on 12-07-2015 8:55 PM
Hello community,
This is our U.S. Year End 2015 Thread.
If you have questions about 2015 Year-End reporting, you can post this on this thread.
We will update this thread with tips and SAP Notes related to the subject.
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Graziela
Hello community,
If you are receiving error when you are generating the forms in PU19 transaction for a huge amount of PERNRs and your system Database runs Oracle, please, check the following notes that can be helpful:
2178855 Internal change in function module ADS_SR_READ_CONTENT
2178939 Bundling Request fails randomly with Oracle DB
These notes belongs to BC-SRV-FP component.
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
The following SAP note has been released to customer:
2304012 - TAX: Payroll log not showing output of USTAX function in retrocalculation
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
The following SAP notes are now released to customers:
2300113 - TAX: Pre-tax deduction is reduced from BSI base wages incorrectly
2302287 - TAX: Incorrect taxable amount in gross-up payment
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
Important note to be applied:
2297225 - TAX: Wage Type /701 not adjusting with IT0221
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
All, to add some further information regarding this note. The problem this Note addresses "may happen after you start using the new RFC Library for BSI TaxFactory(I.e. new "Wrapper code" see note 2219445)". For us, it caused our Off cycle Tax related adjustments using IT0221 to return Positive numbers instead of Negative, which is a big problem.
Just an FYI....
We just discovered this issue late Friday afternoon while trying to process some YANA adjustments and it is not applicable to only the /701 wage type.
We 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.
I don't believe we are using the new RFC library for BSI yet, but have a message out to the basis team to confirm.
Hello, Graziela -
I have been reviewing the information in SAP note 2297225 - TAX: Wage Type /701 not adjusting with IT0221.
We have already updated to the new NetWeaver RFC connection for BSI. We did this a few weeks ago. There has already been a YANA for 12/31/2015 processed without any issues. I have been trying to recreate the situation in our QA system to no avail.
So I dug deeper into the correction instructions (on the new support Launchpad) and found that the component number does not look right. For version 604 it shows support package SAPK-60482INSAPHRCUS. I am not sure of the validity since we have SAPK-60493INSAPHRCUS in all of our SAP HR landscapes. The note is also very vague in details of the cause and effect stating that the issue MAY HAPPEN. We need more information on this. I tried to access the note through note search and I got the message that the note is not released.
If you can please provide more information on this issue it would be deeply appreciated.
Thank you and best regards,
Anna Stevenson
Hi Anna,
The issue was due any negative adjustment in IT0221, in the test the valuewas /601 -100, however the /701 was 100, after the BSI script. This is true for all other wage types /7xx.
The note 2297225 is valid from SP82 up to All Support Packages. So this is valid for SP93.
I took a look at the note and this is "Released for customer", seems to be fine for me.
Thank you,
Graziela
Thank you, Graziela. However, the details are still a bit sketchy. Was /6xx the only entry or were other technical WT's entered? I really do not understand the scenario. I have tried several things and cannot recreate the problem. So I am not sure about applying this note and am not sure that the change in BSI RFC is the true issue. Still need more details and clarification on what the setup is.
Thanks, Anna
Anna -
We found the problem with an IT221 YANA entry for a 2014 W-2C. We needed to reduce the wages with one single wage type which for us is only applicable to FICA wages/taxes. In the IT221 we just keyed the wt2909 and the /4xx wage types and the system processed the /3xx, /6xx, /7xx wage types when the IT221 was run.
This is what is processed in Production - the FICA wages were all converted to a POSITIVE amount:
I hope this helps some with an idea of something to test. These SAP/BSI issues are VERY FRUSTRATING lately since things just come up wrong out of the blue and we don't find them until they are in our PRODUCTION environment and impacting our employees.
Hello,
Any one experience issue with PU19 W-2 form HR_F_W2_MULT_11?
The two fields DDAY and ODAY are missing from table P10_SHR_F_W2 for some reason.
Thanks,
Phillip
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
The Q1/2016 has been released:
2293471 - Q1/2016: Functional changes for U.S. Tax Reporter
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Cherylnita,
Could you confirm that you have note:
2084244 - TR: SUI NY missing binding for dep. health insurance
Thank you,
Graziela
Hello Community,
We are having an issue with gross-up wage types and retro calculation. In
our situation an employee is entering through the time sheet a long term per
diem. We have that configured to wage type for grossing up. The employee missed
entering this and corrected their timesheet back to the beginning of 2016. We
are trying to run an adjustment off cycle to correct the issue. In the retro
calculation for each period we are seeing the tax calculations however they are
being posted to /N wage types and not brought forward to the current off cycle
run. In essence we see the grossed up amount but there is no reduction from
taxes so the whole amount is ending up in net. Does anyone have any ideas on
what may be causing the issue. We have 3 wage types configured like M031, M032
and M033. It works in a regular run but not off cycle. I have also tried
modifying processing class 76 to no avail.
