Skip to Content

Strange MAP behaviour when partial credit note posted

We are using the MAP method of stock valuation in a retail scenario. A simple scenario is described below where an invoice is received that is over quantity and over price.This is followed by a partial credit note and a goods receipt (simulating the scenario where there is an error on both sides – the supplier corrects their invoice and the purchaser corrects the goods receipt). We have replicated the same scenario with standard cost and MAP and the resulting stock valuation effect is different.

The behaviour observed is that the GRIR is written off to P&L (PRD account assignment) in both the standard cost and MAP scenarios when the partial credit note is posted. However there is a difference in the posting of the follow-up goods receipt. In standard costing the GR is valuated at standard cost and therefore some of the movement from GRIR to P&L is reversed.In the MAP scenario this does not take place - the GR Is valued at zero and therefore the MAP is diluted (it is as if, from a stock valuation perspective, we have got some stock for free). A finance posting is only made for any new excess GR quantity (shown as a final GR of 5 below).

I have a couple of queries:

  1. Why is the full invoice GRIR posting reversed to price differences when a partial credit note is posted? It certainly wasn't what we expected to happen
  2. Why is MAP diluted (i.e. stock receipted with no value) when a GR is receipted after a partial credit note under the MAP method of stock valuation?
Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

0 Answers