on 12-11-2014 6:37 AM
This is the standard behaviour. Unfortunately, we cannot much, as it is inherent design of the system.
The ordinary depreciation for the year in which the impairment is posted will not be affected, it would still be computed as usual until the end of that particular year.
The ordinary depreciation would only be reduced from the beginning of the next year.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
HI Ravi,
Actually for some asset it is completely reversing the APC value and the accumulated depreciation in the next run, where as for some other asset there is a left over amount in the planned depreciation.
I just noticed the period control is different in these two assets.
The first case has the period control 11 and the 2nd case has the period control 01. The period control is for revaluation.
But I am not able to find out, why it plans a positive amount, in the depreciation for next month, and there after some left over amount in the next periods. Please let me know on the same.
HI Ravi,
In AFAMP, the unplanned depreciation is blank.
The concern is
in asset one, there is a left over amount and even a positive depreciation in the next month.
in asset two,the entire depreciation is reversed.
That is what is the desired scenario, which would have happened for Asse one also. I want to know, why there is + depreciation in 11, and there after some depreciation, which continues till end of life
It looks your transaction types are wrong for Impairment
Check the following path
Asset Accounting
Depreciation --> Unplanned Depreciation --> Define Transaction Types for
Unplanned Depreciation
Credit Transaction
Transaction Type group 64
Consolidation Transaction Type 220
Refer SAP Note 1144500 and see the configuration documents at the end. They are for UK - SORP - Public Sector.
However, they could help you as a guide.
HI Ravi,
I actually found theat it is the period control that is playing a role here.I specify below the different behaviours when the period control 11 and 01 are used.
Those are coming from the dep key and just for my understanding, I tried the below by changing the dep key, to see the effect that the period control has on revaluation
Initial state of asset values
To this I go ahead and post a revaluation as below using ABSO.
In case of period control 11 ,below are the planned values.This is what is desired and no issues with it.
But,in case of period control 1 below are the planned values.
As I analysed a bit, I found that the reason, why a positive amount is appearing and there after some depreciation, is that the 21501.21, that we enter in ABSO, that is 537.76 extra of the accm depreciation , that is 20972.45 .Hence that extra amount is being depreciated equally from there after.
What I want to understand is what is the difference between the period controld 01 and 11, how that is impacting the above revaluation.
Regards
SR
HI Ravi,
This is the same asset. In production there are two assets with different Dep Keys(same asset class). In quality, in the above example , for the testing purpose, I was trying, by changing the depreciation key.
What I noticed is,while doing ABSO, instead of giving the value date as 03/31/2014, when I gave the value date as 04/30/2014, the impairment occured on expected lines,(for the asset with dep key having period cotrol 01) .
Regards
SR
You can also determine how the value date is to be picked up.
There is a standard variant available, if you do not have assigned any other variant to the company code, system would pick up this variant.
If you want, then please copy this standard variant and then make necessary changes.
PS: Do not make any direct changes to the standard variant, all other company codes in the system get affected.
IMG Path: Financial Accounting (New) --> Asset Accounting --> Transactions --> Specify How Default Asset Value Date is Determined
Hi Swastik,
Have you run AFAR for the asset? If not do it and also let me know why you want depreciation as 0. Please explain clearly.
Regards,
Mukthar
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
HI Mukthar,
It is happening so for only few asstes. Where the depreciation posting is seen to be planned for next months. For other assets its not the case. Save transaction type Z01 is being used for the ABSO, through which impairment is being posted. For some assets, entire depreciation is planned to be reversed in the next period. That is fine. Problem is that for some, it is still showing a small amount of depreciation planned to be posted. I just wanted to know the reason of the same.
Regards
SR
User | Count |
---|---|
89 | |
7 | |
6 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
2 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.