Announcement:
wanna exchange links? contact me at sapchatroom@gmail.com.
Posted by
Admin at
Navid,
I had to look into this option for a client on 4.6C due to an error in the SAP Depreciation Calculation. Their issue was that negative values were not allowed from a tax regulatory perspective. However when they capitalised assets from projects occassionally the first line item was negative and the SAP Calculation incorrectly ignore these credits as it did not take into account the net of all postings, but a running total, scratching to zero and ignoring values that would lead to a negative:
ie: line item 1 was: -$400
line item 2 was: $1,000
While the net of these is $600 and depreciation should therefore be based on this amount, it would ignore the first posting as negative values weren't allowed and thus calculated depreciation based on $1,000.
In the end, due to the number of affected assets, we implemented the change at the asset class level and added a report validation at month end for any negative values.
Thus, it is useful, however in scenarios where it may risk negative values on assets where this is not legal from a tax perspective, you will at the least require a validation procedure to ensure compliance.
Regards,
Chris
---------------Original Message---------------
From: nsamandari
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:20 PM
Subject: Is there a risk to assign negative value allowed at the Asset Class level?
> I am researching the Pros/Cons related to assigning the negative value allowed at the "Asset Class" level and hoping that you could help.
>
> We have a large asset base (> 4 million AMR) with values that could be made up of various permutations of positive and negative transactions within a single AMR. Our current business policy is to check the "Neg. Val Allowed" box for each AMR (in the depreciation area) but this is proving to be impossible over these past few years with the growth in our asset base and activities.
>
> One area that our SAP team had considered previously was to assign the negative APC allowed at the "Asset Class" level that appears to be the quickest and most efficient choice. However several members within our SAP team now hesitate to proceed since they heard from several external SAP FI-AA colleagues that this is not a recommended solution but unfortunately we can't locate any document to prove this option either way.
>
> Some permutations of the activities within a single AMR would be as follows:
> 1). AMR starting out as positive then a negative values posted - net value still positive.
> 2). AMR starting out as positive with subsequent negative values posted - net value is now negative.
> 3). AMR starting out as negative with subsequent positive values posted - net value is now positive.
>
> Has anyone else faced similar issue and what option did you pursue? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> NS
>
>
> Thanks,
> NS
| __.____._ Copyright © 2010 Toolbox.com and message author.
Toolbox.com 4343 N. Scottsdale Road Suite 280, Scottsdale, AZ 85251
| | Related Content White Papers
In the Spotlight  _.____.__ |
Mark as helpful
