumping directly to the invoice and order, delete blocking reasons or change the order
e) the WF could later be modified to cover more or other requirements
Of course the receipant of the Workitem also gets an eMail (via Internet) to let him know about an incoming workitem.
The most time I needed to find out how this works. Now it's just a piece of cake (as long as the SAP-standard WF for this is used without any modifications); would take not more than 15 Minutes to set it up again... no joke. But this depends also on the release you're on.
Of course you have to make a good end user documentation (but you have to anyways for the invoice verification) and about two good flow charts. This together with some trainings really needs the time.
Bye
Wolgang

Down Payment AR Invoice freight Missing Functionality

Freight does not transfer to down payment invoice. Here is the scenario:
Create a sales order (item or service type). Add freight charges.
Create a down payment invoice - copy from sales order. All items transfer except no freight charges.
This is a large problem as it causes descrepancies between customer account.

Hi Keith,
my suggestion would be following (combination of yours and my words):
1. Customer places an order for a new oven for a restaurant kitchen. Order is for product and installation.
2. Sales order is entered for $100,000 + freight $2000.
3. Down payment invoice is created 1/3 based on the Sales order. The price in the grid of the DP invoice is increase so the total of DP Invoice is $35,000
4. Customer pays the down payment invoice and payment is applied for $35,000.
5. More work is done on building the oven and client wants to invoice another $33,000 but still has not shipped anything. DP Invoice is created based on the Sales Order and DP Invoice grid is adjusted so that the total value of DP Invoice is $33,000.
6. Payment is received from customer and applied to the second down payment invoice.
7. Oven is completely built and will be shipped so they want to invoice another $25,000. DP Invoice is created based on the Sales Order and DP Invoice grid is adjusted so that the total value of DP Invoice is $25,000.
8. After oven arrives at customer site, installation is performed so they want to invoice the final amount. They can create the Final Invoice based on the Sales Order: $100,000 + freight $2000 and system automatically propose the Down Payments in the aggregated value: $35,000$33,000$25,000=$93,000
So the total of the Final Invoice which should be paid is $120,000-$93,000=$27,000.
The limitation of this proposal is that the total DP amount paid should be less than net amount of the Final Invoice ($100,000 in this case), because of the "net approach" for the DP allocation....
Best Regards,
Martin Slavik
SAP Business One Solution Manager

Partial Payments Against Invoice

Hi
I had AR Invoice with 100000 Inr amount, But I got Payment 50000 ,25,000,25000 in diffrent dates. If i made In coming payment first time . Ok that invoice displaying in incoming payments , Second time no Invoice displaying In incoming payment so Now how can i clear amount aginst that invoice
Regard
Srinivas

Hi
In the Incoming Payments Screen, after selecting a customer all his open invoices will be displayed.
Say for example you have 3 invoices,
InvoiceNo Balance
23             100000
45              20000
50              15000
Now your customer pays 50000 against invoice 23,
You can select that row in the Payment Screen and in the field 'Total Payment' you can type 50000 and goto Payment means and type 50000.
Now the invoice 23 will be still open. If you open the invoice, the 'Paid/Credited' will show '50000' and 'Balance Due' will show 50000 in the invoice document.
Now when you open Incoming Payments Screen again, the Invoice 23 will be shown with Balance of '50000'
You can repeat the above steps for Payment of 25000, 25000

Invoice tabs in po

hi,
i am new to sap pl help me
in po in item , in invoice tab-what are the use of below tab :-
inv-receipt
final invoice
gr-based iv
ers
Thanks in advance
Regards
Prashanth.v

