Actually, no. Both Roy and I were recommending you NOT to use transaction
types!
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Hugo via sap-acct <
sap-acct@groups.ittoolbox.com> wrote:
> Posted by Hugo
> on Sep 24 at 1:52 PM
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks to all for your contributions.
>
> I was not able to engage in the discussion earlier today but at least now I
> have confirmation that I am on the right track with using transaction types.
>
>
> Regards,
> Hugo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roy B via sap-acct
> To: Hugo
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [sap-acct] Asset acquisition/sale for leading or non-leading
> ledger only
>
>
> Posted by Roy B (SAP Financials Expert)
> on Sep 24 at 10:26 AM Mark as helpful
> Comes to us all, my friend. Wait until you are as old as I am! You get to a
> stage where you no longer hear the words "happy" and "birthday" in the same
> sentence. :-)
> Watching TV last night, Fran Fine started to read her grandmother's
> horoscope for the next day. She got as far as "Tomorrow morning you will
> wake up ..." and Granny shouted "Yippee!!!" Anyway, it's Friday afternoon.
> Some of us have a weekend to look forward to, so have a good one.
>
> Regards, Roy
>
> Roy Brookes AFA, FInstBA,
> SAP? Financials Expert
> Senior SAP? Financials Consultant
> Tel: +49 171 268 9635 (mobile)
> Tel: +49 40 793 19642 (landline)
> Skype ID: roystonbrookes
> email@removed
> email@removed
> www.RoyBrookes.com <http://www.roybrookes.com/>
> Published Author
> email@removed
> Director, Software Partner Solutions limited
> www.Software-Partner-Solutions.com<http://www.software-partner-solutions.com/>
> www.linkedin.com/in/roybrookes
> SAP? Expert Index Registration: CRF **42819*
> SAP? Referral Partner for Business One
>
> On 24.09.2010 15:52, PSD Rajan via sap-acct wrote:
> Posted by PSD Rajan
> on Sep 24 at 9:58 AM Mark as helpful
> I probably should have clarified that my response was only within the
> context of asset purchase/sale. Made an assumption there. Age catching up!
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Roy B via sap-acct <
> sap-acct@groups.ittoolbox.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Posted by Roy B (SAP Financials
> > Expert)
> > on Sep 24 at 9:36 AM Absolutely.
> > I failed to pick up on that point and to clarify that I agree totally
> with
> > it.
> >
> > Best Regards, Roy
> >
> > Roy Brookes AFA, FInstBA,
> > SAP? Financials Expert
> > Senior SAP? Financials Consultant
> > Tel: +49 171 268 9635 (mobile)
> > Tel: +49 40 793 19642 (landline)
> > Skype ID: roystonbrookes
> > email@removed
> > email@removed
> > www.RoyBrookes.com <http://www.roybrookes.com/> <
> http://www.roybrookes.com/>
> > Published Author
> > email@removed
> > Director, Software Partner Solutions limited
> > www.Software-Partner-Solutions.com<http://www.software-partner-solutions.com/>
> <http://www.software-partner-solutions.com/>
> > www.linkedin.com/in/roybrookes
> > SAP? Expert Index Registration: CRF **42819*
> > SAP? Referral Partner for Business One
> >
> > On 24.09.2010 15:14, PSD Rajan via sap-acct wrote:
> > Posted by PSD Rajan
> > on Sep 24 at 9:22 AM Mark as helpful
> > Roy, I agree with you totally. My point is that the control should be at
> > the application level rather than the transaction level.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Roy B via sap-acct <
> > sap-acct@groups.ittoolbox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Posted by Roy B(SAP Financials Expert)
> > > on Sep 24 at 8:30 AM Hi
> > > Rajan,
> > >
> > > You are right, as usual, but there are times when you need to have
> > > differences between leading ledger and non-leading ledger. Let's say
> the
> > > leading ledger is set up for the group's accounting policies (say US
> > GAAP)
> > > while the non-leading ledger is used for local GAAP. What may be an
> asset
> >
> > > for US GAAP may be written off immediately in local GAAP. There are
> many
> > > different rules on what is capitalized in various countries, for
> example,
> >
> > > low value assets or software. Also you can have different bases of
> > valuation
> > > for things like stock. In the USA you may use standard cost while IFRS
> > calls
> > > for actual (lower of cost or net realizable value), and the Germans use
>
> > the
> > > lowest possible value (Niederwertsprinzip). There may also be timing
> > > differences caused by the use of different fiscal years e,g, Bulgaria
> > uses
> > > an April-March year. Then there are differences between local
> accounting
> > and
> > > IFRS as in Germany where you use HGB for local and IFRS are required by
>
> > the
> > > EU. France has its own valuation rules for much of the balance sheet.