Regards,
Greg
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Graziela, The taxes on offcycle PUAY's are not working the way they should. Please look at the way they are handled in retros, the taxes in PUAY's should never be adjusted and the taxable on when an offcycle is process is not working properly. Retro changed taxes and left a net that would never be paid unless we audit the PAUY’s. Please suggest. Regards, Dibyendu
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
New note about TR released, regarding a dump in CE:
2277744 - TR: syntax error in program RPCTRCU0_CE
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Please post new questions about this topic in a new thread
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi to all,
I need some help with generating Online W2c. Our company recently implemented Online W2 functionality and it worked great, however, somehow we are not able to generate the W2c's.
Does anyone have an idea what could be the cause for this issue?
I have set the date under the Generation/Filing Dates in PU19 on the W2's so it should allow me to generate w2c's at this point.
Thank,
Duong
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
Including new notes correction for TAX:
2261013 | - TAX: Incorrect reciprocal participation code in BSI interface |
2215294 - TAX: Incorrect number of exemptions in BSI interface
2211140 - TAX: Incorrect data sent in BSI interface
Thanks,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Online W2 Display
We have executed Production W2 run however feature UTREL was not maintained for FORYEAR 2015 at the time of production run
Now we have maintained the feature,
Please suggest, now how could we made W2 online available for them?
Also, some employees didn't select IT3228 (Online Selection) - could we now create IT3228 now and make Online W2 for them?
Please provide the help on the 2 issues.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Saurabh,
Maintain the feature UTREL with the parameters as shown.
SE11 transaction, enter the table name as V_5UXY_A, and then enter the information as shown below. Then execute.
From the table contents 'Tax Reporter Form Number' for the year 2015.
Now in transaction PU19, under the menu 'Utilities' select 'Delete Production PCL4' , enter the form number and the tax company and execute.
System will ask you to confirm the deletion. Continue and you will get output similar to the one below.
Maintain the IT3228 for the employees with Online W2 selection.
Now run the Production W2 again, you should be able to see the Online W2. Try this first in your test system and then do it in Production system.
Thanks
Kumar Ganesan
Hello community,
New notes released for TR:
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
Two notes released today, about WTA and GU:
2198687 - TAX: Taxes reciprocity is not being set correctly for gross up payments
2248053 - TAX: Wrong percentage worked taken into consideration in tax calculation
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello Venkat,
There is a note related to GU which has been just released by Developer:
2229623 - TAX: Incorrect retrocalculation of gross-up due to change in self-adjusted tax
Kind regards,
Graziela
Hello Venkata,
Can you check 2162191 - TAX: Taxables wages are not restored in retro cross-year
gross-up payment as this has been released as a PILOT for the mentioned issue you are facing.
Do let me know your feedback if it is resolving your issue as we do not PILOT test for SAP and hence unable to test in our system.
thanks,
Manish M.
Hello community,
Important:
Correction to the SOC for LA which were not being populated:
Thank you,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
The following SAP note has been released:
2200531 - TR: Out of balance issue on form 941
This is also related to line 7 incorrect.
Thanks,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
Important notes have been released:
2259895 - TAX: Note 1836745 introduces error in a payroll period over Additional Off-Cycle Payments
2261464 - TAX: Voided period being imported in UTPRI incorrectly
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Graziela - We submitted a high note today (69177 2016) as the notes 2259895 and 2261464 are not resolving the issues with 0221 processing in HRSP 96. Our test system is on HRSP 96 including these 2 additional notes. Our production system is on 95 and is fine. So it is clearly isolated to the application of 96.
The issue is that UTXOR 2 is not dropping /101 during 0221 processing inside a normal payroll run. This is causing a /101 to be saved to the RT at final processing.
Our Max attention consultant can't process this unless we convert it to very high. We need to apply 96 this Friday for our other global payrolls year-end. Thanks.
We have one employee that has medicare taxable wages that go over the 200,000.00 threshold. For the last couple of years we have had no issues. We ran a test 941 right before we applied year end patches (upto 604 92) and the employee's 941 in the 4th quarter generated fine, no errors. We generated a test 941 after patches were applied and it now gives an error in the 941 that the employee is out of balance. We have to manual adjustments on some employee's an are unable to process those in the 941 fourth quarter or the W2's because of this error. The employee's payroll results are all correct and withholding and taxable amounts are ok. The 941 has the correct amounts for this employee as well. It appears the 941 is giving a message that the employee is out of balance the amount of the additional tax withheld X2. So additional tax withheld is 327.47 and it says the employee is out of balance by 654.94 which is 327.47 * 2. I am not finding a note that fixes this yet. Has anyone else seen this?
