BSI Tax Factory 10.0

[graziela]

Hello community,

If you have questions about TF 10.0, you can post this on this thread. We will update this thread with tips and notes related to Tax factory 10.0.

Thank you,

Kind regards,

Graziela Dondoni

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

All -

We just applied up to support pack 83 and we're running 10.e1

Then I tested the 'Synchronization Payroll Tax Data' program.

It did NOT work. I verified this by the fact that new entry in T5UTX for tax authority ME 10 was not inserted as expected (in TUB 44).

I opened an incident with SAP in November which I did not ever receive a response on . Back then I was still on 10.d I believe. I proceeded with the e1 Cyclic and the support packs anyway, hoping to finally get a good result.

What recourse do we have a this point?

Tammy

[graziela · Accepted solution]

Hi Tammy,

I replied your incident on 02.12.2014.
You mentioned that it was solved.

Are you using SE16 transaction to check the entries?

Thank you,
Graziela

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Graziela,

What incident are you referring too from 02.12.2014?

I'm referring to 1117722 / 2014 that was created on 20.11.2014 - 10:21:44 UTC-5

I am using SE16 to check the entries. Is there something I need to check in the BSI TaxFactory tables?

Tammy

[graziela · Accepted solution]

Hi Tammy,

You opened that incident to BSI, under component XX-PART-BSI-TFY.

SAP doesn´t have acess to the incidents that are opened using this component, just PY-US-BSI.

However, I can see they sent an info to you.

You can ask to BSI to send this mentioned incident to SAP side or create a new one under PY-US_BSI and I will check this for you.

Anyway, I would recommend to you to apply the note:

2125327 - BSI: Sync Payroll Tax Data generates a short dump when BSI version is not specified

There are some fixes in the tool including an error in T5UTX update.

Thank you,
Graziela

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Graziela,

Prior to the new Synchronize Payroll Tax Data tool, I was used to seeing new entries in SAP, table T5UTX after the import of the transports for TUB. For instance, when I apply the transports for TUB 44, an entry is inserted for Tax Authority ME, TaxType 10, with date range 01-01-2015 - 12-31-9999. Now with the sync tool, which I believe pulls from BSI tables, does there have to be an entry in BTXRATE for Tax Authority ME, TaxType 10? It would be beneficial to understand the linkage between BSI and SAP, to know if the tool is working or not, since it does behave differently than directly applying the transports from SAP.

Thank You,

Tammy

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Graziela,

I have applied note 2125327. I am still finding errors in the Synchronize Payroll Tax Data log, like "It was not possible to insert entry "300KY09KY CFayette....". The entry exists in SAP, so I deleted it. The program then reports a new error for another entry. I've done this three times now. I would hope this is not normal behavior. What is the recommendation for this?

Tammy

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Tammy,

I am experiencing similar issues myself. Do you know how, when there is a new tax authority, we will know what the SAP code should be so as to map it in TF10 for input to the Sync tool? Will SAP provide this information in a TUB note as they do now except without transports? Thanks for your help.

Michael

[graziela · Accepted solution]

Hi Tammy,

Is this error for T5UTD? If so, I´m trying to reproduce in house.

Regarding the way the tools works, It takes the information from BSI side, to update the SAP side.
BTXRATE is not update by TUBs, this table is used to override the entries in T5UTX. So, you will not see this update in this table.

Thank you,
Graziela

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Graziela,

The error with the red icon in the program log is on table T5UTZ. There are also 3,345 warnings. In an earlier conversation, I believe you stated that an error will cause the program to rollback and not changes are applied. Three times, I found the records in T5UTZ, and then deleted them as a test to see the program behavior. The record in question was not reported in error, but it would then report a new one.

Thank you,

Tammy

P.S., I have open incident also: 1117722/2014.

[graziela · Accepted solution]

Hi Tammy,

I already took over the incident. I saw that has been sent to SAP.

It is in customer action with some requests.

Thank you,
Grazi

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Michael,

I wish I could answer your question; I am still trying to decipher myself how the program is intended to work in relation to mappings and BSI table data. From my understanding, SAP TUBS will be discontinued on April 1st, so we all need some answers on questions such as this prior to the deadline.

Tammy

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Grazeia,

I received an e-mail from SAP this morning, and logged in and I believe I supplied the requested information.

Thank you,

Tammy

[xavier_joseph · Accepted solution]

Still I don't understand Why SAP has come with effective date on the selection screen rather than the TUB #. This is a pain if you have all the localities and 50 states. I am still strugling since we operate in 50 states and almost all the localities in the country.

[former_member63719 · Accepted solution]

Graziela,

We are getting the same error Tammy is. Could you share the steps to resolve this and point us to any other documentation that will assist in properly positioning us to successfully use the Sync Tool now and in the future?

Thanks,

Jean

[graziela · Accepted solution]

Hi Jean,

Once I finished my analyses I will let you know.

Thank you,
Graziela

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Graziela,

Do you know how, when there is a new tax authority, we will know what the SAP code should be so as to map it in TF10 for input to the Sync tool? Will SAP provide this information in a TUB note as they do now except without transports? Thanks for your help.

Thanks,

Michael

[graziela · Accepted solution]

Hello Michael,

As per SAP note:

2101719 - BSI: Sync. Payroll Tax Data dependencies on BSI Tax Type mappings

From now on, the BTXTAX, BTXTAXT, and T5UTT tables will no longer be updated by the Synchronize Payroll Tax Data report. This eliminates the dependency on the tax type mappings in the BSI TaxFactory instance. The updates to the BTXTAXT and T5UTT tables will be provided in a separate SAP Note whenever BSI releases a new tax type in a Regulatory Bulletin. Table BTXTAX is no longer used by the system and its maintenance will therefore be deprecated.

Hope this clarifies,

Kind regards,
Graziela

[alicia_robinson · Accepted solution]

Is anyone still having issues with Indiana and Ohio local taxes calculating with BSI 10? We are currently on cyclic E2, but can't seem to get IN/OH taxes to work as they did in BSI 9 especially if a person lives in an IN local and works in an OH local.

Thanks!

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Graziela,

Thank you for this information regarding tax types. My question is regarding BTXTAXC which is for tax authority mapping. How will this table be updated with the 4 character tax authority code that maps to the numeric BSI tax authority code? Today, the information is provided in the TUB note from which we map the defined codes in BSi TF10. Will this information come in a separate note?

Thanks,

Michael

[Felipe-Costa · Accepted solution]

Hi Michael,

You can check the new mappings in the 'General Messages' node of the output log after executing the tool. Alternatively , you can check this information using the view V_T5UTZC, with the subapplication TMAP. The BSI code is listed under the "Code Identifier" field.

Best Regards,

Felipe.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Felipe,

Thank you for this information. Currently when there is a new tax authority, table BTXTAXC is updated by a transport provided by SAP. The question remains, for new tax authorities without the SAP code provided, how can the SAP to BSI mapping be accomplished in TF10 and how will table BTXTAXC be updated? I do not see this table referenced by the tool. Am I missing something?

Thanks,

Michael

[Euna · Accepted solution]

Tammy, Jean & Graziela,

I think we resolved that issue by applying T5UTZ(cumulative) to 300. (I think it was both 000 and 300, but my BASIS thinks it was only 300. He probably knows better.)

I guess you can try 300 first?

Regards,

Euna

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Euna, Graziela,

Euna's suggestion to "applying T5UTZ(cumulative) to 300" is not clear to me (or there os more to read between the lines).

Therefore Graziela, I'm still expecting a call back from you on my SAP incident so I talk through this in person so I have a better understanding. I also have general questions about the process in general, like am I supposed to have a client 000 data set in the TaxFactory?

Somewhere along the lines, I missed some basic documentation I believe. I worked with BSI extensively for the initial installation and saw their documentation, but the one SAP document I have for how to use the new sync tool is lacking I believe in some aspects.

Thank you Euna!

I look forward to talking to you Graziela!

Tammy

[former_member63719 · Accepted solution]

Hi Graziela, I was wondering how your analysis is going. I'm getting concerned that the date when TUBS are no longer delivered is drawing near and I don't know how to get the sync tool to run in my environment.

I appreciate your time,

Jean

[dick_haber · Accepted solution]

Tammy,

I have the exact same issue with an error stating "It was not possible to insert entry 300KY09KY CFayette".

Were you able to fix this?

If you were can you please describe how you fixed it?

Thanks.

Dick

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Dick

I think you probably should open a high priority incident with SAP.

I can't say for sure which notes eventually corrected that specific error for us.

I can say we applied up to SP 83 and then required two more pilot notes after that.

Tammy

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Graziela,

I have submitted an incident request to SAP for resolutio of an issue with table T5UTD that occurrs after a productive run of the sysc tool for the client specific tables. When I executed the program in the productive mode for TUB 46, the entries that were created by the program for table T5UTD contain blanks in the formula number field and the date ranges overlap the existing entries in the table. 12/31/2014 is being chosen as the end date for the inserted entries regardless of the begin date. This error leads to payroll receiving an error when it encounters one of the entries that has blanks in the formula number. Do you know of a correction for this scenario? I have had to restore my T5UTD table back to its original form and cannot use the sync tool at this time. Thanks for your help.

Best regards, Michael Nunnally

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Has there been a response to the problem Michael Nunnally reported in post 869? We are having the exact same issue.

Regards,

Sharon

[cassigiani · Accepted solution]

Hello Sharon,

SAP Note 2069358 - 'BSI: Corrections in Synchronize Payroll Tax Data report' should solve the issue with formular number on table T5UTD.

Could you please implement it and retest the scenario?

If the issue is with the transport, then SAP Note 2128332 - 'BSI: Sync Payroll Tax Data does not save new client-specific data in transport' should be implemented.

Regards,
Cassiana.

[cassigiani · Accepted solution]

Hello everyone,

In case any of you are facing issues with client-specific transports when using the sync tool, SAP Note 2128332 - 'BSI: Sync Payroll Tax Data does not save new client-specific data in transport' may solve the issue.

It was released today.

Regards,

Cassiana.

[cassigiani]

Dear community,

If you would like to change your licensed platform version, or any of the following:
- Change the database provider.
- Extend the support service with BSI.
- Install BSI in your operating system.
- Extend your BSI access as it is about to expire.

For all of these scenarios, you must contact your SAP Account Executive.
The SAP Account Executive will then proceed with contacting the BSI contracts department with the respective request to take the necessary actions.

This is explained in Knowledge Base Article 1892911 - Support Services from BSI (BSI license, upgrade, installation, access, download).

Regards,
Cassiana.

[he_vis]

BSI has released Cyclic M.

In the notes, I see that Tomcat 8.0 will be in support.

On the Apache Tomcat site, I see that 8.0 is superseded by 8.5.

Who can say something for pro and con of 8.0/8.5? We currently have 7.

Thanks in advance.

[he_vis]

Tomcat 8.5x is not yet supported.

[Maggie3654]

We are in the process of apply 79 which states that for various PA locals the reciprocal formula data has been modified to not return either taxable or reportable wages when the tax liability is zero. I have an who lives in the PB50 (LowerMakefield, Buck) and he works in NJ. Since he has no tax liability I would expect to not see any taxable wages for the PA locals. I am stilling seeing the taxable wages. Is anyone else seeing this and how did you resolve it?

