cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

1099 amounts not being combined when more than one vendor same TIN

Former Member
0 Kudos

I have multiple vendors within the same company code with the same tax id number. When the 1099's are generated, the amounts for both vendore are not getting combined. So if for one of the vendors, he has been paid $4850.00 on one vendor number, and on his other vendor number, he has been paid $500. His 1099 should be $5350.00, but it is being generated for only $4850.00.

This is only one example of this problem. Does anyone have any idea what could be causing this? Everything I have read says the 1099's should combine based on tax id number.But this is not happening.

Thanks

Alicia

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

former_member380737
Active Participant
0 Kudos

The scenario is not correct. How can a single TIN be given to multiple vendors. It is a unique ID per vendor. If you have a scenario like 1 AT&T vendor and has operaiton in 50 states and you want to consolidate all 50 state vendors under 1 TIN. In this scenario you can activate alternate payee and assign all these payees to the main Vendor. The payments will automatically roll up to the main vendor and your 1099 will show a consolidated view. You can test and verify. Hope this helps.

Answers (4)

Answers (4)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi SK,

Sorry I have not responded sooner.

You will need to click on the Group Items according to Fiscal Address box in Define Output Groups. Then you will need to choose a vendor to be your main vendor for grouping the tax id numbers.

For instance,

if you have ABC vendor number 1000000 with tax id 12-3456789 and vendors 1000100 1000200 with the same tax id number, then in the fiscal address field on the control screen of vendor master you would enter vendor number 1000000. This wil roll all the payments for vendor with the same tax id number into one 1099. Of course these vendors should be in the same company code. If you have this same situtation for vendors with same vendor number but different company codes, you would use the multiple company code box when you run the generic 1099 program.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Alicia

Former Member
0 Kudos

I am closing my question as I found the answer myself.

Thanks all.

SKMohanty
Explorer
0 Kudos

Hi Alicia,

I am having the same issue. I would like to know how you resolved the issue. I will appreciate your reply.

Thanks.

SK

Former Member
0 Kudos

Sorry to keep dwelling on this subject. I was able to accumlate the totals for 8 vendors with the same tax id sucessfully. However, all of the payment amounts exceeded the mininum for the 1099 tax type royalty.

I have not been able to take two vendors, one with let's say 6453.02 in payments, and another with the same tax id number, who only has a payment of $500.00. The $500 is below the misc limit. The 1099 form and file only show 6453.02, however the report does show the two amounts. These vendors are in different company codes.

In the define withholding tax codes, I have set the accumulation type to be combined accumulation. Still the two amounts are not beng added together on the form. Using the help for the field "combined accumulation", there is a statement "these vendors may belong to different company codes if these company codes are assigned to one tax on sales/purchases group".

Can someone tell me where I would assign this? My company is not currently using either sales or purchasing.

Thanks

Alicia

Former Member
0 Kudos

I know this seems a ridiculous idea but we do have this situation more than once. We pay royalties to many universities and we have as an example, 8 different vendor numbers with similar names but all have the same tax id number.

I have done further research and have found that I can use the Fiscal Address field and designate one of the vendors as the main one and have the different amounts on each vendor combined. Of course on the Define output groups screen, the field Group items according to fiscal address must be checked.

I think you idea of the alternative payee also would work, however we are trying to steer clear of using that functionality.

Thanks

Alicia