Trading Partner in ECCS

[Former Member]

dear expertise

i currently want to active ECCS consolidation in EHP4. i got problems during the progress. i have 2 company to be consolidated. say it cc 8888 and 8889. therefor there is consol unit 8888 and consol unit 8889. in 8888 i have defined 8889 as vendor (1002). and in the vendor master data (1002), the field trading partner filled with 8889 as trading partner. then i do FB60(vendor invoice in FI with amount 7700 EURO.

i check in CX34, the amount is captured real time in ECCS. but when i run the elimination entries for AP/AR(Automatic Posting), why the amount or that transaction was not eliminated? i have defined the selected item for posting and the other configurations.

is/are there any configurations that i miss to eliminated that transaction.

your answer for this issue is highly appriciated.

thanks

best regard,

liungz

[dan_sullivan]

There are many questions needing answered to provide assistance.

Are both cons units in the cons group hierarchy that is used in the monitor?

Are there any limitations on cons unit and/or trading partner in the elimination methods configuration?

Is the liability account included in the elimination method configuration?

[Former Member]

dear Dav,

thanks for your respone

1. the both consol unit 888 and 8889 are used in the monitor

2. there is no limitation on consol group and/or trading partner in elimination method configuration. how i can do the limitation? where is the configuration? i think i dont make any limitation.

3.the liability accounts have included in elimination method.

i hope that points can give a clue for you to guide me in assistance.

need your help dav,

thanks

[dan_sullivan]

I suggest you check the posting level 00 (or blank) totals records with CX32 for the liability and make sure that the trading partner is included.

Edited by: Dan Sullivan on Jul 28, 2010 8:52 AM

[Former Member]

dear dav,

the tcode cx32 is for flexible upload method, right? i use realtime update. what is the related function of that tcode(cx32) with trading partner in ECCS realtime update?

need your further clues.thanks.

best regards,

land lord

[dan_sullivan]

I meant CX34. Sorry.

[Former Member]

i have check cx34. and i do not find the trading partner in the transaction for that amount. does it wrong? if yes, what i have to do next? please your help.

thanks

[dan_sullivan]

It is wrong if the transaction is missing the trading partner because then the elimination will not occur as needed.

It may be necessary to change the breakdown category on this item to allow for trading partner. If that doesn't fix it trading parnter may not be included in the source ledger and that is where it must be changed.

[Former Member]

dear dav,

nice clues dav..i fill the breakdown category for the FS item i want to eliminate with partner unit. then the elimination works as expected. but i wonder, when i change the breakdown category for the Related FS Item, why it ask me to fiil the partner unit field in subassignment tab. and this field is required. Then i fill that field with the partner unit (8889). and i think, if i flil with 8889, all the transactions will be eliminated are the transaction which related to this partner unit. does it right? but how if i had 3 or more consol unit,say it 8888,8889, and 8887. if the FS item is used by this 3 consol unit. does the system will just eliminate the transaction with 8889? even there are others intercompany AR/AP.

for more detail may be i can give a little example:

3 consol unit: 8887,8888,8889. all of them grouped in a consol group (MHG).

8888 have AR in 8887

8888 have AR in 8889.

and the account for the AR account is 140100(FS Item).

when i want to eliminate the AR in group MHG, and define the breakdown category for that FS Item(140100) is partner unit.and the partner unit is 8889. does the system just eliminate the transaction related to 8889?

how it should be dav? i still do not get how the system works for the elimination..

please your explaination about that...

your answer as an expert consultant is highly appriciated .

best regards,

liungz

[dan_sullivan]

Best practice is for the records for item 140100 to have the appropriate trading partner for the reports to show the correct eliminations with the correct partner. However since these are all in the same group using 8889 as partner will give correct eliminations as far as reporting goes. For analytical purposes it will be confusing if the partner is not correct per the source ledger.

[Former Member]

dear dav,

sorry for the late replay..thank you very much for your help dav..

so based on your information,if i had:

consol unit 8887, consol unit 8888, consol unit 8889 in one group,say it MCG.

i use realtime update.

The FS item for AR intercompany is 140100.the breakdown category is Partner Unit + transaction currency.

The transaction that i do is:

1. transaction FB70 in Company code 8889. the customer for that transaction is 1002(trading partner 8888).

the recon account in FI is 140000(AR Affiliated) and the Group account Number is 140100. amount in transaction is 8000 EUR.

2. i do transaction FB70 in Company Code 8888. the customer for that transaction is 1003 (trading Partner 8887). the recon account in FI is 140000 (AR Affiliated) and the group account number is 140100. amount in that transaction is 9000 EUR.

3. i do transaction in FB 70 in company code 8887. the customer for that transaction is 1004(trading partner 8889). the recon account in FI is 140000 (AR Affiliated) and the group account number is 140100. amount in transaction is 10000 EUR.

When i do elimination in ECCS consolidation, the amount to be eliminated from that transaction is 27000 EUR. isn't it?

the journal is " Misc. Payable (the difference) Dr. 27000 EUR

,AR Intercompany (140100) Cr. 27000 EUR

,Offset account Dr. 27000

, Offset Account Cr. 27000 EUR.

the account misc payable is for the difference. because for the simple case, i assumpt that there is no FB60 trnasaction for the other company code. so the difference i assign to FS item Misc. Payable.

do my mind set above was right? or those all are wrong?

please give a correction if i were wrong.

thanks Dav,

best regards,

liungz

sorry dav if the text format was not easy to read. i do not know why..

Edited by: land lord on Aug 10, 2010 9:58 AM

[dan_sullivan]

Although it is difficult to follow the explanation, I agree that with what you have described, the 27,000 EUR should be eliminated.

[Former Member]

Sorry Dav for the confusing explaination. does it caused by my language or the text format?so it makes you hard to understand my explaination.

but i am so thank full with your help so far.

i am still far from success to run full consolidation. there are the others step to be done. i hope you can guide me Dav.

thanks anyway.

best regards,

liungz