Thanks,
Gina Gillespie
Update: I applied notes for Q4/2015 and Year End Phase II and III and this error went away however it still says my manual entries are ignored. I thought they were being ignored because of the out of balance person but that must not be why. Anyone know what might cause all the manual adjustments to be ignored in the 941 and W2 run? It doesn't give any description just says they are ignored with no indication of why.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Gina - I experienced that problem also after applying year end patches (up to 604 92). I discovered that Note 2118273 broken part of SAP Note 1959654.
Under configuration Payroll: USA -> Tax Reporter -> Tax Form Groups -> Define Tax Form groups containing non-tax wage types.
For tax Form Group TA12 change the add or subtract in field back to Add Wage Type.
That fixed my problem of receiving the 'Out of Balance' error by 2 times the amount of the additional Medicare tax withheld.
Hi Community
We have applied the Q4/2015 (note 2253023) and Tax Reporter Phase III notes into our TST environment. It appears that one of these notes (I suspect 2253023) broke the Form 941. Line 7 - Current quarter's adjustments for fractions of cents now has the (additional Medicare tax + fractions of cents) * 2 in the line. Instead of just the fractions of cents.
The same individual in PRD with additional Medicare works fine and line 7 just contains the fractions of cents (ie -.03).
Tax Report Phase II note is already in our PRD environment.
Hi Gina
SAP released note 220531 today. This note fixed my issue with Form 941 Line 7. I also had to revert back to 'subtract wage type' for TA12 under Tax Reporter -> Tax Form Groups -> Define tax form groups containing non-tax wage types - Assignment of wage types containing no tax amounts. See note 2118273.
Hello Community,
Following notes with corrections to Tax Reporter have been released:
2197622 TR: Configuration checker shows false warning for quarterly correction tax form | |
2205428 TR: Wrong table structure in Tax Reporter Log Manager |
2246367 TR: Form W-2c PR has wrong default value in Amended Form 499 R3 Indicator
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello All/Graziela,
Happy New year!
We have come across a typical scenario on Negative Tax Assistance Adjustment process.We noticed that the Medicare Tax is getting generated through BSI interface in the function USTAX where as none of the other Taxes(i.e. Federal and Social Security) get generated.May we know if anyone of you have faced the same situation ever?If so, we would be glad to hear your response.
Thanks,
Geet
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Good morning, Graziela - I have entered SAP Incident #0000013287 regarding Note 1836745. We are on SAP_HR 6.08 patch 20, and the manual pre-implement step for Note 1836745 says that it is valid up to patch 11, so I did not import the delivered config transport. However, after implementing the automatic correction instructions, when I go to SM30 to edit the view, the new wage type MAWH doesn't exist. I can see that it is contained in the delivered config transport L8HK050880, but I didn't import it because the validity shows I should not need it. Is this a misprint in the Note instructions?
Thanks!
Blair Towe
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Blair, SAP and all,
I'm not sure about this specific problem but this OSS note ( 1836745 - TAX: Additional Withholding Over Arrears) has caused several payroll issues in our system and now contains side effects notes that address some of those issues.
2248641 - TAX: Note 1836745 introduces error in retro over NAMC and
2256229 - TAX: Note 1836745 introduces error in retro over Additional Off-Cycle Payments
In fact, unfortunately, the "bad" note (1836745) was applied to our production system as part of our year end support packs and has resulted in significant negative impacts to our Off cycle payroll adjustments that were done the last several pay periods of 2015. This includes causing us to have to manually adjust 19 W2's where annual retirement deductions in box 12 are out of balance in the CRT and TCRT.
SAP - These issues should have been communicated "prominently" in this forum and in the Marketplace with a direct reference to this note rather than just mentioning these correction notes as shown below, this was not adequate notification of the negative impact of this note:
SAP Notes 2256229 and 2248641 deliver corrections to tax calculation in retrocalculation scenarios over Additional Off-Cycle Payments and NAMC, respectively.
Great point Jeff and having been doing SAP Payroll since 1998, outside of 1999 the past two years have been some of the most difficult for customers IMHO which is surprising given how mature the SAP Payroll product is. I get that Payroll is complex and constantly changing but from the BSI 10.0 upgrade, to reciprocity/courtesy withholding to issues like the above I think SAP can and should do better.