Dear,
Due to spelling mistake i am reply second time
Ans:
Invoice Receipt: - When you want to create invoice receipt against purchase order at that time this indicator is very useful. If you not set this indicator you cant generate purchase order for material. Because GR-Bsd IV and Inv. Receipt is depend to each other.
Finally it is useful for invoice receipt.
Final Invoice : - If you have create invoice verification against purchase order than with help of this indicator is you indicate that this invoice verification is your final invoice verification, no more invoice verification against this purchase order.
GR-Bsd IV : - It is very useful indicator for purchase order.
If you not set this indicator you cant generate invoice verification with reference of good receipt.
Exa: If your purchase order is for 1000 Nos. and two different good receipt done for this purchase order. So you have for create two different invoice verification for two different good receipt or two different consignment but if you not set this indicator system not display both two good receipt against purchase order. So at the time of first invoice verification creation system not display any error for invoice verification but when you want to create second invoice verification you cant generate that.
So finally use of this indicator is that if two good receipt is created for one puurchase order and one invoice verification is created for one good receipt so at the time of second invoice verification for second You can't create invoice verification with reference of different good receipt
Remember : If you not set this indicator at the time of purchase order and two different good receipt created against this purchase order and for both good receipt invoice verification is required at different time at that time you cant create second invoice verification for second good receipt.
If it is useful for u, Please revert back.
Regards,
Mahesh Wagh

Structural authorization with Context Solution

Hey Guys,
I have a requirement. For an example, I would like to restrict IT 0001 access for write access. A Manager should have read and write access to IT 0001 only for personnel#s under his org unit (for which he has a 'chief' position). For other personnel#s, he should have only read access for IT 0001.
We would like to use Context Solution (P_ORGINCON authorization object). I have created a PD profile with O-S-P evaluation path and RH_GET_MANAGER_ASSIGNMENT as function module.
In role, authorization object P_ORGINCON would be having following values (which gives read and write access to IT 0001 for Manager's org unit):
Authorization Level - R, M, W, E, D, S
Infotype - 0001
Personnel Area - *
Employee Group - *
Employee Subgroup - *
Subtype - *
Organizational Key - *
Authorization Profile - PD_PROFILE_1
PD profile (PD_PROFILE_1) is restricted by RH_GET_MANAGER_ASSIGNMENT function module and so it gives list of personnel#s, a Manager is authorized for his org unit.
My questions:
1: For my requirement, what values should be in second authorization object, to have read only access for IT 0001 for all personnel#s? Do I have to use P_ORGINCON authorization object with Authorization Profile as '*'?
2: At the time of turning on HR switch (transaction OOAC, table T77S0) for INCON (HR: Master Data (Context)) to 1, do we have to turn off switch for ORGIN (HR: Master Data)?
3: If yes to question 2, do we have to update all transactions in SU24 to reflect P_ORGINCON for check/maintain instead of P_ORGIN? So, whenever we enter transaction code in a role thru PGCF, P_ORGINCON would be entered in authorization or it is not required.
Thanks,
Karan.

Hi Karan,
1: For my requirement, what values should be in second authorization object, to have read only access for IT 0001 for all personnel#s? Do I have to use P_ORGINCON authorization object with Authorization Profile as '*'?
I think you can use it.
2: At the time of turning on HR switch (transaction OOAC, table T77S0) for INCON (HR: Master Data (Context)) to 1, do we have to turn off switch for ORGIN (HR: Master Data)?
Yes you need to turn off the switch for ORGIN
3: If yes to question 2, do we have to update all transactions in SU24 to reflect P_ORGINCON for check/maintain instead of P_ORGIN? So, whenever we enter transaction code in a role thru PGCF, P_ORGINCON would be entered in authorization or it is not required.
You dont need to update in SU24

How to use authorization object P_PERNR ?

Hi, Gurus~
In our system, there is a user whose User ID is "00041", and she can modify her own 0008, we want to control it so that she can only display her own 0008, but process 0008 for all other employees
So, i use the authorization object P_PERNR to do this, i set the fields value like this (totally copy from the SAP help for P_PERNR....):
Authorization level: W,S,D,E
Infotype: 0008
Interpretation of assignment personnel number: E
Subtype: *
and then, i maintain her master data 0105's subtype 0001-system user name as 00041
i think she shouldn't maintain her own 0008 now ,but she still can maintain it
i want to know why and how to solve it, did i do it in the right way?
Thank you in advance!

