cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

U.S. Year End 2015

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

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

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

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

Answers (32)

Answers (32)

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

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

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

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

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hello community,

Important note to be applied:

2297225 - TAX: Wage Type /701 not adjusting with IT0221

Kind regards,
Graziela

jwiblepasshe22
Participant
0 Kudos

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.

alicia_robinson
Participant
0 Kudos

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.

jwiblepasshe22
Participant
0 Kudos

Good point Alicia, we experienced the same with the wage types you mentioned. We had not installed any other notes or tax related changes except the wrapper code so that is why we pointed to that as a possible cause.

stevenan
Participant
0 Kudos

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

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

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

stevenan
Participant
0 Kudos

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

alicia_robinson
Participant
0 Kudos

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.

stevenan
Participant
0 Kudos

Thank you, Alicia!!!

Finally able to recreate the issue and can explain to business what the cause and effect are so that we can mitigate if needed... at least until we can get the latest updates applied and tested.

Best regards, Anna

Former Member
0 Kudos

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

blair_towe2
Participant
0 Kudos

Good morning, Phillip - You may want to look at Note 2264875 if you are on SAP_HR 6.08. We encountered the issue mentioned in this note and it solved our problem. It also deals with the DDAY and ODAY fields.

Regards,

Blair Towe

Former Member
0 Kudos

Thanks Blair. The note has been applied but now we are getting another error.

"DD" cannot be interpreted as a number.

I wonder if you receive the same error also.

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hello community,

The Q1/2016 has been released:

2293471 - Q1/2016: Functional changes for U.S. Tax Reporter

Kind regards,
Graziela

ConeC
Participant
0 Kudos

Graziela,

We received the following error once the update for NY was completed:

Syntax error

Form HR_F_UNEMP_NY, Node HIBN

Field ALLFIELDS-H1BN does not exist

Form HR_F_UNEMP_NY, Node OHIBN

Field ALLFIELDS-OHIBN does not exist

However, the SUI form processed as expected.

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hi Cherylnita,

Could you confirm that you have note:
2084244 - TR: SUI NY missing binding for dep. health insurance


Thank you,
Graziela

ConeC
Participant
0 Kudos

Graziela,

Applying note 2084244 resolved the errors.

Thank You!!!!

greg_zifchock
Participant
0 Kudos

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

Former Member
0 Kudos

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

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hello community,

New note about TR released, regarding a dump in CE:

2277744 - TR: syntax error in program RPCTRCU0_CE

Kind regards,
Graziela

moshenaveh
Community Manager
Community Manager
0 Kudos

Please post new questions about this topic in a new thread

Former Member
0 Kudos

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

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos
Former Member
0 Kudos

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.

Euna
Participant
0 Kudos

HI Saurabh,

Wouldn't "overwrite" resolve the issue? Just a thought.

Regards,

Euna

0 Kudos

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

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Euna,

We have already processed and submitted authority copy and don't want to overwrite already processed results.

We just need to generate Online W2 without impacting already processed onine W2

Regards,

Saurabh

Former Member
0 Kudos

Feature UTREL is already corrected. Now We don't want to reprocessed already generated W2 just want to generate Online W2

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos
Matt_Fraser
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Graziela,

Note 2264961 that you just listed says it is a correction for Note 832236, but I think that must be in error. 832236 is an EA-FINSERV Note with a completely different title than that listed for it in 2264961.

Cheers,

Matt

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hi Matt,

You are right. The correct note number is 1832236.

I shared this info with developer responsible.

Thank you,
Graziela

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hi Matt,

This is fixed now!

Cheers,
Graziela

Matt_Fraser
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Fast work!

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos
Venkat61
Explorer
0 Kudos

Graziela,

We are getting penny difference in cross year retros on non-cash gross-ups and it's causing FI posting issues. Can you please let us know if there is any note to fix this issue?  

Thanks,

Venkat

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

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



Venkat61
Explorer
0 Kudos

Hi Graziela,

We implemented this note (2229623) and still our issue is not resolved. Looks like this +
or - penny difference is causing by rounding not self adjustments. This is happening only on non-cash Gross-ups in cross year retros. Please advice us as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Venkat

manish_kumar13
Explorer
0 Kudos

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.

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hello community,

Important:

Correction to the SOC for LA which were not being populated:

2264744 - TR: SOC wrong format and Hourly Wages are being printed as blank for Salaried Employees in...


Thank you,
Graziela

Katt
Participant
0 Kudos

This note mentions that it is a pilot note and only available for the pilot testing and has not been released for general availability yet.

Has this been fully released for everyone?

Also, are there other notes that need to be applied for this issue?

Thanks,

Katt

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hi Katt,

I just reviewed the note and this is fine. You can go ahead and apply note 2264744 this is released to all customers.

Kind regards,
Graziela

Katt
Participant
0 Kudos

Graziela,

Thank you very much for the confirmation. Are you able to verify if there are any other notes that need to be applied to update the LA SUI file?

Katt

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hi Katt,

There is the Q4 2015 note 2253023 and note 2264744.


These are the notes related to LA SUI file.

There is also the announcement note 2249574, but this note doesn´t delivery any change in terms of code and forms.

Thanks,


Graziela

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

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

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos
Euna
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Graziela,

Would you be able to tell me when the fix will be released for the note2253023?