Regards,

Margaret

[alicia_robinson]

Margaret -

There is a reply from Graziela that mentions TUB 84. You might need to apply up to this one to make this work for you. We had applied up to 83 and had to stop because of the same problem.

[Maggie3654]

Thank you Alicia! I need to decide if I go ahead and implement up to 83 and say there are no changes for the PA locals and then do 84 and 85 and test this change at that point.

Regards,

Margaret

[alicia_robinson]

Margaret -

You may want to investigate your PA EE's a little closer, especially if you have EE's who live/work in separate PA locals with a "0" rate.

This was our issue:

EE res = PA53, wrk = PAE6

BEFORE TUBs the system created PA53 wages

AFTER TUBS the system stops PA53 /701 wages (still builds /301, /601) and now creates wages for PAE6 (/301, /601, /701).

We have not built wages for PAE6 all year and do not want to start now. I'm also curious in the TUB 84 also stops the /301 and /601 wages from building for all the "0" rate authorities.

[Maggie3654]

Alicia,

Once again, Thank you! I am heeding your advice and will implement up to 83 since it does not change our PA locals. This will give me more time to closely examine the changes brought about with 84. We do have employees who live and work in separate PA locals with zero rates. I rather be safe than sorry.

Regards,

Margaret

[alicia_robinson]

Margaret -

I just want to make sure you understand - we are implemented up to 83 and cyclic L and we have the issue with the multiple "0" PA locals.

My understanding is that TUB 84 is supposed to correct the issue of the taxable wages being created for the "0" PA local. I can't get TUB 84 applied until early next week so I can't test to see if this truly does resolve the issue.

[Maggie3654]

Alicia,

For my testing, I went to our production environment and for each company and we have approx 25, I copied down one test employee for each tax combination we have for each company. We then use the variance monitor to simulate the payrolls for these employees for our last payroll and compare against the original results. We then get a report of any taxes that are not the same. For those differences I then check to see if they are due to an update that we are implementing. I then check to see if all the differences we were expecting appeared on our report. One of them which I expected was for the employee who lives in PB50, has taxable wages but no tax, and works in NJ to no longer have taxable wages for PB50. But he still does. I did not have any differences that I could not explain. or was not expecting. If we had the situation you are describing, I would have had new taxable wages that I hadn't of had when we ran our payroll without the updates. But we didn't so I feel comfortable that I am not seeing the issues you are experiencing. I am okay with still having the taxable wages in the situation I described. I will implement 84 later and see if I have the changes I expected to see.

Regards,

Margaret

[alicia_robinson]

Margaret -

I totally understand - just wanted to make sure I was making sense. We use the exact same process for testing using variance monitor (it's a life saver for us). We have a very high EE population in PA and have approx. 30 different combinations that are issues with the "0" rate (not 30 EE's). We currently have 1700+ different tax combinations with our 55,000+ population and it's almost gotten to the point that we have to test all 1700 scenarios every time we implement a TUB/cyclic for fear of missing something and getting bitten in our production environment. The constant reciprocity changes are what are hurting us the most along with random issues that have been popping up since the first of the year (cross year retro notes). You could say I'm just a little frustrated with taxes.

I hope to test out TUB 84 the first of next week and will reply with the outcome.

[former_member274971]

Concerning the reciprocity issue, I received a response from SAP this morning stating that OSS note 2313491 is the cause of the problem. They have released a pilot note, 2351550 to correct the problem.

If anyone is having this issue and has not created an incident, you may want to and request this pilot note to see if your issue is corrected.

Andrew Taylor

[rick_megaro]

Does Tub 084 have anything to do with this mess?

[xavier_joseph]

Did anyone apply 2351550? I am just curious to see the outcome.

[former_member274971]

RE 1258

My Basis team is applying the note right now, when done I will test and will post whether or not it fixed the reciprocity issue. Hopefully it will not cause other issues.

[ConeC]

We have applied pilot note 2351550 (Tax Incorrect Value on Certificate Code RC) and it has resolved the reciprocity issues we were experiencing with the following:

Work Live

PA NJ

NJ PA

MI WI

PC5Z NJ

IL WI

Now the system is taxing the resident authority.

[former_member274971]

I have tested the pilot note for the reciprocity issues and it appears to resolve the issues the previous note caused and I cannot see any new issues created.

I tested:
Work and live in 2 different states with the IT0234 delimited

Work and live in 2 different states with the IT0234 still valid

A person who works and lives in the same state, to make sure the taxes calculated the same

And a MO resident working in IL to calculate only the IL tax.

All tests were successful.

[xavier_joseph]

When you say taxing resident authority... do you mean based on regulations or an issue?

[former_member274971]

SAP just updated my incident stating that they are going to set the note for general release based on my and others feedback.

[ConeC]

Xavier,

The system is now taxing the resident authority as designated by the reciprocal agreement of the two states.

Thanks

[xavier_joseph]

Thanks Cherylnita.

[graziela]

Hello community,

Developer is working on SAP note 2231550 doing some additional tests. Once this is released to customer, I will post on this thread.

Thank you,
Graziela

[aida_alonso]

As for our testing, we found that the note did resolve the issue except where the Resident State was IN and Work State was different. In this case, we needed to created related T5UTRC entries for the various IN / Work State combinations we had.

[stevenan]

We have also applied the note and all issues are resolved. I had created work around reciprocal overrides in BSI but those are not by company whereas SAP configuration is. These entries resolved the problem but now they are no longer needed.

Best regards,

Anna Stevenson

[he_vis]

In the latest Regular Bulletins, BSI recommends the following:

Keeping all messages in your Message Viewer may use all available database free space. BSI recommends monitoring table spaces and clearing old messages that are no longer required to prevent this from happening.

We can indeed remove quite some old messages, but we must know if removing affects performance. Does anyone have experience with removing e.g. 50,000 messages?

Thanks in advance for the answer.

Regards,

Hans Eric Vis

[graziela]

Hello community,

Note 2351550 has been released.

Kind regards,

Graziela

[he_vis]

Deleting in PRD took some seven hours for 14.000 messages.

.

[alicia_robinson]

Margaret -

Just curious to see if you have any issues with the "0" rate PA locals still creating /701 for Supplemental wage type items.

We applied TUB 84 and it does resolve the issue of creating wages when we had a person who lived and worked in 2 separate "0" rate PA locals. However, we have noticed that for wage types that we have marked as supplemental the /701 is still being created.

Thanks!

[former_member240062]

Anna,

We had the same issue and this note fixed the issue - 2302287. Additional notes brought in

1. 2289441

2. 2221567

Thanks

Kumar

[Former Member]

We are in the process of applying cyclic M, upgrading from K. We have discovered that for our salary population, the /810 and /840 are no longer generated post upgrade. The hourly population continues to behave normally. Has any one experienced this?

Thanks.

[Brandyn_Richmon]

HI All,

We are currently upgrading from Enhancement Pack 6 to Enhancement Pack 8. As part of this upgrade we are also updating to the latest cyclic and bulletin.

Current Cyclic i (going to cyclic L)

Current Bulletin 68 (going to 83)

Our BASIS support is asking if its best practice to just treat this as a new installation (i.e. from scratch) versus reinstalling our current level cyclic/bulletin and then upgrading to latest cyclic/bulletin.

Has anyone experienced this yet? Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Brandyn

[Matt_Fraser]

As the major portion of the Cyclic and Bulletin data is in the TaxFactory system and not your ABAP system, why would you reinstall that? Why not apply the latest cyclic and bulletin, upgrade your ABAP system as intended, and use the Sync Tool to bring over the relevant bulletin data into the ABAP system as normal?

[Brandyn_Richmon]

HI Matt,

The comments from my BASIS support are below. I think because of the new server environment.

Do you think its better to go another direction? Your comments are appreciated.

==================================================================

Currently we have completed only the migration of sap instance(ECC6) to the new windows 2012 server.

As part of that migration, only sap schema/tables are migrated. No BSI tables /schema were migrated.

Now EHP8 upgrade has been started on the new Dev server. It will take few days for the completion.

After the upgrade completion, we can install BSI from scratch on the new server and restore any BSI datasets from old Dev server.

For this process, If we can request procedure directly from BSI, it can be easier on our part.

=================================================================

Thanks,

Brandyn

[Matt_Fraser]

Ah, ok, now I understand. In this circumstance, it may be easier to just reinstall BSI from scratch. It's probably about the same level of work to copy/migrate it as to reinstall it. It really depends on whether your payroll office needs to maintain the logs of pay runs that exist in the BSI database.

In my environment, we have BSI on a separate, dedicated server, so it's not directly impacted by any upgrades or migrations that occur on the ABAP system, except for any hostname changes in ACL files that need to occur for the gateway, etc.

Also in my environment, our payroll office doesn't ever directly access BSI. They only use the logs and such that are in the ABAP system. So, if the logs on BSI go away, they don't even notice nor do they care. This is why, when I upgraded BSI from TF9 to TF10, I didn't actually upgrade. I started over on the new release to keep things simpler.

[Brandyn_Richmon]

Hi Matt,

I received similar feedback from BSI. If going to a new server, it's best to just install the latest cyclic and backup/restore your old data sets. Thanks for your input.

Brandyn

[Former Member]

Hello All,

Does SAP or BSI offer a separate type of Tax Factory license for SAP Test and Demo environments? We have a non-productive demo system where we would like to have Tax Factory installed.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Regards,

Chirag

[ConeC]

It has been brought to my attention that our end users are receiving a Tax Locator error when entering new hires or address changes.

Message 8 - Authority returned by BSI: BSI0, was not found in a tax area
Message 13 - Authority returned by BSI: BSI0, was not found in a tax authority table

Also, there are no tax authorities being presented for selection.

From my conversations this issue appeared before our upgrade to Cyclic K, but I am not sure of an exact time frame. From my testing, in BSI Mapping Tools > Map Tax Codes > the equivalent of SAP Tax Authority has to be selected as the "Preferred Status" to have the authorities present in Tax Locator.

I do not know if our preferences were previously noted and wiped out by mistake or is this a functionality change. Has anyone else experienced this issue?

[manish_kumar13]

Hello All,

We are on cyclic L and the Tubs level is 83, on processing payroll to an employee from the CT region we see that there is an error which is generated. Has anyone come across the same error and if yes can you guide us to resolve it..

9002

ERROR IN SELECT FROM BTXBGRP FOR 00090000 - SQL CODE IS 1403

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Manish M.

[former_member10768]

Hello Guys,

I have just found a KBA to solve a BSI connection issue.

If you come to face the error below when running a connection test on the transaction SM59.

"CPIC-CALL: 'ThSAPCMRCV' no data received"

The KBA 2330299 - RFC Connection test fails for BSI which was released in the middle of June fixes the issue.

Just follow the steps on this document and things should work fine.

Cheers!

[Former Member]

We have installed cyclic L in our test system and are having significant performance (slow calls) issues with it. Has anyone else installed L? We are creating an OSS message later today.

[Former Member]

Jeff -

I believe you are referring to the call from SAP to BSI. We have recently installed cyclic L but no issues related to slow calls so far. The only issue we have after the update is with mapping of Tax codes. It gives a message 'Please wait while data loads' and the data never loads so we are not able to map any missing tax authority.

We will check again later and raise to BSI support if the issue still exists.

Thanks,

Mitesh

[DipeshMistry1]

Hi Mitesh,

We had the same problem of the message appearing "Please wait while data loads' when we access the BSI Web client using Internet Explorer browser.