> All
> > of
> > > these differences in accounting treatment will end up in retained
> > earnings
> > > which will have to be reconciled, but this is something that
> accountants
> > > around the World just have to live with (at least until IFRS become
> > > universally accepted which will take a few years yet). I am not arguing
>
> > with
> > > your basic ideas, but just pointing out some realities.
> > >
> > > Regards, Roy
> > >
> > > Roy Brookes AFA, FInstBA,
> > > SAP? Financials Expert
> > > Senior SAP? Financials Consultant
> > > Tel: +49 171 268 9635 (mobile)
> > > Tel: +49 40 793 19642 (landline)
> > > Skype ID: roystonbrookes
> > > email@removed
> > > email@removed
> > > www.RoyBrookes.com <http://www.roybrookes.com/> <
> http://www.roybrookes.com/> <
> > http://www.roybrookes.com/>
> > > Published Author
> > > email@removed
> > > Director, Software Partner Solutions limited
> > > www.Software-Partner-Solutions.com<http://www.software-partner-solutions.com/>
> <http://www.software-partner-solutions.com/>
> > <http://www.software-partner-solutions.com/>
> > > www.linkedin.com/in/roybrookes
> > > SAP? Expert Index Registration: CRF **42819*
> > > SAP? Referral Partner for Business One
> > >
> > > On 24.09.2010 13:17, PSD Rajan via sap-acct wrote:
> > > Posted by PSD Rajan
> > > on Sep 24 at 7:45 AM Mark as helpful
> > > You got it right Hugo, technically, so to say. New Transaction Types
> > > limiting postings to the specific depreciation gets what you want.
> > >
> > > However, I am not convinced with the requirement as such. Allowing
> > > independence between the leading ledger and the parallel ledger will
> > create
> > >
> > > very undesirable reconciliation issues, not only with assets but also
> > with
> > > GL, AR and AP. Even if you do not use the PO process for acquisition
> into
> >
> > > the parallel ledger, for example, you still have to pay real money to
> > real
> > > vendors..... So, the offset to the cash outflow has to be accounted
> > somehow
> > >
> > > in the leading ledger. You may want to write off the asset immediately
> in
> >
> > > the leading ledger and keep the nbv in the parallel ledger. Also, in
> the
> > > case of sale of the asset, you can't just show the sale only in one
> > ledger
> > > and leave it in the other... I would assume that the requirement is at
> > the
> > > asset level wherein they need to book certain assets only in one of the
>
> > > ledgers and not the other. From this view point, you are better off
> > > managing the requirement at the asset level rather than at a
> transaction
> > > level, which would be the 'right' practice.
> > >
> > > We do use transaction types specific to depreciation areas for
> > adjustments
> > > during the asset lifecycle, including retirement. But never for either
> > > purchase or sale of the asset.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Hugo via sap-acct <
> > > sap-acct@groups.ittoolbox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Posted by Hugo
> > > > on Sep 23 at 5:20 PM Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to verify something: my client has New GL activated with
> a
> >
> > > > parallel ledger for their statutory books. Depreciation area i01 s
> > > assigned
> > > > to the leading ledger and depreciation area 15 is assigned to the
> > > statutory
> > > > (parallel) ledger.
> > > >
> > > > Now they want the ability to acquire or sell assets only for their
> > > leading
> > > > ledger or only for their parallel ledger. In my opinion this can only
>
> > be
> > > > achieved by creating new transaction types, assign these only to the
> > > > depreciation area in question and then use for example a transaction
> > like
> > >
> > > > AB01. Because when you purchase assets via Purchase Order all ledgers
>
> > > will
> > > > be updated automatically, there is no option to narrow the
> acquisition
> > > down
> > > > to a certain ledger. Am i right or are there better options? What is
> > best
> > >
> > > > practice in these circumstances?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Hugo
| __.____._ Copyright © 2010 Toolbox.com and message author.
Toolbox.com 4343 N. Scottsdale Road Suite 280, Scottsdale, AZ 85251
| |  PSD Rajan
SAP Accounting Enthusiast
Contributed 100 posts in a group to earn a Bronze Achievement _.____.__ |
Mark as helpful