Best regards,

Euna

Former Member
0 Kudos

Graziela,

I have a small question, Is it mandatory to apply the YE phase 111 note? I ask as we have done all the W2 audits which are looking fine and are ready to run the live W2 production run.

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hello Ayushman A,

I believe you mean Phase III note 2252013, isn´t it? If so, this note delivers some changes for the Year End, as new version of 940:

HR_F_940PR_15
HR_F_940_15
HR_F_940_SCHA_15


If you need to generate these forms you need to apply the note.

Kind regards,
Graziela

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hi Euna,

Developer has created a new version of the correction instruction today.
The note has pilot status onde we receive a feedback the note will be released. I don´t have an exactly date.

Do you want to be Pilot?

Thanks,
Graziela

Euna
Participant
0 Kudos

Oh, yes, please.

Euna

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hi Euna,

Do you have an opened incident? If not, could you please create and I will take over and add you as Pilot.

Thanks,
Graziela

Euna
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Graziela,

0000045581 2016 has opened.

Thank you.

Euna

Former Member
0 Kudos

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.

GINACG
Explorer
0 Kudos

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.

0 Kudos

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.

0 Kudos

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.

0 Kudos

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.

blair_towe2
Participant
0 Kudos

Good morning, Lisa - Just a small correction to your post. The note number is 2200531.

Regards,

Blair

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos
0 Kudos

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

Venkat61
Explorer
0 Kudos

Hi Graziela,

Can you please let us know when Year End 2015 Phase III note will be released?

Thanks,

Venkat

blair_towe2
Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Venkat - If you mean Phase III for U.S. Tax Reporter, it has been released. Check Note 2252013.

Regards,

Blair Towe

Venkat61
Explorer
0 Kudos

Yes, this is the one I was looking for. Thanks Blair.

blair_towe2
Participant
0 Kudos

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

jwiblepasshe22
Participant
0 Kudos

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.

Pazahanick_Jarr
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

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.

alicia_robinson
Participant
0 Kudos

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.

blair_towe2
Participant
0 Kudos

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

Former Member
0 Kudos

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

jwiblepasshe22
Participant
0 Kudos

Carlos, we had a similar issue that was fixed with the 2nd OSS note listed below but you may want to apply both and test: 2256229 - TAX: Note 1836745 introduces error in retro over Additional Off-Cycle Payments 2248641 - TAX: Note 1836745 introduces error in retro over NAMC Regards, Jeff

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Jeff,

The issue was solved with the two notes that you put in your comments.

Thanks a lot for the help!!

Carlos

Former Member
0 Kudos

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

jwiblepasshe22
Participant
0 Kudos

Ojie,

We had a similar issue with retroactive payroll runs and off cycles and applied the note below which fixed the issue.

Not sure if this is exactly the same but it sounds similar enough to maybe give this a try.

Regards,

Jeff

Former Member
0 Kudos

Will surely do, Jeff.

Will let you know if this Correction Note fixes our issue.

Many thanks and All the Best,

Ojie

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hello Jeff,

The correction note worked!!!

Thank you so much for helping out

Many thanks and All the Best,

Ojie

Debbie_Moses
Participant
0 Kudos

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!

Former Member
0 Kudos

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

evelyn_barbosa
Explorer
0 Kudos

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,

debbieb_bcps
Participant
0 Kudos

Graziela,

I work with Evelyn; do you have any information on this issue? Are we the only SAP customers experiencing an issue with our 941 returns for the third and fourth quarters of 2015?

Thanks Debbie

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hello community,

The following SAP note has been released:

2253023 - Q4/2015: Functional changes for U.S. Tax Reporter

Kind regards,
Graziela

evelyn_barbosa
Explorer
0 Kudos

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.

0 Kudos

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

ConeC
Participant
0 Kudos

Has there been any additional updates for note 2253023 regarding LA SUI reporting.  The note references that the mag media report will used field SO Code field to pull the data from table V_T5U28_C.  However, the field is only required for the state of Alaska.

Katt
Participant
0 Kudos

Evelyn,

Just curious if you received a response to your question regarding the cross quarter adjustments issue on the 941.

Thanks,

Katt

evelyn_barbosa
Explorer
0 Kudos

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

cassigiani
Advisor
Advisor
0 Kudos

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.

cassigiani
Advisor
Advisor

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.

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hello community,

Another important note:

2230694 - TAX: Wrong period being imported in UTPRI

Thank you,
Graziela

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos
Euna
Participant
0 Kudos


Hi Graziela,

It's still not generating the deduction in ARRRS table in Off-cycle, but both in Off-cycle and Regular process in the next regular run.

We need to have the deduction in ARRRS in off-cycle as well.

Regards,

Euna

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hi Euna,

I have seen you opened an incident. I will take a look.

Kind regards,

Graziela

stevenan
Participant
0 Kudos

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

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

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

stevenan
Participant
0 Kudos

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

stevenan
Participant
0 Kudos

Hello, Graziela -

This note is now implemented in our production system and fixes the issue.

Thank you very much!

Best regards,

Anna Stevenson

graziela
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hi, Anna,

Thank you! I´m glad to heard that.

Have a great weekend.

Kind regards,
Graziela