However, this message does not appear when you use Google Chrome and were able to load & map tax authority mappings.

Please try accessing the BSI Web Client using Chrome browser. This should solve your problem.

Regards,

Dipesh.

[Former Member]

Thanks Dipesh. Appreciate the quick response. Unfortunately for us IE is the only option, so will check if there is any other way to get this resolved.

[Former Member]

I read an old reply from Anna Stevenson on how to resolve this issue.

If you are using IE and facing an issue with mapping of Tax codes where it just displays 'Please wait while data loads', you need to switch off the compatibility settings and issue would be resolved. Also, the other option is to use Google Chrome.

[stevenan]

Hello, Mitesh -

I no longer use IE and our IT department recommends Google Chrome over IE. I have not had issues since using GC. The BSI client works slightly different in GC vs. IE but you get used to it.

Thanks, Anna

[ConeC]

We recently applied BSI 10k and TUBs 76 - 80. Before the upgrade employees that worked in IL and lived in WI had taxes only withheld in WI. After the upgrade these employees are being taxed in IL.

I have confirmed that table T5UTRC is work IL reside in WI is set to 1. There is a reciprocity agreement between these two states. Has anyone else encountered this issue?

And/or does anyone have suggestion on how to resolve? I have reached out to BSI and they noted to confirm that the Nexus and RC codes are 1. I confirmed the NX code of 1 is being passed on the work state. There had been no changes to the employees master data before the upgrade.

[ConeC]

I found the solution to this issue Work in IL Live in WI. It required an update to the Payroll Schema, USTAX Parameter 4. I referenced SAP Note 2058305 where the same scenario was occurring for Washington, DC.

This is a change to BSI functionality before we applied the Cyclic K the certificate status was not required on IT234 to pull the WI taxes.

[Former Member]

Hello,

We are in the process of upgrading the TaxFactory Cyclic from 10.0.G to 10.0.L. The latest version of Regulatory bulletin in our system is 75.

We are first trying to update the Regulatory bulletin level from 75 to 77 and then start with the cyclic update L. There is an issue after applying updating TUB 76 as even after the successful update, the bulletin level in system tools is still at 75. Because of this issue, we are not be able to apply TUB 77.

The sync program in SAP is displaying the Regulatory Bulletin Information as below:

Level in BSI Client:	BSI TaxFactory 10.0.g | Cyclic G | Regulatory 076 | Tax Locator N/A
Cross-client Tables:	BSI TaxFactory 10.0.g | Cyclic G | Regulatory 075 | Tax Locator N/A

Client-specific Tables: BSI TaxFactory 10.0.g | Cyclic G | Regulatory 075 | Tax Locator N/A

So we think the bulletin level has been updated somewhere in the BSI TaxFactory as it gets picked by SAP but not displayed correctly in the system tools. Has anyone faced this issue and can provide some information on how this can be solved?

Thanks,

Mitesh

[stevenan]

Hello, Mitesh -

We have not had this issue but we always apply the cyclic first and then the TUBs.

I think you should try applying the cyclic bulletin first and then apply the tax update bulletins. There have been some mandatory cyclic updates between g and k that were required due to data format changes and this can affect the application of TUB data.

Hope this helps!

Anna

[Former Member]

Thank you Anna! We had thought of the same approach but were not sure if it would cause any issue. I think we will give this a try and see if the issue is resolved.

Thanks again for looking into this!!

[alicia_robinson]

FYI....TUB 81 has incorrect changes.

If you have employees impacted by the Harrisburg, PA changes within TUB 81 then you may want to delay applying TUB 81. We had received a notification from Harrisburg PA about the changes and they did not match what BSI released in TUB 81. I sent a request to BSI on 6/15 questioning the discrepancy and had to request an update this morning. BSI's reply is "the issue will be resolved in the next up and coming bulleting which is scheduled to be released no later than the end of this month".

Thanks,

Alicia

[jwiblepasshe22]

Alicia, we (PASSHE) and the Commonwealth of PA are aware of the issue with the $156 annual limit not being enforced at the end of the year but since we are Harrisburg based we had to apply TUB 81 anyway, supposedly the limit fix will be in TUB 83. Did you experience some other issues?

[alicia_robinson]

Jeff -

We haven't applied TUB 81 just yet. We were preparing to apply Cyclic K and several TUBs, but wanted to confirm this deduction beforehand as it would likely upset our Harrisburg population. We were concerned because of TUB 81 stating a $250 deduction that was set to start 7/1/16 when our documentation stated it was supposed to be a $156 deduction. That was too large of a difference for us to not question.

Thanks,

Alicia

[jwiblepasshe22]

Article from Harrisburg Patriot News/PennLive.com:

Alicia, you are correct the Tub description was a bit confusing but after testing we found that the weekly deduction is $5, (or for us $10 biweekly) which is correct for the rest of 2016. It will then revert to $3.00 weekly deduction on 1/1/2017.

[alicia_robinson]

Jeff -

Thanks for that insight! We just didn't want to apply and have our DEV system stuck with the issue until BSI fixed it. We will get it applied and make sure we get the same result for our biweekly payroll.

One question - if the bulletin is actually letting you withhold the correct amount ($10 biweekly), then what fix will be in TUB 83?

Thanks,

Alicia

[jwiblepasshe22]

Alicia, I'm not entirely certain but I believe it has to do with people who move from one LST tax area into Harrisburg and may exceed the max for this year. The Commonwealth discovered this but it was in their weekly payroll that actually has a first pay date of 7/1/16 so it should not be very impactful.

[Venkat61]

We have DB on development server and we upgraded to TF10K to TF10L. Before the upgrade our DEV and QA systems were both connected to it and working. After upgrade to L, DEV is working fine and QA is not working. we are getting RFC connection error. Anybody has this this kind of issue?

[stacey_degarmo]

Hello,

Has anyone had issues installing the latest (mandatory) Cyclic "L"?

Our Basis Team installed Cyclic "L" in our test system (appeared successful from their side) but both the SM50 connection and RPUBTCU0 are failing. Basis also noticed the file size between Cyclic K and L appeared significantly different. We reverted back to "K" and that works fine so it appears to be related to "L" somehow.

We had already upgraded to the new SAP NetWeaver RFC Library back in April. We did submit a ticket to BSI and they initially referenced that the error occurs because the new RFC Libraries are not being found by the application and to look at Note 2219445. However, after updating them that we are on the latest RFC Libraries; Version 39 released on 04/20/2016, they advised that we should submit an Incident to SAP and identify we are on this version of RFC Libraries and Note 2219445 so they can provide us with assistance. The deadline for this Cyclic is June 23rd.

Any assistance is greatly appreciated!

Stacey

[Former Member]

At first glance...

Check the executables named in your tf10server batch files. Make sure you're calling the new exe and that the name is correct.

If that looks good, enable debug mode, check the RFC again, then review the contents of the debug log file on the server from which you ran the RFC test.

mike

[stacey_degarmo]

Mike, thank you for your response. However, we use Linux rather than Windows. Here is a screenshot from our TF10server.csh.

Any suggestions?

Thank you,

Stacey

[michael_sharrar]

Stacey DeGarmo wrote:

Mike, thank you for your response.  However, we use Linux rather than Windows.  Here is a screenshot from our TF10server.csh.
Any suggestions?

Thank you,
Stacey

With cyclic L I had to add the NWRFCSDK path to LD_LIBRARY_PATH within tf10server.csh and tf10server.ksh scripts. In our case, this is how we set that environment variable:

setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH /oracle/DCA/11204/lib:/sapmnt/DCA/exe/nwfrcsdk/lib

If you use ldd to find the library dependencies for tf10server you'll see that it needs to have libsapnwrfc.so available now. That wasn't the case with the previous version.

Also, if you set all 4 environment variables listed in the script at the command line and then execute tf10server.csh manually you should see if there is a library dependency issue. If there is no response at the command line then the script is working correctly. The RFC connection test should be successful at that point.

Regards,

Mike

[Former Member]

Stacey,

We are having the exact same issue as you after updating from K to L we are also on Linux and I had my Basis guy check that the libsapnwrsf.so is in our path already.

Have you found a solution yet or talked to BSI?

Our Basis guy will be logging a ticket with BSI but not until Monday.

Thanks,

Martha.

[sivakumar_kannan3]

Hi Martha

I work with Stacey and she has asked to to reply to this thread.

Steps to Resolve = SM59 BSI connection Issue.

1. Download & Extract the Latest NWRFC Library from SAP Service Market (NWRFC_39-20004565.SAR).

2. Folder Structure = nwrfcsdk/lib (Copy this folder nwrfcsdk and place it in your kernel directory

either = /sapmnt/<SID>/exe/nwrfcsdk/lib or /sapmnt<SID>/exe/uc/linuxx86_64/nwrfcsdk/lib

3. Now edit the tf10server.csh and add the following line

setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH :/sapmnt<SID>/exe/uc/linuxx86_64/nwrfcsdk/lib.

This should resolve your error.

Regards

Siva

SAP Basis

[Former Member]

Sivakumar,

Thank you so much for your quick and detailed reply I greatly appreciate that. I have forwarded your steps onto my Basis guy and hope for a resolve soon.

Thanks again,

Martha.

[Former Member]

Sivakumar,

Thank you so much once again. Your steps help to resolve our issue and we are working again.

For us downloading the latest NWRFC library was the key.

Thank you,

Martha.

[evelyn_barbosa]

Hi everyone,

Wondering if anyone is encountering the following warning message in BSI :

2103 - FINAL PAYCHECK NET AMOUNT WAS NOT CALCULATED BECAUSE GROSS WAGES AMOUNT WAS NOT PROVIDED.

I am not finding much information on this message...any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Evelyn

[former_member187573]

We are getting message 1005 that our request to use Formula 2 for WA is not allowed. We cannot determine where this is coming from as wherever we check, we are using Formula 1. Can you please advise what we have missed.

Most appreciated.

Connie

[greg_zifchock]

Can someone at BSI explain why there is no correlation between
the BSI web release package and system tools for Tax Locator? This is somewhat
annoying in determining if we have the most recent package installed. Unless I
have a translation table saved I can’t tell by looking at the notice and system
tools. For Regulatory Bulletins and Cyclic releases this isn’t a problem
because they are one for one.

	BSI Website Announcement	BSI System Tools
Regulatory Bulletin	BSI TaxFactory™ Release 10.0 Regulatory Bulletin Number 77	Regulatory bulletin is : 77
Cyclic Release	BSI TaxFactory™ 10.0.k Cyclic Bulletin	Cyclic is : K
Tax Locator	TFL10079.pkg	Locator package is : 37

Thanks,

Greg

[jhkoch]

Does anyone have employees working in DC but living in Maryland and Virginia? Prior to putting in the year end support packs, these employees had Maryland or Virginia tax taken, not DC. To make this work we had the T5UTRC entry set to blank (or 0). (Those were the only entries on the table that we had to do this to...the rest are all 1.) After putting in the support packs, it started taking DC taxes and not MD or VA. BSI said we need to pass the RC parameter with a 3. It's currently sending a 0. I changed the T5UTRC entry to a 1, and it still is passing a 3. (It doesn't take DC tax but it doesn't take the MD tax either.) The NX entry is a 0 also regardless of what value I choose.

Does anyone know which area of config controls the RC parameter? Is there documentation anywhere on how SAP translates the various tax configuration values into BSI parameters?