P_PERNR   HR: Master Data - Personnel Number Check
You use the HR: Master Data - Personnel Number Check authorization object if you want to assign users different authorizations for accessing their own personnel number. If this check is active and the user is assigned a personnel number in the system, it can directly override all other checks with the exception of the test procedures.
The following values are possible for the PSIGN field:
I   =          Authorization for personnel number assigned, that is for own personnel number
E =          Authorization for all personnel numbers excluding own personnel number
You can assign a user a personnel number using infotype 0105, subtype 0001 (in earlier releases using the V_T513A view).
This check does not take place if the user has not been assigned a personnel number, or if the user accesses a personnel number other than his or her own. In other words, this check is completely irrelevant for personnel numbers that are not assigned to the user.
Example of Personnel Number Check P_PERNR
The authorization checks for P_ORGIN and P_PERNR are activated in the system. In addition, there are user assignments for some personnel numbers.
The user in our example is assigned a personnel number and is administrator responsible for the Basic Pay infotype (0008) of a personnel area (that is, the user has the corresponding P_ORGIN authorization). The employee should also be able to display his or her own data but not change his or her basic pay, irrespective of the personnel area for which the employee is responsible. The corresponding authorizations for the P_PERNR authorization object must be set up as follows: AUTHC = R, M
PSIGN = I
INFTY = *
SUBTY = * AUTHC = W, S, D, E
PSIGN = E
INFTY = 0008
SUBTY = *
In our example, the user is an administrator responsible for the basic pay (infotype 0008) of a personnel area (since the administrator has the corresponding HR: Master Data authorization). The employee should also be able to display his or her own data at all times but not change his or her basic pay, irrespective of the personnel area for which the employee is responsible. You need to set up the appropriate authorizations for the HR: Personnel Number Check object as shown in this example.
The first authorization grants the employee read authorization for all infotypes that are stored under the employee's personnel number. The second authorization denies write access to all data records of infotype 0008 for the employee's own personnel number in case the administrator is responsible at some point in the future for the personnel area to which he or she belongs.
As the following examples illustrate, inconsistent authorizations can be granted.
Example 1:
AUTHC = *
PSIGN = I
INFTY = 0014
SUBTY = M* AUTHC = W, S, D, E
PSIGN = E
INFTY = 0014
SUBTY = *
The first authorization grants the employee read authorization (AUTHC = R) for the Recurrent Payments/Deductions infotype (0014), subtype M120, which allows the employee to access the data stored under his or her personnel number. In this case, the second authorization is irrelevant.
The first authorization grants the employee write authorization (AUTHC = W) for the Recurrent Payments/Deductions infotype (0014), subtype B030, which denies the employee access to the data stored under his or her personnel number. In this case, the first authorization is irrelevant.
The first authorization grants the employee write authorization for the Recurrent Payments/Deductions infotype (0014), subtype M120, the second authorization denies the employee this authorization. The desired system response is unclear from this example. According to the documentation, the system response is undefined in such situations. In reality, the authorization check always denies authorization in unclear situations, that is E is stronger than I and therefore the authorization is not granted.
Example 2:
AUTHC = *
PSIGN = *
INFTY = *
SUBTY = *
This type of authorization is required by superusers with unlimited access, for example. The above authorization is appropriate if an employee wants to access an infotype. However, since PSIGN = * and * can be substituted for any value, PSIGN and E can also be interpreted as I. This can also lead to an undefined situation. In earlier releases, the authorization was denied on the basis of the rule E is stronger than I. This meant that superusers with assigned personnel numbers were not able to access their own personnel number. The programs have since been changed and now * is interpreted as I and is stronger than E. In other words, * is stronger than E and E is stronger than I, whereby * is interpreted as I.
As already indicated in Example 1, the combination of different authorizations can produce a complicated result. We therefore recommend that you avoid combinations where P_PERNR authorizations can be interpreted differently for the same combination of AUTHC(Authorization Level), INFTY(Infotype) and SUBTY (Subtype).
Misunderstandings arising from the complex situations described above are not the most frequent causes of customer inquiries, however. The most frequent cause is the incorrect assumption that authorizations by personnel number affect authorizations for non-assigned personnel numbers. This is not the case at all.
If you use authorizations by personnel number, you should always first set up all non-personnel number-related authorizations. As soon as you have done this, you should create different access authorizations for the personnel numbers that are assigned to users using appropriate P_PERNR authorizations. This is always possible since the P_PERNR authorizations override all other authorizations directly (except Test Procedures).
P_PERNR authorization checks cannot bypass test procedures directly. For instance, a test procedure is only carried out on the Recurring Payments/Deductions infotype (0014) if a corresponding P_PERNR authorization (with PSIGN = I) exists. If an appropriate authorization for the corresponding subtype of the infotype 0130 exists, it can be used effectively to carry out the test procedures.

