F110 Error

[former_member406157]

Dear All,

When I run F110 to a particular vendor, the system created the payment proposal but line item has red indicator. When I analyze proposal log it says following error.

In invoice document all profit centers have been maintained correctly. Can anybody explain me what is wrong with this.

Thanks,

Regards,

Lakshan

[former_member392819]

Hi Lakshan,

Generally, for the payment document, profit center will be inherited from Invoice. Please check if the PC is not available in Invoice (which should not be the case if you have document splitting active).

Regards,

Sravan

[iklovski · Accepted solution]

You can simply set it in OKB9; no complicated substitution is required.

[iklovski]

Hi,

Check if the following notes can be applicable in your scenario:

1675322 - F110 Message GLT2201 for withholding tax posting

1651920 - Error Message GLT2 201 in transaction F110

Regards,

Eli

P.S. If you have PSM-FM activated, also this note can be useful:

2375930 - Document splitting: Lines are not recognized as base lines

[former_member406157]

Dear Eli,

Thanks for your answer. I checked the same scenario in the QTY system. But above error was not occurred. It worked fine.

Regards,

Lakshan

[iklovski]

In this case there could be a difference in split settings between the two systems.

[former_member406157]

Dear Eli,

I checked and in both systems settings are same. Another thing is if we use F-58 instead of F110 no any error is occurred and can post the payment without any error. My question is why this error is being occurred in only F110. This is a WHT related payment.

Regards,

Lakshan

[iklovski]

If it is WHT, I'd refer again to the note I've mentioned: 1675322

[former_member406157]

Dear Eli,

I checked the SAP note 1675322 which you have mentioned in above and the implementation status of this SAP Note is Cannot be implemented. What does it mean?

And also this error is appeared only for some WHT related payments. Other WHT related payments are worked fine in F110.

Regards,

Lakshan

[iklovski]

If it cannot be implemented, normally it means that your release already includes it.

You say that only some documents are not processed. Can you distinguish in any manner those which are resulted in error? Maybe, they post to another G/L account compared to other documents? Something else? Also, in your Acceptance can you replicate exactly the same document and execute F110 on it?

[ajitkumar]

Withholding taxes are normally processed automatically based on the WHT code and in such scenarios you wont get a proviison to manually change the profit center.

For taxes, i feel profit center wise analysis are not important since this is neither an income nor an expense. This is something withheld from vendor and paid to tax department .

take an opinion on this from your Finance operations team.

[ajitkumar]

You will have to assign a default profit center company code wise, in FAGL3KEH for the WHT GL

This is since a more than one Profit center is coming to the document from FB60 and default assignment of profit center for bank GL. Hence system is not able to inherit a profit center for the WHT GL

in case of advance paymen,t the only profit center in the document is for the bank and this get inherited in the WHT GL

If the business is in India, you are supposed to deduct the WHT at the time of invoice or payment which ever is earlier.

[former_member406157]

Dear Ajith,

Thanks for your answer. I am going to go through your suggestion. If I assign a default PC to WHT G/L when post any entry to this G/L default PC will be assigned to that G/L. I checked the already posted transactions to this G/L and many profit centers have been assigned. So if I assigned a default PC nobody can assign a different profit center when post to this G/L. Is there any solution to rectify this practical issue. Your suggestion is highly appreciated.

Regards,

Lakshan

[iklovski]

You have to check the split process assigned to the accounts in question. Additionally, check if you have a constant profit centre assigned to non-assigned processes in configuration of splitting; this might help as well. Also, check the possibility of substitution. Of course, all these actions are relevant only if, from functional and business point of view, the document which is posted on the same account is correct. Because, for me, it looks suspicious from functional perspective...

[former_member406157]

Dear Eli,

Finally found your answer :-). In our document split only profit center has been define as characteristic for general ledger. Zero balance and mandatory check boxes have been set. No any Document Splitting Characteristics for Controlling. As you said I think constant profit center assignment might be given a solution for this and I checked constant profit center assignment and currently there is no any assignment. We have two company codes as 1000 and 2000. But only has one CO area. If we assign a profit center as a constant one it is needed to assign two profit centers to both company codes separately since we maintain profit centers in company code wise. We can't assign one company code profit center to another. I can't go through substitution since I don't have an enough knowledge on this regard.

Lakshan.

[iklovski]

Hi,

If I analyse your screen, it looks that the issue is with the documents where one G/L is involved. It makes sense, as the system might have difficulties to derive a split characteristic, e.g. profit centre, if there is no basis for such derivation. I.e. if your 8700014 account has no constant value for profit centre and it is not derived from any other source, the error is justified.

Regards,

Eli

[former_member406157]

Dear Eli,

Thanks for your valuable answer. Totally agree with you. If G/L is same no any error is occurred and if G/L is different payment program works fine. This is not relevant only to GL 8700014. Is there any solution to rectify this error? I read so many threads on this regards and still couldn't to find any solution. If I remove the profit center mandatory tick in document splitting configuration what will be the effect and does it resolve my error.

Regards,

Lakshan

[former_member406157]

Dear Eli,

Notification shows that you have put an answer in 30 minutes ago but when I check there was no any new answer from you.

Regards,

Lakshan

[iklovski]

Yes, there is one, but it is on top of the list 🙂

[former_member406157]

Deae Eli,

Thanks for your prompt response. Actually paying invoice documents have been created through FB60 as inter-company documents. As you mentioned I tried to distinguish and result was as per below and also invoice document is created in Company 1000.

Regards,

Lakshan

[former_member193998]

Hi

Lakshan Ganewatta,

this error because of the document splitting , may profit center is mandatory for the payment document as well , so when you post an payment system is looking profit center for the clearing gl/bank gl. kindly check it once.

Thanks ℜgards

Anjaneyulu

[former_member406157]

Hi Anjaneyulu,

Thanks for your answer. Yes I checked and profit center is mandatory. But when we use F-58 instead of F110 above error doesn't come. This is a WHT deductible payment.

Regards,

Lakshan.

[ajitkumar]

This kind of error happen when there is withholding tax code active for payment and a wth was already deducted in invoice. in FB02 navigate to the vendor line, withholding tax.of the document ( s) considered in the payment proposal remove the editable withholding tax.

you need to start from running the proposal ( deleting in reverse order including proposal ) and running proposal again.

[former_member406157]

Dear Ajith,

Thanks for your valuable answer. Yes this is a WHT related payment. But when we use F-58 instead of F110 above error doesn't come. I tried to do above mentioned solution through FB02 but I couldn't to do it since your below point is not clear to me.

"withholding tax.of the document ( s) considered in the payment proposal remove the editable withholding tax"

And also in our system WHT is deducted at the payment level not the invoice level.

Regards,

Lakshan.