[alicia_robinson]

John -

We had this same problem with one of the BSI upgrades - can't remember but think it was BSI 9.0. We don't use the T5UTRC table except for just a few entries that wouldn't work any other way. All of our set ups are in the "Reciprocal Overrides" in the BSI side. This tax combo is one of our biggest set-ups so I feel your pain. We are currently using the override "B" and this allows MD, MD locals, and VA taxes to be withheld.

I hope this helps!

[ConeC]

John,

Did you receive a resolution for your issue in post 1133 work in DC, live in MD? If so, can you provide the solution. I am having reciprocity issues after applying Cyclic K with the following:

Reside Work

PA NJ

WI IL

PC5Z NJ

MI WI

I know if I update the schema USTAX in the schema and use parameter 4 (2) in conjunction with IT234 certificate status it will force the RC (1) indicator across the BSI interface in the ADC record if there is a certificate on file. However, I would like this to be my last option to prevent additional master data entry. (See post 1171 and 1173). I have manipulated tables V_T5UTRC and V_T5UX9_COUWH with multiple scenarios and still these employees are not taxing in the resident tax authority as they were before the move to Cyclic K.

Thanks

[ConeC]

John,

Did you receive a resolution for your issue in post 1133 work in DC, live in MD? If so, can you provide the solution. I am having reciprocity issues after applying Cyclic K with the following:

Reside Work

PA NJ

WI IL

PC5Z NJ

MI WI

I know if I update the schema USTAX in the schema and use parameter 4 (2) in conjunction with IT234 certificate status it will force the RC (1) indicator across the BSI interface in the ADC record if there is a certificate on file. However, I would like this to be my last option to prevent additional master data entry. (See post 1171 and 1173). I have manipulated tables V_T5UTRC and V_T5UX9_COUWH with multiple scenarios and still these employees are not taxing in the resident tax authority as they were before the move to Cyclic K.

Thanks

[jhkoch]

No. Someone recommended doing a reciprocity override but we haven't tried that yet. We didn't have issues with anything other than DC. I would guess we have employees in a few of the examples you gave above but didn't have any issues with them.

[former_member274971]

Hello All;

We are experiencing the reciprocity error as well. We have seen it in MI / OH, where prior the employee was paying MI w/h now they are paying OH w/h. Same with VA /MD. I am getting this 1015 message in payroll in the BSI interface stating a certificate of non-residence is required. I have that set up in my Development system on the IT0234, Certificate Status = 1. No change in the payroll output. I have verified we have a Nexus set up between the states in question and have tried all the different options in the T5UX9_COUWH table. No differences.

Also, I have not seen any mention of this occurring in the Regulatory or Cyclic documentation, we are on 10.K TUB 80 now, nor do I see any mention of it or a correction in the documentation for cyclic L or TUBs 81 - 83.

Does anyone know if SAP or BSI have been looking into this? Have Incidents been submitted to either party?

Thanks for any information

Andrew Taylor

[former_member274971]

Good Morning;

As per previous posts I have verified that changing parameter 4 on USTAX will correct the issue, however that will require a lot of master data changes due to the number of employees affected.

It appears the value of "1" in parameter 4 no longer works and I am wondering if this is due to the OSS note that added the option of Certificate Status = "4" on IT0234 for Missouri residents working in Illinois in order to not get taxed in both states.

Has anyone put in an OSS Incident on this? If so, please let me know your incident #. I plan on entering one and would like to reference other incidents for the same issue.

Thanks,

Andrew Taylor

[ConeC]

Andrew,

I have opened an High Incident with SAP. They should be accessing my Sandbox system today to start reviewing this issue. Tarcisio Monteiro has contacted me as the SAP Product Support representative.

Incident #: 200328 / 2016 Tax Withholding Reciprocity

[jhkoch]

Not sure if it helps but we just upgraded to TF 10.L from 10.K and applied tubs 77 to 83. We haven't seen any change in our reciprocity. I just checked a number of Ohio/Michigan employees (work in Ohio, live in Michigan and vice versa) and nothing changed.

Here's how we are configured:

Both OH and MI are on T5UX9_COUWH (courtesy withholding)

MI\OH and OH\MI are on T5UTRC with Nexus Indicator of 1 (Secondary Nexus)

Our USTAX parameters are parm 1 = 1, parm 2 = 3, parm 4 = 1

In Tax Factory, option "Use Basic Local Reciprocity" is Yes

[former_member274971]

RE 1187

John;

Did you install the OSS notes for employees living in Missouri and working in Illinois, 2323526 & 2324090? I am thinking that is what may have changed this functionality and if you have not applied those notes it will further confirm my supposition. However if you have applied those notes and the process works for you correctly, then maybe something in 10.L corrected what appears to have been broken in 10.K.

Thanks,
Andrew Taylor

[alicia_robinson]

Andrew -

We have not encountered any issues with our MO/IL combination, but we have a reciprocal override created for this specific tax combination to make it work. We have not applied those OSS notes either.

Our USTAX parameters are also set the same as what John has mentioned and we have not changed those probably since SAP inception. We did have to create lots of reciprocal overrides in BSI and just a few entries in T5UX9 and T5UTRC (but not exactly as John has mentioned he has). I am curious now since John mentioned he has 'use basic local reciprocity set to YES' in BSI. We changed this to NO based on comments from BSI back when we were upgrading to BSI 10. It was our understanding that YES was just to be used for testing and should not be set permanent. It's possible that changed since there was so much confusion going on with BSI 10 (after all the confusion of BSI 8 and BSI 9).

We did hit an issue when we applied the last TUBs 73-78 and cyclic K that even an override would not fix. I can't remember the exact tax combination now but it involved a NJ res working in another state. We were able to use IT234 to fix this one person. We don't want to have to use IT234 for these issues as that is not in our custom ESS flow and would require lots of changes.

It really concerns me with all the reciprocity changes that BSI seems to be pushing out with the TUBs that we are going to miss something and have a huge issue in our production system. We try to have test cases with all the different tax combinations of our employee base, but it's very hard to test 60k+ employees with EVERY TUB that we apply.

[jhkoch]

Alicia...I think that local option in version 9 was never meant to be permanent (although we left it on because it worked). If you go to the BSI website and look at TF 10 user documentation, there's an entire document called the "Basic Local Reciprocity Feature Overview". I can't seem to cut and paste in here, but the document basically indicates this is a Feature and doesn't say anything about it not being a permanent solution.

It says "BSI TaxFactory has been enhanced to provide an option to process basic local reciprocity".

We wouldn't have been able to go live with version 10 without that option because we had many issues with local taxes in OH, KY, IN, etc where employees worked in one state and lived in the other.

[alicia_robinson]

John -

I will definitely check that out. We had those same issues but we were able to create overrides to make everything work for us during the BSI 10 upgrade. I wasn't involved at the beginning of the BSI 10 upgrade, but had to come in at the end to help get it moved forward. By that time we were so far behind and just made it work the best we could. The NEXUS entries did not work for us for most tax authorities, but we had a few that we had to create. 99% of our changes were made in the BSI override settings.

[jhkoch]

Andrew, those two notes only apply to SAP version 470. We are on 604.

[jhkoch]

Alicia,

When you did the overrides, did you have to configure Employee Override Groups in SAP and then also in Tax Factory? I still need to try that to fix our DC\MD issues.

[former_member10768]

Hi John,

Which Support Package you are on for 604?

Tarcisio

[jhkoch]

For the SAP_HR components we are on release 604, SP 93

For the EA_HR components, we are on release 607, SP 44

[former_member10768]

Hello John

You can check this SAP note below:

2198687 - TAX: Taxes reciprocity is not being set correctly for gross up payments

This note is valid for the following support packages:

SAPK-60476INSAPHRCUS - SAPK-60497INSAPHRCUS

Cheers!

[former_member274971]

John;

2323526 has a very long list of information for 470, but it also lists 604. It says 2324090 is required for dictionary updates and 2324090 only mentions 470. I think that is a case where SAP has created poor documentation. We are on SAPKE60493 and SAPK-60744INEAHR and the notes were accepted by our system and applied fine and did what they said, except IT0234 lists but does not allow you to select option 4 on the Certificate Status.

Thanks,

Andrew Taylor

[jhkoch]

I downloaded 2323526 and 2324090 into our system with SNOTE and both say "Cannot be implemented". The Corrections for 2323526 only has changes for SAP_HRCUS Release 470 so I'm assuming that's why. I'm not having any issues so I really don't want to implement these notes.

[alicia_robinson]

John -

We only created one single group in BSI so that it works for all our companies versus creating a group for each company.

We had to set DC/MD as a "B" and we also had to create a MD/DC combo as a "B" (as well as all the MD counties/DC as "B").

[Former Member]

John and Cherylnita.

I'm not sure if your issue with DC and MD/VA (work in DC and live in MD or VA) has been resolved yet, but if the issue still exists, check if the below changes resolves your issue. I think the first change should solve the issue.

1) In T5UTRC where the Work tax authority is DC and Resident tax authority is MD or VA, Nexus indicator should be kept as blank and Courtesy withholding should have a value '6 - Allowed with Basic Local Reciprocity'.

2) Courtesy withholding on IT207 with MD or VA should be blank - Use standard configuration.

3) Use Basic Local Reciprocity option in BSI TaxFactory should be Yes.

This is what we have in our system and there are no issues with tax calculation. Either MD or VA tax has been calculated and RC = 3 is passed in BSI interface. Below is the Regulatory bulletin information of our system:

TaxFactory 10.0.l | Cyclic L | Regulatory 077 | Tax Locator N/A

Thanks,

Mitesh

[stevenan]

Hello, John -

Just curious as to what the courtesy withholding settings you are using on tables V_T5UTRC and V_T5UX9_COUWH. We were working fine with the application of the cyclic and TUBs but after applying some SAP notes, we are broken and the incorrect RC is passed in the BSI Interface.

Thanks, Anna

[jhkoch]

All our records on T5UTRC have a courtesy withholding value of blank - "Use Standard Configuration". All the entries on V_T5UX9_COUWH have a value of "Allowed with Advanced Local Reciprocity".

[ConeC]

Mitesh,

Thanks for providing your system entries. I have tested the set up you suggested "leaving Nexus indicator blank, and option 6 for courtesy withholding" for two of my scenarios (Work MI, Live WI and Work NJ, Live PA) and the system continues to take out taxes in the work state.

However, I did notice that you are on BSI Cyclic L. We are currently on Cyclic K, TUB 80.

SAP is currently working the incident (200325/2016). I am working closely with Tarcisio Monteiro to see if the matter can be resolved with options on the T5UTRC table. If there is no solution by next Thursday I plan to begin testing Cyclic L in our sandbox to see if it corrects our reciprocity issues. As I mentioned in my previous post, we had not completed any configuration changes to tables V_T5UTRC nor V_T5UX9_COWH the taxes began to calculate differently once we applied Cyclic K.

[jhkoch]

Thanks Mitesh, that seems to work.

I changed the Courtesy withholding to 6 on T5UTRC and it took Maryland instead of DC. (We already had the Nexus as blank.

We don't show the courtesy withholding field on IT 207. It probably defaults to blank if you don't, since this worked fine.

[Former Member]

Cherylnita,

Did you try the option 'Use Basic Local Reciprocity option in BSI TaxFactory should be Yes' with Cyclic K? I just tried the scenario of Live WI, Work MI and the system is calculating the withholding tax for WI.