Jeff -
I would have to agree! The YE2015 page hasn't even been updated well this year and that is where I always refer to for updates. We have had nothing but issues since applying the last SP's/CLC's and still don't think we have found all the issues. Unfortunately ALL of these problems are in our PRODUCTION system. There has to be a change in the Payroll and/or Tax functions/schemas/etc that we can't find that is behind all of these issues.
We had to void 200+ payments in the last payroll of 2015 for separated EE's who suddenly got refunds of taxes and they were not due the money.
We had more refunds show up in payroll 1.2016 that involves gross ups with cost assignment with cross year retros. We have a message out for this one and still waiting on a solution - per 2 runs 1/15 so we are a little nervous.
Not to mention we are still struggling with all the constant changes in reciprocity and BSI. We create overrides and 10 TUBs later BSI changes it so we have to remove the override or change it to another setting.
We don't have the luxury of having a Production like system that is refreshed with every payroll run that we can use for testing and there is no way to test 60k+ EE's for every change that we put it in.
My apologies for the rant, but the last 2 months of issues have been "unrealistic" in my opinion.
Happy New Year.
Good morning - SAP finally responded to my incident and they did change the validity instructions for the pre-implement transport in Note 1836745. For anyone running SAP_HR 6.08 (HR Renewal 2.0), the pre-implement transport is valid up to SAPKE60820. Originally, it said it was only valid up to SAPKE60811.
Regards,
Blair Towe
Hi Graziela,
I'm not sure if this is an known issue.
Just FYI, I opened already the incident #0000002491 to SAP but I'm still waiting for a response from them.
When we are doing the W2 Adjustments, the system is creating a claim. This started to happen after we upgraded the HR SAP components until SP 93 for SAP_HR and EA-HR 55.
The company decides to pay these taxes directly instead of having the employee be responsible for the taxes. With this in mind we off set the wages to ensure the employee is receiving a $0.00 check.
Because we choose to calculate FICA taxes only, we are not able to choose the calculate with tax button when uploading the information. We calculate the FICA taxes in a separate spreadsheet, convert to txt and upload to SAP via transaction PAUY and choose calculate without tax (see below)
Below is an example of what we put in the spreadsheet for an Auto adjustment. We use the 1179 wage type to offset the amount so when the adjustment is run through payroll, there is a $0 dollar check. This is how our consultant’s had us do it last year, and we had no issues with the process so we are not sure if this issue was created because the HR SP that we implemented as explained above.
When testing this in our test environment for an employee, it created a claim as you can see below:
Do you know if this is an know issue or if exist an SAP note to resolve this problem?
Thanks,
Carlos
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Graziela,
Happy New Year!
I was wondering if you could help me with this please; I think something may have changed with regard to our system calculating technical WT /560 or processing Off-cycle SType YAWA, but am just not sure which schema or PCR to specifically look into, or if any of the YE HRSPs we implemented may have caused the issue -- we have applied HRSPs 604.88-93 to date.
If you check the below transaction dated 11/7/15, for EE 161752 – Wilson (date where HRSPs have not been applied yet), the YE adjustment was processed as expected where "Amount to be paid (/560)" was blank/zero:
But when I ran these IT221 records in the OC Workbench (after the HRSPs were applied), "negative /560's" are being generated generated:
Per my initial analysis on the issue, the system is creating a negative /560 and /5U9 whenever a PY Results Adjustment is run -- initially thought that it only was the case if SType YAWA is used, but my testings found that other OC Reasons/STypes used in IT221 generated negative amounts for above reflected WTs as well -- YANA (0110) and Blank (0070).
The expectation is whichever SType or OC Reason is used, the system should not be creating a net manual check amount (/5U9) or amount to be paid to the employee (/560), needless to say, these WTs should not be generated in RT. Additionally, found WTs 1024 and 4998 do not cumulate in WTs /101 and /110, respectively -- these two WTs should be taken into account by the system (or a PCR, but can't identify which specifically) to zero out /560; hence create no /560 nor /5U9.
Have checked the Marketplace but found no Note which could resolve this issue -- but of course, I may be wrong. Lastly, hope you could let me know what your personal email address is so I can send the characteristics of WTs 1024 and 4998, as well as other details.
Appreciate your help on this.
Many thanks and All the Best,
Ojie
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
I have been monitoring the SAP Year End website, and I am concerned now, after having reviewed your responses above, that I have missed important notes. Should I be monitoring this site instead?