IBNS with ISE, authorization issue

I'm running the 90-day ISE demo and trying to configure IBNS with it. I love the feel of the interface and almost instantly had a set of policies up and working fine. My issue is this:
I have an authorization service for machines so before a user logs in, their machine will authenticate to a list of machines in AD. This will give them guest/limited access.
I have a second authorization service for users. Once the user authenticates to AD, they should get access based on user group or other AD attributes. However once the user authenticates to AD, the previous authorization service that they had before is still enforced. The user is stuck with machine authorization. I figured that it was because the setting was "First Matched Rule Applies" so I switched to Multiple and now after the login, it still matches machine authorization but it now also matches on Default which will deny access...how can something match both authorized and default?
Because of that I have to make the machine authorization setting open to everything. Can anyone provide any guidance on this issue as config examples and such aren't out yet for ISE and the admin guide wasn't very helpful with this particular issue.
Thanks
Xavier

The problem is that when the user is authorised after the machine is authorised, he still gets Machine Access (number 6). The user is supposed to get Engineer Access based on the IBNS User Authorisation Rule in number 1.
Comparing 5 and 6, the username for 5 is host/machineName/domain which should be granted Machine Access based on how AD is set up (with a list of hostnames of Domain Computers). In number 6 the username is domain/username which indicates it's a domain user and so he should get engineer access. For some reason, ISE doesn't want to match with the new authorisation rule and just keeps the one that I had before.

Authorization for user on WF

HI All ,
I am using WF for invoice and I want that during the process the user will
assign it to other user .
my question is how it work with authorization i.e. if user 1 get the WF and send it to user
2 that don't have any authorization to display the invoice .
does it work or it fail that the user dont have authorization?
one more thing does the user need to have authorization for WF besides the business authorization
for invoice ?
Regards
Alex

Yes even as a end user you should haveenough roles to receive and process the workitems, aprat from the respective business process authorizations. As the workitems is a part of Org. management you should have right authorizations..
[PLease refer Sap Help Docu|http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/8c/1923d1932b11d2a5ea0060087a79ea/frameset.htm]

Selecting documents for Invoice based on Del. Note. - Issue

Hi Experts,
I am facing an authorization issue because of same Del. Note for different plants.
I have 2 plants : PLANT1, PLANT2
I have authorizations for Invoice in PLANT1 only.
Error Scenario:
Doing GRs in both plants under the same Del. Note.
i.e. in PLANT1, GR against a PO with Del.Note as 12345.
and in PLANT2, GR against some PO with Del.Note as 12345.
Now at the time of Invoice at PLANT1, If I try to fetch the document based on the Del. Note then I am getting Authorization error.
Because, what I see is that it is trying to list the documents from both the plants as they both have same Del. Note.
Please advise as to how this can be restricted.
Very urgent. Please advise.
Thanks,
Manju

Hi
In the MIRO Screen, Select the Delivery note reference.
Click on the Arrow Icon (More Allocation Criteria)
In the new screen enter the Delivery note & give the plant in the PlntOnly field.
This will fetch only the line items pertainig to that plant.
So no authorisation error will come as you have already restricted to the Plant.
Thanks & Regards
Kishore

Second authorization at invoicing

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for