If you still have an issue after changing the configuration in BSI TF, then it must be an issue of Cyclic K vs Cyclic L.

Thanks,

Mitesh

[alicia_robinson]

John -

Just curious if you have any issues with the "0" tax rate PA locals and the new change of not creating taxable wages. I have an issue where an EE lives in one "0" rate and works in another "0" rate - so now the system is stopping one of the taxable wages, but now creating the other one that it didn't before.

EE res = PA53, wrk = PAE6 BEFORE TUBs 79-83, cyclic L system creates PA53 wages

and AFTER it stops PA53 /701 wages (still produces /301, /601 - why??), but now creates /701 for PAE6 (and still creating /301, /601 which it also created before).

We don't want to start creating wages that we haven't created all year so wanted to see if you or anyone else had this same issue before I create a message to SAP/BSI.

Thanks!

[ConeC]

Andrew,

Did you find a solution to the reciprocity issue (post 1185)? I am still working with SAP.

[stevenan]

Hello, CheryInita and Andrew -

We are also experiencing reciprocity/courtesy withholding issues but with different state work/res combos like KY-IL, KY-IN, PA-NJ, VA-WV, and WV-MD. I submitted an SAP incident (high) and they have been slow to respond. We had applied all the BSI updates and we ran a baseline comparison that looked good. Then we applied SAP legal change notes and then started having the issues. We have applied a few side effect notes since then but still no resolution to the issue. We have tried adding IT0234 with certificate of non-residence but this has no effect. I have tried different settings on T5UTRC and T5UX9 with little change in how taxes are calculated.

It seems that SAP is not "watching" this thread any more. Not sure what happened to Graziela Dondoni.

Please let us know if you get a response back from SAP!

Thanks, Anna

[Matt_Fraser]

Graziela is probably focusing on the new Year-End 2016 thread that she just started. This current thread was originally started to deal with upgrade issues to TF10 two years ago, not so much with ongoing issues. It's now gotten so large that I think it would make more sense to post new questions to the forum about current issues, as you would be more likely to get a wider audience chiming in to help. And, if it's a specific bug that needs SAP/BSI intervention, raise an Incident.

[rick_megaro]

We are a PA employer with NJ residents working for us in PA. Since PA has a reciprocity agreement with NJ, we are required to withhold NJ EIT for these employees and remit the taxes to NJ. In 2014 when we moved BSI to 10.0.e.1, NJ EIT was not coming out. I did not reach out to SAP but reached out to BSI. With their help, I had to create a RECIPROCAL OVERIDE on the BSI side which is attached. Please keep in mind that this may not work for you. I would encourage that you do this in DEV or QAS before trying it in PRD. If you have any questions, please email me at megaror@co.delaware.pa.us

[ConeC]

Anna,

I am still working with SAP (Tarcisio Monteiro), but no resolution to the problem has been identified. We have looked at various configuration iterations on table V_T5UTRC with no change.

I confirmed that the RC: 1 code is not been passed in the BSI interface for the non-resident authority. I confirmed Par4 in the tax routine is and has been "1" (Always '1' as default" for non-res. cert. default).

I was hoping to have this resolved before end of week, because the matter has been ongoing for close to a month now.

[alicia_robinson]

Rick -

We had to create this same override for NJ residents working in PA. We also had to create an override for PA residents working in NJ in order for those taxes to be withheld correctly along with many, many other overrides.

Do you have PA local residents working in PA locals? How has the "0" rate locals not building taxable wages affected you?

[former_member274971]

RE 1216 / 1217

We have a "High" incident with SAP that Douglass is looking at. No answer as yet. As a temporary work around we are having the HR group enter IT0234's but we also needed to change the schema for USTAX parameter 4 to be a "2". This is not the desired permanent fix as we do not want to have to always add the master data. We would like it to work as it did prior to entering the SAP notes.

Thanks,

[ConeC]

Andrew/Anna/John,

I have been working with a peer from another company that is not experiencing these reciprocity issues. We have reviewed/tested configuration using all the same settings. The only difference I am aware of is that they are on SAP 608. We are currently on 604 are you all on 604?

[stevenan]

Hello, Cherylnita -

We are 604 SP 93 with additional side-effect notes applied to fix issues caused by SP 93. We recently applied the following notes but have not moved anything to production because of the reciprocity/courtesy withholding issues encountered in testing:

0001931936

0001944914

0001948165

0002044058

0002093967

0002147859

0002150522

0002228339

0002230145

0002233883

0002261013

0002289441

0002290189

0002298266

0002300113

0002304012

0002308245

0002311242

0002313491

0002314305

0002319527

0002324107

0002324130

0002324152

0002332038

0002347600

I have reviewed these notes and checked for side-effects. I have only had the SAP incident open for a week. You would think SAP would have found the cause and provided a solution by now.

Thanks, Anna

[alicia_robinson]

Now you all have me really worried about our upcoming YE upgrade!!

We have reciprocity issues off/on as we apply TUBs and can usually fix them with the "reciprocal override" setting on the BSI side. I have a few right now that I'm working on with the latest TUB's 79-83 and cyclic L, but they are mostly local tax jurisdictions that are not working anymore.

We are on 604 SP88/CLC92 and EHP 607 SP39/CLC42.

[former_member274971]

RE 1223 / 1224

I do not have a 100% certainty, but I am thinking the issue was caused with OSS note 2313491 because it set up the special reciprocity for MO / IL and it was after we applied the note that the reciprocity issue seemed to surface. I mentioned that in my incident to SAP but do not have a positive or negative response as yet. This note affected the IT0234 and IT0210, but it is only my suspicion. Please see if your friend that is not having the issue has applied this note, if they have not then that further supports my suspicion. If they have applied it and have no issue, then my theory is sunk. Either way it would be nice to know.

Andrew Taylor

[rick_megaro]

Hi Alicia- yes, we have PA local residents working in PA local districts. For those employees working in a PA local 'zero EIT rate district', we are not having any issues whatsoever.

[jhkoch]

Which I could help...we are on 604, SP 93, CLC 93, TF 10.L TUB 83 and haven't had any issues.

We pay 40,000 employees and have employees throughout most states with local taxes (IN, KY, OH, PA, etc) We probably have about every combination of state worked/lived from Illinois over to the east coast. If you have any specific questions about our configuration tables I'll be glad to answer.

[alicia_robinson]

Rick -

What is your system level?

[rick_megaro]

SAP_HR = SAPKE60495.

BSI= 10.0.k tub level 83

[stevenan]

Thank you for the information and how to doc. This is working so we may go with this.

Best regards,

Anna

[stevenan]

BTW - Has anyone seen the issue with the payroll log not showing the BSI interface description?

Thanks, Anna

[ConeC]

Andrew,

Just received confirmation from my peer with no reciprocity issues - they have not applied note 2313491.

[jhkoch]

Just to back this theory, we are not having any reciprocity issues and we have also not applied note 2313491. So it sounds like that may be the culprit.

[jwiblepasshe22]

As we are luckily/unluckily a PA only employer I am always interested in any PA local tax or reciprocity issues. We are completely up to date on BSI cyclics (L) and TUBS (83) and have NOT experienced any of the issues identified in the previous posts.

However, as we are still in the process of applying the June CLC and July support packs, I suspect that they are the culprit, with the specific note (2313491) quite possibly the issue. As soon as we get them applied in our Sandbox I will report on any issues.

Finally, I agree with Matt that we should probably switch our posts to Graziela's latest 2016 Year end thread, here is the link: http://scn.sap.com/thread/3938849

FYI, our current levels in Production: SAP_HR 604 0092 SAPKE60492 EA-HR 607 0043 SAPK-60743INEAHR

[graziela]

Hi Alicia,

About the PA calculation, could you try to apply TUB 84?

Let me know the results.

Kind regards,
Graziela

[graziela]

Hi Jeff,

I will reply the issues related to the Reciprocity in this thread.

Is it for all reciprocity or just in case of Supplemental?

Thank you,
Graziela

[jwiblepasshe22]

Graziela, my response was a more "in general" comment but the reciprocity issue was mentioned in post 1216 and 1185 specifically.

1,216. Re: BSI Tax Factory 10.0 Cherylnita Cone Aug 3, 2016 2:59 PM (in response to Andrew Taylor) Andrew, Did you find a solution to the reciprocity issue (post 1185)? I am still working with SAP.

[Ta-Piengjit]

Hi

This is in relation to SAP-BSI connection to BSI Pension tax Engine. We try to use Tax Type 70,71,72 and found errors in the SAP-BSI communication.

http://scn.sap.com/thread/3882703

-------

BSI Messages and Status

7777

THIS ENGINE PROCESSES REGULAR TAXES ONLY. FOR DEFERRED TAXES USE THE DEFERRED TA

X ENGINE.

BSI tax calculation

Payment type :

Employee status : 4

-------

After research about using SAP for pension tax calculation, I found that

Requirements:

- According to State government regulation, the calculation of pensioners tax withholding (Tax Type 70, 71, 72) is different from regular withholding (Tax Type 01) for some states such as AR, CO, GA, MI, etc. Because there are additional deductions depending on age of pensioners.

- Some states such as AL,HI,MS,PA has no pension tax.

With this in mind, using regular tax calculation, pensioners will be withheld more comparing to pension tax calculation

Technical:

- BSI Taxfactory 10.0 provides the calculation for pension withholding tax which aligns with the state regulation. (I tested in BSI tax factory itself and the formula from state website and the result is the same.)

- SAP can't call the pension tax engine. In order to call BSI Pension tax engine, you have to send Tax Type 70, 71, 72 AND TAX_PROCESS_TYPE=2 (Pension). (From <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/153c2de9e4bec480>)

- SAP code Function PAYROLL_TAX_CALC_US hards code the value ofTAX_PROCESS_TYPE = 0 (Regular). There is no way to change this code in SAP before RFC to BSI. As a result, you need an enhancement (program modification) to do the task.

- We did the enhancement and the error due to tax engine is resolved. HOWEVER, SAP also has a code related to Reciprocity state and work area tax which also hard code for Tax Type 01. This causes another error due to tax engine. Because when you use RFC to BSI, only one TAX_PROCESS_TYPE can be used. If you have both Tax Type 01 and 70, the error will occur.

- In order to resolve this, we have to create IT208 work area with no tax for pensioners.

- I reported the issue to SAP and waiting for response. In a meantime, our client has decided to use the regular engine and manually adjust exemption amount as needed according to the regulation.

If anyone has experienced using SAP-BSI pension engine, please let me know.

Thank you,

Ta

[Former Member]

Trying to instal cyclic k, we get this error. The steps outlined in the email sent out by BSI have not resolved the issue. Anyone else seen this before? Any suggestions for resolution?

[former_member274971]

Soren, RE 1113

I am getting the same message when I attempt to log into the web app. Have you received an answer yet? I sent the message to BSI Support and have not received an answer yet.

Thanks,

Andrew Taylor

[juli_thompson]

I am receiving the same message too and looking forward to the resolution.

[Former Member]

We were receiving error and a restart of the Tomcat Server fixed the issue.

[former_member274971]

All;

I was able to get past the Application error. At some point in this forum someone mentioned uninstalling 10.j and then installing 10.k. So I have the Test2 environment pointing to my sandbox, which so far is the only place I have 10.k loaded. Using the TF10ClientInstall.exe I uninstalled Test 2 and then Installed Test 2 pointing to my sandbox. Then I was able to log into the app using the same URL that was giving me the error.

