Idle assets (asset shutdown) different treatment in dep areas.

[Former Member]

Hi

We have a situation where if the asset remains idle (shutdown flag in asset master contains a from and to date), then

a) in area 01 depreciation should be stopped

b) BUT in area 20 depreciation should continue.

What is the best way to do this? I am aware that there is a shutdown flag in depreciation key too.

Please advise.

Best wishes

Raj.

[MarkusBredel]

Hi,

create 2 almost identical depreciation keys, one of them considering shutdown and the other one not considering it. Assign them appropriately to both depreciation areas, that´´ll should solve your requirement in an automated way.

Changing the key to '0000' may not help as it would wipe out the complete depreciation in this depreciaiton area (exception: use '0000' as a time-dependent depreciation parameter in case you use the new depreciation calcualtion engine).

Regards,

Markus

[Former Member]

Hi Markus

Thanks a lot for your response and it makes a lot of sense. I was very apprehensive about using 0000 as you rightly said it would wipe out depreciation.

Another question is if I create a new depreciation key with shutdown unticked in it and assign it to a depreciation area I see that it recalculates depreciation for the time the asset remained idle in the "Current" year which is good.

Would you know if on the application of the new depreciation key (where shutdown is unticked)  will it also recalculate depreciation for the periods it remained idle in "closed" fiscal years?

Best wishes

Raj.

[MarkusBredel]

Hi Raj,

closed fiscal years are never recalculated.

Regards,

Markus

[Former Member]

Hi,

I think you can post unplanned depreciation for 20 depreciation area. As in case of shut down I think that no planned depreciation would be proposed by the system.

Regards,

Malhar.

[Former Member]

Hi Rajmohan,

Change the dep key to "0000" in Area 01 only then it will not post depreciation.

Later when you want to post depreciation change the dep key again.

Hope it is clear.

Regards,

G.Sethuraman