Issue: (US)IT221/adjt negative sign dropped on /7xx wt's

[Former Member]

I created an incident with SAP a month ago for this - first response was to apply pilot note 2209616.  Did so but it did not resolve issue - next response was that updated correction instructions would soon be added to that note. It's been a couple of weeks and that does not appear to have happened; and it's been a week since my last update from SAP on the incident.  Would like to ask for an update, please.  Also, for the rest of those on the forum, as an fyi here is the description of the problem:

Created an IT221, subtype ADJT, for a negative wage as well as negative
tax amounts. When RPCALCU0 runs, the results indicate correct negative /3xx, /6xx wagetypes, but /7xx has the negative
sign DROPPED and therefore is a positive. This obviously results in incorrect RT and YTD (TCRT) values for the employee. This is happening in
our production system so therefore is of extreme importance. On Feb13th,we upgraded BSI to 10.0 cyclic J, had previously been on cyclic F.
An IT 221 that was created prior to Feb 13th was fine, until it was retro'd over and recalculated on Feb 23rd, when the WT /7xx's
were changed as described here. So I strongly suspect the BSI cyclic is related.

Thank you,

Paige Elkins

[former_member353481]

Hi Paige,

We have cyclic J applied but we don't have Note 2297225.

I did an ADJT on a recent pay result in March (shown below) and it looks like /7xx -ve amts are showing. I was hoping I can repeat your example so that we can be prepared when the problem occurs. Can you share what your adjt (IT0221) might look like?

Regards,

Thomas

[Former Member]

Thomas - FYI, we have applied note 2297225 and it did fix the problem.  Turns out it wasn't exactly tied to cyclic J but rather to the new BSI RFC Library (we applied the cyclic and moved to new library all in the same process).  So I would assume  you have not made the "BSI Wrapper" change yet since you aren't experiencing the issue - but once you do, will find yourselves needing that note.  As to my example, I just used an earnings wagetype for a negative amount, on an IT221 ADJT subtype (also, same issue occurs if using subtype YANA) plus some corresponding negative tax (/4) amounts, and my results yielded negative /3xx, /4xx, /6xx wagetypes, but positive /7xx's. 

[former_member353481]

Hi Paige,

I believe we do have the BSI wrapper code which we got from https://support.sap.com/software/patches.html.

I have not tried YANA so I'll try that but we'll apply the note anyways since we don't want to be caught with any surprises. Thanks for bringing it up.

Regards,

Thomas

[Former Member]

Paige,

We are experiencing the same issue.  Have you received a response?  I believe we are going to submit a message also.

Kim

[Former Member]

Hi, Kim - No, it seems to have fallen into a black hole since the initial conversations...SAP dialed in and confirmed the issue in our system but have not come back to me since stating that new correction instructions would soon be released.  I think it would be great for you to post a message as well, to perhaps get us some more traction!

Paige

[Kim_Grantham]

We submitted an incident yesterday also.  Exact same symptoms.  We did reach out to BSI but they said SAP was sending a positive amount, so it was an SAP issue.  We will keep you posted on our progress also!  Thanks for responding!

Kim

[Former Member]

Hi Kim, Paige,

SAP just got back to me on this issue and they gave me a pilot note to apply. It's only for our company to test so I will have to let you know how it goes.

Regards,

Duong

[Former Member]

Here is the latest on my 'Pilot' note that I got from SAP earlier today.

As far as I can tell, the note fixed our problem. However, further testing by our users will be conduct next week by running the before and after payroll testing.

I read thru the note and it indicated that the new RFC Library for BSI TaxFactory may have caused this issue. I can confirmed that this was the cause and not any Cyclic version update. We implemented the new RFC Library on 3/10/2016 and we ran this issue right after that.

Regards,

Duong

[Former Member]

Thanks for the quick feedback - yes, I totally agree it was related to the new RFC Library as that is exactly the sequence of what happened for us.  I'll keep watch on my incident know, expecting SAP will update it to include applying the pilot note you are testing.  Thanks for the help in getting this resolved!

[Former Member]

FYI - SAP has just released the real note 2297225 earlier today to fix this issue.