Thanks,

Andrew Taylor

[Former Member]

Thanks for the info Andrew, we're looking into this.

No word from BSI though? We also have a tier II ticket open...

[Former Member]

Unfortunately this did not fix it for us...

[former_member265725]

We recently upgraded to cyclic k (and TUB level 77) and included within cyclic k was a resolution provided for the state of Missouri for employees who reside within MO but work outside of MO. The intent is to allow these EE's the ability to not accumulate any taxable wages while working outside of the state of MO.

According to the cyclic k documentation we should be able to send Nexus code of '0' (NX: 0) and Certificate Code of '4' (RC: 4) via the BSI interface for EE's who want to partake of this change. I am unable to configure our system to send the certificate code of '4' and nexus code '0' for the non-resident taxing authority.

Has anyone had success in configuring this combination and if so, would you mind sharing your solution? If no solution exists at this point in time when will SAP be providing one?

Thanks!

[DipeshMistry1]

Hi Kristy,

Did you get any response to your question posed for MO withholding tax changes included in cyclic 10.0.k for the employees residing in Missouri but working outside Missouri.

We are still at 10.0.J version and have not initiated with applying the 10.0.k version.

At my current client, MO withholding taxes are being deducted for employees working in IL. However, my payroll business team has a query that certain MO resident employees do not want to have the MO resident withholding tax deducted from their payroll. Initially I thought that this might be due to the courtesy withholding for MO. However, after reading your post, it looks like for all MO residents working outside MO, the withholding tax for MO is being deducted along with non-resident withholding as well. Let me know if my understanding is correct.

Is there any way to not withhold MO resident withholding tax for employees working outside MO ?

Any input is appreciated.

Thanks,

Dipesh.

[former_member185000]

Hi Dipesh,

We have encountered the same issue for my client. Our client is on BSI Tax Factory 10.0.0 J. As per the TUB document there should be Certificate Code '4'.

When we tried different combinations of with Courtesy Withholding via T5UTRC, BSI is throwing message that 'Missouri doesn't allow Courtesy withholding and hence the calculations happened with default certificate code '0'.

Our understanding is that we need to pass 'Certificate code '4' from SAP. Not sure whether there is any such provision.

Thanks

Madhav.

[former_member265725]

Hi Madhava and Dipesh -

I did get a response back form SAP on this and they will be delivering a solution for this Missouri configuration change in the next few weeks. Please refer to the link below for more information.

https://launchpad.support.sap.com/#/legalchangenotification/detail/GSCBNA-574

Thanks!

Kristy

[former_member185000]

Thank you Kristy. Will wait for their solution to be implemented.

[DipeshMistry1]

Thanks Kristy for your response. This information really helps.

Let us know if you get to know once SAP releases any notes with the solution.

[Former Member]

Hi Kristy,

We are facing the same issue of upgrading from J to K that it shows 10.0.j instead of 10.0.k

The information link you provided is not opening, could you please help us to provide an information of the content of the documents or when SAP would release any correction to show the correct Cyclic link.

Thanks,

Saurabh

[michael_sharrar]

Saurabh Garg wrote:

Hi Kristy,
We are facing the same issue of upgrading from J to K that it shows 10.0.j instead of 10.0.k


The information link you provided is not opening, could you please help us to provide an information of the content of the documents or when SAP would release any correction to show the correct Cyclic link.

Thanks,
Saurabh

Saurabh, please try to re-apply the server side license key as I described in my previous post and then re-run the sync transaction.

Regards,

Mike

[NWL]

Do you have this SAP Note in your system :- 2242290

Symptom

You have installed or you are planning to install BSI TaxFactory 10 cyclic J. The return information about BSI Tax Factory version is different from and not compatible with previous cyclic versions. As a consequence, the Payroll Driver USA (RPCALCU0 or RPCALCU0_CE) displays warning messages saying that there is a mismatch between SAP and BSI TaxFactory levels.

[former_member186776]

Hi Aman,

Execute the Sync tool data using the tcode: HRPAYUS_SYNC_TAX_DT.

Cross – Client data creates a ‘Work Bench Transport’

Client Specific data creates a ‘Customizing Transport’

Both these transports need to be deployed to Quality and then to production.

once it is done, Payroll driver will displays the messages that SAP and BSI TaxFactory is having the same levels.

Regards,

Siraj.

[cris_carr]

BSI has reverted the executable back to tf10server.exe. In cyclic J & K the executable was changed to tf10server_new.exe.

[Former Member]

We are on Windows 2003 OS for the client software and when we upgraded to cyclic K, the web client did not work and we are getting a Tomcat error below:

BSI Tier II support looked at our issue and mentioned that cyclic K is not supported by Windows 2003 and it has to be 2008 or higher.

Just sharing this information to everyone who might encounter the same issue while upgrading to cyclic K.

[former_member187573]

We are still on Cyclic f. Just applied bulletins 70 - 77. Bulletin 74 has a rate update for California tax type /x11. When testing, we find the calculation of Wage Type /411 for CA doubles with each pay period, thereby reaching the maximum tax of $126.00 before the ceiling of $7,000 is reached on Wage Type /711. Is this due to being behind on Cyclic's, or is something else going on?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Connie

[philip_seman]

Connie, cyclic K just came out and is a mandatory upgrade. I would try applying this to see if this is corrected.

[Sameer3]

Hi All,

We upgraded BSI cyclic from I to K and found this issue below. The cyclic data file version shows as a funky character and not as a 'K'.

We already implemented note 2242290 that was supposed to address this version display issues but it didn't help.

In the screenshot below, BSI client shows Cyclic data version as 'K'.

In SAP, instead of a 'K' it shows a funky character.

We are on IBM i-series environment and have an Incident opened with SAP to address this issue. Any insight will help us in moving forward.

[jhkoch]

Does anyone have a problem when running the "Map Tax Codes" where it says "Please wait while the data loads" and then times out ? We have every tax code mapped (almost 4900 of them) because we are in Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc so we need all the locals set up. I need to map 4 more new codes but I can't get to that point because it times out first.

[stevenan]

Hello, John -

Are you using the "Customize this list" link to filter tax codes that are not mapped?

Best regards, Anna

[jhkoch]

No, I can't get to the screen to do it. I click on "Tax Codes" link from the Welcome screen and it just clocks on the Map Tax Codes screen and never brings anything up. That's where I'd do the "Customize this list" function. I don't have any problems with the other screens, just the Tax Codes one.

[stevenan]

Hello, John -

Next question... Are you by chance using compatibility mode in IE? I have been using google chrome for a few weeks now without any issues. Maybe try a different browser?

Best regards, Anna

[jhkoch]

That was it! Many thanks. I need that turned on for some things in our environment to work but it must break this.

[alicia_robinson]

John -

I have the same issue and the same large amount of tax codes. I finally just gave up since they are NEW codes and we wouldn't be using them right away.

Hope you find an answer!

Thanks,

Alicia

[stevenan]

Yes, it does! You are welcome. I should have posted this a while back. I had the issue and BSI had the answer. You may want to give chrome a try so that you don't have the issue of switching back and forth. The look and feel is a bit different but you will get used to it.

Best regards, Anna

[stevenan]

Hello, Alicia -

You must have missed my posts on checking compatibility mode in IE (if that is the browser you are using). This will cause issues with the newer version of the TF10 client.

Best regards, Anna

[alicia_robinson]

Thanks Anna!

I saw the reply right after I posted my message. I am using IE and even in changing the compatibility it still times out. I went to Chrome and it works perfect - the view is even better than the IE view in my opinion.

Thanks for the info!

[jhkoch]

We've upgraded from 10.0.j to 10.0.k in our dev environment. When I run the sync tool, it shows the new BSI level and that we aren't in sync with SAP tables. Even though we are at the current TUB level, I ran the sync tool to update the T77PAYUS_SYNCX and T77PAYUS_SYNTX table so that it would show everything as being in sync. But since there aren't any tax table updates to make, it doesn't add any entries to the sync tables (and the last entry is version J, not K). So our payroll simulations give the mismatch warning. Has anyone run into this yet with the 10.0.k upgrade? I haven't implemented 2242290 yet. I can give it a shot but since the sync tables aren't updated I'm not sure it will fix it.

[Matt_Fraser]

John,

You definitely do need Note 2242290 in your system for the sync data to look correct. This does solve the problem with the payroll simulations giving those warnings, too.

Then, when you run the sync in DEV and create transports, even if there is nothing in the TUB level to sync, it will update the data about the Cyclic and TUB in the "sync" tables and put those into the transports. So, it isn't necessary to re-run the sync in QAS or PRD just to update the reporting in the sync tool or payroll log; just import the "sync" transport.

Cheers,

Matt

[jhkoch]

I applied this note and ran the sync tool again and it didn't put a new entry in the T77PAYUS* tables. It put that table (and all the rest) in the transport, but didn't add a row indicating we were on a new version. We may just have to live with the warning in payroll until we put a new TUB in.

Update....I ran the sync tool wrong. It does update the table so looks like I'm good. Thanks.

[alicia_robinson]

Anna or John -

I am still working on the "Map Tax Code" issue and have noticed that even though the BSI link shows I have missing tax codes the codes are not in the SAP table "BTXTAXC". This is the table that shows the BSI number mapped to the SAP 2 or 4 digit code.

Did I miss something with the sync tool (new table, new process, etc)???

Thanks!

[stevenan]

Hello, Alicia -

The sync tool no longer updates BTXTAXC. The BSI codes can be found in T5UTZC subapplication TMAP. However, the codes will also show when you run the sync tool. I run it in test mode and check the messages. I then use that to map the codes. Sorry but I do not have a screen shot of that.

Best regards, Anna

[alicia_robinson]

Thanks Anna!

I knew this but seriously have "BSI BRAIN" with all these constant changes!!

Thanks for the quick response.

[Former Member]

John

I'm curious if applying note 2242290 works for you ; I 've seen a reply by Sameer Mohammed that is does note work after application of Cyclic K.

I have an open incident with SAP. The reply was to use SE09, but I'm not accepting this answer, given that this is a known issue with TaxFactory 10 that SAP is aware of.

Please let me know your findings

Thank you!

Tammy

[jhkoch]

Yes, we applied the note and then I ran the sync tool to update the tables and create the transports and the 10.0.k version was put on the "sync" tables and the mismatch went away.

[LarrySuttles]

Hello Anna,

Question for you, hope you can help me.

When I run the sync tool, I am getting multiple warning message stating "The system has detected that mapping between tax authorities 00391983 and OIJ3 is missing in your BSI TaxFactory system". I looked in tables V_BTXTAXC and V_T5UTZC, mentioned in your response, and I see the entries for OIJ3 to 00391983, as expected. I have executed the sync tool in productive mode with box check to update the mappings, but still get the same message.

Have you experienced this warning message after executing in productive mode? And if so, do you have the steps for updating BSI?

We are up to BSI TaxFactory 10.0.k and TUB 077. All other functions in the sync tool are working properly for me.

Thanks,

Larry

[stevenan]

Hello, Larry -

Since the message is specific to BSI TF data, this would not be an issue with SAP tables. So when you look at the mapped/unmapped tax authorities in BSI, what does this show?