Also, this is the first year that we have to electronically submit our NC state tax mag media file. The format provided by the IRS does not correspond to the format being produced in PU19. PU19 has header and RA records, which are not in the specs provided by IRS. I submitted an incident, but was told that these records should not cause any issues. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Graziela,
While running the SAP program RPCSC000, some of our Payroll jobs are falling in the previous Payroll period ( 4 of 6) and some are running in the current Period ( which is correct). This issue happen after implementing the SP92 in our System.
Do you think SAP Note 2187381 will correct this issue?
Thanks,
Ionut
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Graziela,
I have opened and incident # 0000930175 with some back up information for our 941 Schedule B issue.
Unfortunately it is not an incident that I can replicate since it is not an error it is just the report showing now different numbers when compared to prior runs.
Thanks,
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
The following SAP note has been released:
2253023 - Q4/2015: Functional changes for U.S. Tax Reporter
Kind regards,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hi Graziela,
Last week we applied the CLC's for US up to 92 to our Production environment and it appears it affected the 941 form changing the amounts on the Schedule B form for this last quarter.
I do see that there is a note 2155714 which references an issue with cross quarter adjustments on the 941 but this would have been included on the CLC's that we applied.
Has anyone else reported any issues with there 941 amounts being adjusted after CLC application.
Thanks a lot for any assistance.
Hi Graziela
Basis has implemented Note 2253023 into our Test environment but for the LA SUI mag. media, position 360 (hourly wages) and position 367 (SOC Code) are still not being reported.
Can you give a more detailed explanation for creating entries for all your employees' position in table view V_T5U28_C.
Thanks
Hi Katt,
This issue has to do with a change in the functionality of the 941 form done with note 2155714 to correct how cross quarter changes were being handled. I didn't get a resolution except the "we need to change our reconciliation process to match the new functionality of the form". We use to be able tie our tax numbers from the Schedule B, the Third Party posting line items and the Payroll Reconciliation Report and now that is not possible. 941 C now need to be run so that cross quarter retro changes don't rollover and affect your current quarter numbers.
I am still working on developing a new process for us to reconcile.
Are you having this problem?
Thanks,
Evelyn
Hello Community,
There are some recent corrections to the PY-XX framework that impact most of the country-specific payrolls.
The following notes delivered these corrections:
- SAP Note 2187381 - "Payroll area: Incorrect status in payroll programs"
It corrects error message "Payroll area &1 is not released for payroll" in the payroll driver.
- SAP Note 2172513 - "Process model set wrong status for employees who have on demand payroll run"
It corrects an issue where process model is showing as incorrect (red light) when there are employees locked by IT0003 in the selection.
- SAP Note 2169148 - "Too many blank lines in SP01 display"
This is not a payroll note, but it corrects an issue where too many blank lines are displayed in the payroll spool.
- SAP Note 2207366 - "PA03: Payroll control record: No status change possible"
Besides the error informed in the note, it also corrects error message "This action is not possible for status Created new of payroll area &" when trying to exit payroll.
- KBA 2160803 - "Transfer of employees in Pre-DME throws multiple errors"
This is actually not a correction note, but a consulting knowledge base article.
It explains that a new authorization object (F_BNKA_BUK) must be given to the user to run the pre-DME program, otherwise message "No entry in table for key: T012" (or T012K) will be triggered.
Kind regards,
Cassiana.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello everyone,
Just a quick addition to my previous post:
We've had some customers reporting issues with payroll runs where only some jobs failed, out of the total number of jobs (for example, only 3 jobs out of 15).
This issue is addressed by SAP Note 2187381, that I have provided in my other post.
Best regards,
Cassiana.
Hello community,
Another important note:
2230694 - TAX: Wrong period being imported in UTPRI
Thank you,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello community,
Important notes to be applied:
2256229 - TAX: Note 1836745 introduces error in retro over Additional Off-Cycle Payments
2248641 - TAX: Note 1836745 introduces error in retro over NAMC
Thank you,
Graziela
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Hello, Graziela -
Thank you for posting this information.
We also had to apply SAP note 2230694 which fixed some other issues related to this. This is a side effect note fix for SAP note 2108035. Even though the scenario mentioned did not meet our setup, it still fixed issues with retro and incorrect generation of /Nxx wage types.
Best regards,
Anna Stevenson
Hi Anna,
Posted this note as well. There is another note related to the off-cycles that belongs to PY-XX, which also contains some important correction:
2253771 - Wrong retrocalculation back to Off-Cycle
Hope this is helpful.
Graziela
Thank you, Graziela! I noticed this when comparing a few people to production when I was looking at the arrears issue. I could not understand why the retro was occurring and was more concerned with the arrears situation. We are working on testing this and will let you know how it goes.
Best regards,
Anna Stevenson
User | Count |
---|---|
86 | |
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.