Skip to Content
avatar image
Former Member

Account Maintenance - Problem with ERDK-total_amount

Hello,

I am facing a problem with the total amount calculated in ERDK when we have ACCMNT item (items added by account maintenance during invoicing).

We use BBP with partial bills (BBP procedure 2) and

- we create 2 partial bills unpaid for 100€ each,

- the end period bill is -50€

1) If we have no clearing variant in ISU invoicing (Define Specifications for IS-U Invoicing) => total_amount is correct.

=> Total amount is -50€

=> we see SUBT item for 150€ (invoice of the customers on the whole period)

=> we see BBPREQ item for -200€ (partial bills)

2) If we have a clearing variant in ISU invoicing (Define Specifications for IS-U Invoicing) => total_amount is incorrect

=> Total amount will be 20€ for instance

=> Base total amount is then -50€ as seen is 1), those -50€ will clear partial bills unpaid so we will have 50€ of items ACCMNT added (in DBERDL)

=> 20€ of other remaining items can be cleared by invoicing and are added in total amount.

=> we would expect the total amount to be -50€ as well as this is the amount of the end period bill.

Is there a way to avoid adding the amount of account maintenance (ACCMNT) in total_amount ? in standard ?

Those items are not available in R410 and account maintenance is done after execution of R999.

Best regards

Pierre-Yves

Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

1 Answer

  • Best Answer
    Feb 25, 2015 at 10:47 AM

    Hi,


    That is normal:

    With the standard settings, the final bill amount is made up of the results of consumption valuation, minus paid budget billings[1], plus any other account items settled in invoicing (in account maintenance) or additional functions (such as dunning and interest calculation) created in invoicing. Determination of Final Bill Amount

    The amounts invoiced using the integrated account maintenance in Invoicing will always be included in the bill amount - that feels entirely logical to me and I wouldn't even consider trying to mess with that functionality in any way. So the only way to avoid "double billing" unpaid partial bills would be - not include them in the integrated account maintenance...

    [1] minus "paid budget billings" is misleading/wrong here, because:

    On the basis of the selected budget billing procedure, budget billing payments or receivables that have been made, are deducted from the billing document.

    (..)

    • Budget billing payments which have been made and recorded as payments in contract accounts receivable and payable, can be reposted into the total in invoicing. This is part of the statistical budget billing plan procedure. (..)
    • The bill receivable is reduced in invoicing by the budget billing amounts, which are set as debits in the partial billing procedure.

    Processing Budget Billing Plans

    As an alternative to account maintenance in Invoicing, if the "normal" FI-CA account maintenance is set up "properly" (so it can run in background), one could consider integrating it (via loose coupling, so the performance of Invoicing run is not directly impacted) as an additional activity after the Invoice has been created in the system.

    cheers

    Janis

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • Former Member

      Thank you very much for your answer.

      This is what we figured out and thanks for confirming that. Total amount is more in fact a "net amount" which means that it doesn't necessarily contains the amount of the invoice what is left to pay by the customer (after account maintenance).

      In all our forms and our report we expect the total amount to be the amount of the invoice (and not what is left to pay). Without BBP and with BBP = 1, we could always manage to have the amount of the invoice in the total amount but with BBP = 2 and partial bills, this is not possible using customizing + UE R999 and R410.

      We will deactivate account maintenance and integrate our account maintenance rules in the clearing variant called in FPMA to still have the same logic for any customers.

      Regards

      Pierre-Yves