In our system, I always map the authorities each time we apply TUBs. I run a test sync and check the warning messages so that I know the four character SAP code to use. Then I map in BSI as shown in the image below. Hope this helps!

[LarrySuttles]

Thanks Anna, I really appreciate your helping me.

We found in BSI where we would add the Tax Code, per your screen shots, but none of the Tax Authorities are mapped. This is so strange for 2 reasons.

- How can the payroll program be producing correct results for all of our tax authorities, yet none are mapped in BSI?

- Why does the Synchronize Payroll Tax Data program show all of our authorities are mapped, except for the one we need to add.

I sat with my basis person (who has access to BSI software) and we checked all instances for BSI (DEV, QA and Production) and all have no mappings present.

If you can answer this, I’ll be happy to buy you lunch someday.

Larry

[stevenan]

Hello, Larry -

This is very bazaar since in my experience, BSI returns error messages when the SAP tax code is passed and no mapping exists. So in the BSI interface that SAP builds the ADC TC: will have the two to four character code and that is used by BSI to determine the tax authority via the mapping in BSI. So I am curious what the BSI interface looks like prior to the call to BSI. I am also curious as to what the BSI Messages and Status has after the call is completed.

Just to see what would happen in our test system, I removed the mapping for IN05 and ran an employee with IN05 set as residence tax area. I got the following in BSI Messages and Status:

All other taxes processed as expected - FED and IN - but the only WT's generated for IN05 are the /3xx, /6xx and /7xx.

So this is the standard but maybe you have something custom that is happening for the BSI interface.

What ever you do, do not click on the "create default mapping" for tax types or tax authorities.

I also ran the sync tool to see what would happen - I got that there are no missing mappings. HA!

Hope this helps but it seems you have opened a can of worms... But at least you don't owe me a lunch. Darn!

Best regards, Anna

[stevenan]

Hello, Larry -

One more thought on this... if you have multiple BSI datasets, make sure you are looking at the one for the SAP client you are using. We have a lot of old datasets that are no longer used and these are not kept up to date.

Best regards,

Anna

[LarrySuttles]

Hello Anna,

I sat with Basis again and we verified all our setting to ensure we are pointing to the correct BSI data set, and all looks good. For your curiosity, the below is provided:

I have already submitted an Incident to SAP and I will wait to see what they have to say.

Thanks again for your time and I will buy your lunch anyways. Will be at ASUG next week, look me up.

Larry

[shashank_singh10]

All

I have also upgraded my BSI client to 10.0.k. The upgrade went smoothly without any errors. But when i am trying to open the BSI url :

http://localhost:8092/eTF10k/DEV , i can login fine. The issue is when i click the Data Set i get an error :

Following errors were encountered:

• 8881 - SQL Error Code 0 on ODBC Function Call

Data has not been saved.

Also there are no links when i select Jump To section.

I have been following up with BSI , but no definitive solution.

Regards,

Shashank

[Former Member]

Hey there SHASHANK,

Yeah, I got that same thing too, once I got past all that other 32bit vs 64 bit junk on the "K" install.

Looks to me like your ODBC connections from TaxFactory to your RDBMS got messed up. I saw it also.

So if I were you, go back through your "K" TaxFactory install, but instead of clicking on "update existing TF10K Client with current TF10K Client" click on the check box marked "Review"

Like so above.

Then NEXT

You should then be able to get a view into your connections:

I know I erased all my stuff above. But hopefully you get the idea. Focus on the "DSN" setting above.

You'll need to make sure your ODBC connection is existing exactly like it is shown for you in DSN.

In my case, we run oracle client (32bit now). So I went into the ODBC settings, like start - control panel - admin tools - ODBC... and put it back..

make sense?

NICK

[shashank_singh10]

Hi Nick,

Thanks for your reply. I did select the Review option and the screen for me is bit different :

The Database name and port and host are not populated. I matched the DSN entry with the connection name in ODBC settings. It is the same and the Test connection is working fine.

Please suggest

Regards,

[Former Member]

I think this is your problem, I mean, the DB name/port/host isn't populated (is blank) in your screen shot. Just for safety sake, is that screen shot/issue you have for PROD? or DEV/QA?

If not prod (by that, I mean you've run into this issue in a NON prod system), then just verify your PROD "review" screen is working and the DB name/port/host is populated or not in the "review" screen.

basically, your error is that TaxFactory doesn't know how to reach the DB....

I hope this helps!

NICK

[shashank_singh10]

Hi Nick,

I am able to see the connection details for my QA and PROD systems same as your screenshot, but those systems are at 10j.

I am assuming the connection details for TaxFactory are stored under

C:\Program Files\Apache Software Foundation\Tomcat 6.0\DEV\conf\Catalina\localhost\eTF10k#DEV

I can see the connection details match the tnsnames.ora file on my Database.

The DSN connection from ODBC console also works. Not sure what is missing here.

BTW what are the files in your lib folder. I can see only 1 file in my lib folder tf10apiJNI

I noticed one more thing. I tried to run tf10lic.exe /ResetDSN for 64 bit

I gave the user id and password on the next screen and i got below result :

No license is installed.

Host Name : '<Hostname where BSI client is installed>'

Host ID or Serial No. : 'N/A'

TF10_DATABASE : 'DSN=<Database name>'

Any thoughts ??

Regards,

Shashank

[Former Member]

We are using SQL server.

The first issue we encountered was the LIB folder as described in a previous post here.

Once we got thru that (with BSI support help) we had the same exact ODBC error you are describing (your original post) . We could logon fine but not click on a dataset. BSI Support suggested we go thru each client and get a snapshot of the "review" screen to use as a reference. Then starting with our sandbox client we UNINSTALLED each client one at a time, then installed each client as it were "new" using the "review" screen as a reference. The only change was to point to the sqljdbc4.jar file in this path:

C::\Program Files\Apache Software Foundation\Tomcat 7.0\lib

Not sure if things are different for Oracle but this solved our issues

[Former Member]

good point! BSI just release this email:

SQL
Error Code The
error below indicates either a configuration problem with your ODBC connection
or a .jar file was not correctly imported from the designated Tomcat library.

8881 - SQL Error Code 0 on ODBC Function Call

Customer Action

Uninstall
and reinstall the Environment.

If
you have any questions, please contact BSI...

[Former Member]

Shashank,

my lib folder has a file called tf10apiJNI.dll

Yeah, I used that run tf10lic.exe /ResetDSN for my now "32-bit" system.

I think if you get that "license not found" it's probably a good thing! I mean, I think the conn is working.

You might try the registry. have a look at

Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\ODBC

make sure your ODBC.INI folder in there contains the connection you think should be there, and that they look accurate. there is also another folder in there called ODBC Data Sources and it should contain the names of the connections.

check that. if no help....uninstall/reinstall TaxFActory...

[juli_thompson]

I have updated Tomcat/Oracle 64 bit and ODBC as required. When applying the K cyclic I do not have any options in the DSN drop down. I have checked the ODBC setup and verified the tnsnames ora file is in the appropriate folder. Has anyone else had this issue?

[michael_sharrar]

Juli Thompson wrote:

I have updated Tomcat/Oracle 64 bit and ODBC as required.  When applying the K cyclic I do not have any options in the DSN drop down.  I have checked the ODBC setup and verified the tnsnames ora file is in the appropriate folder.  Has anyone else had this issue?

Check to make sure you are using a System DSN and not a user DSN for your ODBC connections.

[juli_thompson]

After speaking with BSI tech I was able to get the DSN issue resolved. I was able to finish loading the cyclic K update (I have setup the TST1 for our Sandbox system) but I am now receiving an error with the Apache Tomcat server for the Sandbox. When I try to start the server I receive the message below. Has anyone else had this occur?

[philip_seman]

Cyclic File K -- windows service change?

Did BSI update the installation for version K to eliminate the windows services named similar to TF10JXML<SID> ?

I noticed I only have the Apache Tomcat7 - <sid> windows service now.

[former_member330836]

Yes, they did. And the installation path has been changed so that all of the BSI client files are installed under the Tomcat directory path. The included .pdf file in their client package makes (what I considered to be) vague reference to these changes.

[michael_sharrar]

Yes Philip....Karen is correct. The cyclic bulletin (TF10k.html) on the BSI site mentions this in the "Java Enhancements" section.

Also, be aware that this patch require all components to match bit versions. Tomcat, JVM, JNI and ODBC must all be 32bit or all 64bit, which ever you prefer, but you cannot have mixed bit-set values.

[Former Member]

Hello all!

I'm trying to go from TaxFactory Client 10.0.j to 10.0.k. I've been doing BSI updates for many years and never run into this!

This is usually easy as pie!

Screens:

(I know it says "Production" but we named them backward and this is really DEV)

I see below error!

Then it kicks me to the below screen:

But the drop-down is empty.

For sure, my ODBC connections have not changed. I can see my dev/qa/prod ODBC connections and they do "test" successful!

Is anyone else seeing this?

NICK

[michael_sharrar]

Nick, see my comments in the previous post. I ran into this same exact issue.

[Former Member]

Hey Michael,

Yeah, I see that. And I really hate this version "k".

NICK

[jwiblepasshe22]

FYI, please be aware of new OSS note 2297225 - TAX: Wage Type /701 not adjusting with IT0221 if you also apply the new wrapper code per OSS note 2219445 that was due by 3/31/2016. We and other customers found that it was also turning other /7xx wage types (703, 704, 705, 706) into a positive amount when they should have been negative amounts

[jhkoch]

Jeff...thanks for posting this. We also just ran into this issue a few days ago as well.

[Former Member]

Hey all,

We removed our 64-bit ODBC connection for our DEV system in the oracle client.

Then We downported our oracle client to 32-bit. BSI support suggested that we run this from a DOS prompt on our BSI server:

cd DRIVE:\xxx\xxx\BSI10k\TF10ClientInstall\win32

then execute: tf10lic /ResetDSN

This is where we added our "DEV" connection to the oracle DB where our BSI schema lives.

So in doing that, we still go the "error" about 32 vs 64 bit, but at least now, I see the "DEV" drop down ODBC connection that I didn't see in the last screen shot, in my last post.

The good news is that I was able to install the K update.

The bad news is that after I log in to the web address for the update:

http://server:port/eTF10k/<SID>/access/showLogin.action

I immediately see this error after putting in my ID/pass:

Error Message

Exception is: java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: com.bsi.tf.jni.TF10APIJNI.initIDs()V

So......back on the phone with BSI....<sigh>

NICK

[Former Member]

good news. I hope this helps others.

to resolve the error in my last post, you would go back to the tomcat server where BSI is installed, into the folder for your oracle connection:

EXAMPLE

D:\Program Files (x86)\Apache Software Foundation\Tomcat 7.0

From here, we have a folder for each of our TaxFactory installs. So lets say ours is called R31.

Then from here, we would go into the R31 folder.

Inside of there, you would see a file called "lib". Delete that file!

Then, inside this same "R31" folder, create a directory called "lib".

Then run through the K taxFactory install again. Yeah, I know you already installed it, but run through it again.

Then, when you log in to the new K URL, you won't get an error!

Hope that makes sense.

NICK

[Former Member]

Jeff, I tried to call up Note 2297225 and it says Document is Not Released. Do you know if this is a Pilot Note just for specific customers? We're having this issue with our IT0221 adjustments, but regular payroll appears to be OK.

