on 07-30-2015 6:42 AM
Hi Friends,
We have an issue when supplemental payment (processing class set-up as supplemental payment for the wage type) is paid back dated in current period.
Retro amounts for supplemental payment is being taxed by getting added to regular wages although for current period the same supplemental period amount is taxed separately as supplemental payment.
Is there a rule or law that governs this behaviour for retro supplemental payments all tax authorities for retro amounts carried to current period or is this issue to be reported to SAP?
Example:-
Payroll process for regular wages (processing class set-up as regular payment for this wage type) correctly of $2500 for period 16.
Now in period 17, it was noticed that supplemtal payment of $1000 was missed out to be paid in period 16.
Entry was made for $1000 in period 17 dated back in period 16 on IT0014.
Period 17 now has regualr wages of $2500 and this supplemental payment.
Supplemental payment of $1000 difference amount coming in period 17 from period 16 from retro is taxed along with $2500 such that taxable gross for regular payment is $3500.
Supplemental payment of $1000 for period 17 is taxed separately on $1000 in current period.
Expert help or any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ameet
Hey Ameet,
In schema UTX0 (or z-version of it in your company schema), there should be 3 lines using function UPAR1, see what parameter is set for UPAR1 - DIF.
If you have 1 set in parameter 2, you will need to change this to NODF. For any retro differences, only NODF will use the values specified on proc cls 68 (reg, supp, etc.). The default is set to 1, which means any retro difference will use reg. payment method overriding proc cls 68 value. So try this, UPAR1 DIF NODF 22 B
Okay, let me know if this helps and reward points if useful. Thanks.
Tom
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Ok, do you have any custom functions/rules between UPAR1 and USTAX functions? I have a case just like yours which is supplemental pay processed retroactively and it calculated correctly. The processing changes depending on UPAR1 DIF 2nd parameter, if I set it to 1, it processes the supplemental pay as regular, when I set it to NODF, it processes payments separately. If you want to copy and paste what you have in UTX0 from UPAR1 to USTAX, it'll be helpful.
Regards,
Tom
Hi Ameet,
I have used the model wagetype M101 to test your scenario, and it works good, maybe try that in your test system and compare the wagetype propoerties you are using to M101.
It may help.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
User | Count |
---|---|
85 | |
7 | |
6 | |
4 | |
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.