Thanks,

Lou Ann

[Former Member]

I can open that Note 1 out of every 3 tries. When I do get it to open it says it was release 4/4/2016

[former_member240062]

Lou Ann,

This was a pilot note and SAP says they have released it for customer. Just now, I searched for the note in OSS and it doesn't show up.

We had issue with negative tax adjustments using Off-Cycle after the new RFC wrapper code was applied, the regular payroll run was OK. This note fixed the Off-Cycle adjustment issue.

Thanks

Kumar Ganesan

[former_member353481]

I can download 2297225 without any problems.

2209616 is a pilot note and that might be the one you can't open.

Regards,

Thomas

[Former Member]

Hi Thomas, I still can't open Note 2297225. It's still saying Document is Not Released. Could you possibly post the entire note for me to see, please? I'm specifically interested if it lists a Causing Note.

Thanks,

Lou Ann

[jwiblepasshe22]

Lou Ann, I have attached the note (in .txt format, SAP when is this site going to be updated to allow .pdf's!). The cause appeared to be from the application of the new "wrapper code" per the other attached note (2219445) that we applied and tested the whole way to PRD but didn't catch the issue until running YANA for an off cycle adjustment last week. I agree with the other posters that these type of issues are extremely frustrating and appear to be much more frequent in the last year or so.

0002219445.BSI.Wrapper.code.033116.txt.zip

0002297225.0701 issue.BSI.wrapper.txt.zip

[Former Member]

Hi Jeff, Thanks so much. I really appreciate it.

Regards,

Lou Ann

[shashank_singh10]

All,

I had to uninstall and reinstall BSI client and that did the trick.

Thanks all for the valuable inputs.

Regards,

Shashank

[stacey_degarmo]

I was not exactly sure who to pose this question to but we are attempting to apply Cyclic "K" from "J" and our Basis Team is also having issues.

I have seen the several posts regarding "K" and also the April 7th email from BSI with TF 10.0.k Cyclic Upgrade Technical Information.

My question is whether anyone has found the Cyclic "K" issues are tied to any particular Bulletin Level? Our Basis Team thinks that Bulletin 77 may be required (we are currently on Bulletin 71)? Due to other EhP testing we have going on we would prefer to only apply the Cyclic at this time and I have not seen any required Bulletin Level. Can anyone confirm?

Thank you,

Stacey

[shashank_singh10]

Hi Stacey,

I have only applied the Cyclic from J to K on my system. I haven't applied the bulleting 77 yet. The issue is not related to Bulletin rather the Cyclic K version itself.

I had to un-install cyclic J and install cyclic K version on my system for BSI to work.

Regards,

Shashank

[michael_sharrar]

Stacey DeGarmo wrote:

I was not exactly sure who to pose this question to but we are attempting to apply Cyclic "K" from "J" and our Basis Team is also having issues.

I have seen the several posts regarding "K" and also the April 7th email from BSI with TF 10.0.k Cyclic Upgrade Technical Information.

My question is whether anyone has found the Cyclic "K" issues are tied to any particular Bulletin Level?  Our Basis Team thinks that Bulletin 77 may be required (we are currently on Bulletin 71)?  Due to other EhP testing we have going on we would prefer to only apply the Cyclic at this time and I have not seen any required Bulletin Level.  Can anyone confirm?

Thank you,
Stacey

Stacey,

We just applied cyclic k in our environment. We went from cyclic g up to k, with regulatory bulletin 68 without any issues. I was then able to apply regulatory bulletins 69-77 after cyclic k was applied.

You'll want to also re-apply the server side license keys. I saw an issue where HRPAYUS_SYNC_TAX_DT did not display the proper cyclic patch level until the new license keys were applied.

So to answer your question.....You should be able to apply k without going up to regulatory bulletin 77.

What issue are they having exactly? When I applied the patches I completely uninstalled the previous client installations because I needed to install a 64-bit version of Java and Tomcat to max my 64-bit ODBC driver (we are using an Oracle database). It's important to make sure all of those components are either 32-bit or 64-bit. It was possible to use a mix of the two bit versions with previous cyclic patches but you cannot mix with cyclic k.

Regards,

Mike Sharrar

[stacey_degarmo]

Mike,

Thank you for the reply regarding our issue. Basis was able to apply Cyclic "K" without the Bulletin and all is working as expected with EhP5. However, we are actively working in an Alt Environment with EhP7 and preparing to Go Live shortly. Basis applied Cyclic "K" to the EhP7 (SAPKE60824) and now the Sync Tool displays the Level in BSI Client as TaxFactory 10.0.j | Cyclic K.

Has anyone had this issue or seen different results with EhP7?

Thank you,

Stacey

[michael_sharrar]

Stacey DeGarmo wrote:

Mike,

Thank you for the reply regarding our issue.  Basis was able to apply Cyclic "K" without the Bulletin and all is working as expected with EhP5.  However, we are actively working in an Alt Environment with EhP7 and preparing to Go Live shortly.  Basis applied Cyclic "K" to the EhP7 (SAPKE60824) and now the Sync Tool displays the Level in BSI Client as TaxFactory 10.0.j  |  Cyclic K.



Has anyone had this issue or seen different results with EhP7?

Thank you,
Stacey

The "Cyclic K" in the picture above represents the cyclic data file that was uploaded into the database. The TaxFactory 10.0.j is the server side executables that you have installed for the system. I saw this same issue when I applied the "K" patches.

You would want to make sure you have the latest server executables in your SAP kernel directory and also re-apply the license key. Re-download them from the BSI site and the versions should be displayed correctly in HRPAYUS_SYNC_TAX_DT after that.

[Former Member]

Hello,

After we performed the upgrade to the J version and run the tool in Productive mode for Tube 74, we are still getting a mismatch between the current version and the old one as you can see below:

We have followed all the steps required for the J version, including the SAP note 2242290. Does anyone encounter this before and how this can be corrected?

Thanks,

Ionut

[Former Member]

Hi lonut,

We have experienced the same issue; I have opened an incident with SAP, and am patiently waiting on their response. It "appears" to be a bug related to two tables. T77PAUS_SYNTX and T77PAYUS_SYNXC which are not being included in the transports created by the HRPAYUS_SYNC_TAX_DT program.

Tammy Strole

[Maggie3654]

It appears that you have not applied the cyclic to BSI. This is downloaded from the BSI Connect website and applied the same as you do the regulatory bulletins.

Regards,

Margaret

[Former Member]

Hi Tammy,

Thanks for your quick response, for us, when we ran the tool for the first time for Tub 74, after the upgrade to J, the involved tables you mentioned are saved on the transports:

Is this what you are saying?

Thanks,

Ionut

[Former Member]

Hi Margaret,

We have done this step, but still getting the old version.

Thanks,

Ionut

[Maggie3654]

Lonut,

I found that I had to apply the Cyclic Bulletin in each environment and I had to update the client. Then I would have them in sync. So if you started in your Dev environment and it all matched, then you moved to your QA, you need to apply cyclic to your QA Tax Factory and update my client. Then I will see that they match in QA. I have to do the same in our production environment.

Regards,

Margaret

[Former Member]

Hi Margaret,

We are currently in our Development environment and the versions are not matching even here.

Thanks,

Ionut

[Former Member]

Margaret, Matt Fraser posted a comment a while back about Side Effect Note 2242290 BSI: Changes for Cyclic J of BSI TaxFactory 10.0. This corrects an issue with Note 2193769 that causes a warning message saying there is a mismatch between SAP and BSI TaxFactory levels. Note 2242290 is in SP 94. Hope this helps.

Lou Ann

[Matt_Fraser]

Ionut,

At this point I recommend you open this as a new question, specific to the symptoms you are observing. If you still don't find an answer, then you may want to open an Incident with SAP Support.

Cheers,

Matt

[Former Member]

Graziela

What is the solution when the sync tool, HRPAYUS_SYNC_TAX_DT, reports a mismatch between SAP client-specific level and BSI level? TaxFactory shows Cyclic J, Regulatory Bulletin 70, SAP shows Cyclic H, and Regulatory Bulletin 69 still. I tried importing the Regulatory bulleting 70 again, and well as running the sync tool in Client 300 again for Client-specific (and then Cross-Client as well for safe measure).

Thank you,

Tammy Strole

[Matt_Fraser]

Tamara,

Did you apply Note 2242290 (BSI: Changes for Cyclic J of BSI TaxFactory 10.0) to your ECC system? Cyclic J introduces some changes to the return information, and one of the side effects if you don't have this Note is the system reporting a mismatch in levels.

Cheers,

Matt

[Former Member]

Hi Matt,

Yes that note was applied today, but to no avail. SAP responded and the issue was narrowed down to table T77PAYUS_SYNTX which was out of sync somehow. We finally resolved this by briefly opening our production environment open to changes just long enough to execute the Sync tool for the Client-specific tables.

Cheers,

Tammy

[graziela]

Hi Tammy,

This validation has been delivered in SAP note:

2193769 - BSI: Regulatory Bulletin level validation in Payroll

I believe this part applies to your case:

• ATTENTION: If you use other means to copy the data of the tables affected by the Synchronize Payroll Tax Data to your landscape, make sure to copy tables T77PAYUS_SYNTX and T77PAYUS_SYNXC as well.

Thanks,
Graziela

[Former Member]

Thank you Graziela,

Tammy

[stacey_degarmo]

Hello,

We recently upgraded from Cyclic "f" to Cyclic "I" and then "J"

We are at Bulletin Level 68

For Year End, we Installed HRSP 88-93

Our Payroll Manager has now reported that the Off-Cycle Workbench is ignoring the IT0234 Supplemental Method and Override Percentage she is using.

Has anyone experienced a similar occurrence??

The IMG indicates that the Tax Overrides are now handled on the BSI Side and I am finding no evidence that we ever had overrides set-up on BSI. Yet, historically, we can see that the Payroll Department processed Off-Cycle payments with Tax Overrides using IT0234.

Thank you,

Stacey

[stevenan]

Hello, Stacey -

I think some of this will depend on the type of override and what is being processed in the off-cycle workbench. Is it an on-demand or is it a special payment (A or B cycle)?

Another thing to be aware of - there were a lot of issues after we applied up through SP93. You may want to review the notes on the US year end web page as well as the US year end SCN discussion. We had applied additional notes from SP 94 as well as checked side effect notes when we implemented up through SP 93. There were still issues and we were involved in testing some of the additional side effect notes that were added in early December. So your issues may not have anything to do with BSI updates.

Best regards,

Anna Stevenson

[Former Member]

Hi Stacey, We're getting ready to implement Cyclic J so I was curious if your issue with IT0234 Supplemental Method was related to Cyclic J after all, or something else.

Thanks,

Lou Ann

[Former Member]

Hi Graziela,

We've implemented TUB 66. This delivers changes for States and Possessions Taxes for MISSOURI (tax type001) effective 01/01/2015, which states "Modifies the withholding formula data to disallow Courtesy withholding (NX:0 RC:3) for all non-resident states except District of Columbia".

As stated above, the courtesy withholding changes does not appear to be calculating correctly with DC and other states. System is still calculating based on the state in IT208.

Have you encountered this issue? If so, can you please let us know what needs to be done to correct this?

Hoping for your assistance.

Thank you!

Rodelyn

[greg_zifchock]

We have installed up to TUB 68 I am seeing an error message when selecting the courtesy withholding drop down in IT207. Below is the configuration, what is causing this error?

Thanks,

Greg