Hi All,

We are facing this issue, a budget billing plan is deactivated because of annual invoice and new budget billing plan is created.

For old budget billing plan, we can see deactivating invoice document in header table "EABP" and also in header data in EA63, however in "DFKKMOP" table the field for deactivating invoice  document (Deaktiv) is empty.

These invoice documents are not reversed and this behavior is observed only for few Budget billing plans.

Any input for possible cause is appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Hi All,

In our EHP6 env we are using '03 - Quantity Determination during Meter Reading' functionality for gas division.

We have configured thermal gas billing and for this following have been created:

a) Volume Correction Factor - This is created with 02 thermal gas billing factor (inclusive of temperature and pressure).

VCF is to be calculated based on daily weighted averages of temperature and pressure.

For this:

1) Temperature area is defined and values are defined in TE448 table.

2) Weighting Key (Degree Day) is defined and values are maintained in TE107 table.

3) Gas Pressure Determination checkbox is ticked so that gas pressure is determined via Gas Pressure Area defined.

4) Air Pressure Ares is defined and daily air pressure area values are maintained.

5) Temperature and Pressure extra fields are selected.

6) No Special VCF procedure checkbox is selected so that standard controls defined in VCF procedure are followed.

b) Calorific Value Procedure - Calorific value district is defined and daily values are maintained in TE450 table.

CVP is defined to calculate arithmetic mean of daily values stored in TE450 table.

When actual meter read is entered via EL28 tcode, error - "Gas Factor ITHG cannot be defined uniquely" is returned and no expected MR is calculated.

I believe this error is caused due to the new quantity determination procedure - 03 (introduced in EHP6) defined in customising where gas consumption (in MJ) has to be calculated on save of meter read.

On debugging this issue further we found that there is issue in calculating the gas factor and internal table yt_ithg (SAP program - SAPLEA50, Include - LEA50F02) contains more than one entry. SAP only expects one entry with gas factor calculated.

Can you please let me know if anyone else has encountered this error or is there an issue in our VCF procedure defined?

Thanks,

Mayur

Hello,

We have below requirement, I would like to get your thoughts on the solution.

Local company with company code 1000 and corporate company with company code 2000.

1) Local company is responsible for taking orders customer and  billing the customer.

2)Company code 2000 fulfills the order for the customer

3) Customer will pay $100 to local company code 1000.

4) Since the service/product is delivered from Company code 2000, Local company code owes 60% of %100 to Corporate Company 2000. At the end company code 1000 will book $40 and Company code 2000 will book $60.

• How do we achieve this this SAP FI - CA?
• Is there any standard Inter Company transfer in SAP FI CA Telco?
• What is the best place to split the amount and post to different company codes? Billable items->Billing Document->Invoice->Payments?

Thanks,
Raghu.

Dear SAP IS-U Experts,

First of all thanks for your valuable time in looking into this question. Any tips or hint are very much appreciated. Here is my question.

When you create a Meter Read Order and change it, fields like created by / created on / changed by and changed on (ERDAT/ERNAM/AEDAT/AENAM) are populated in EABL table. In the case of EDM profile assuming you are receiving the daily read and then also modifying it after few days, where are those recorded and how can we easily reterieve that ?

Assume for a large customer, read for 10th calendar day comes next day on 11 and will hit the SAP data base on 11th but in the profile it will be value for 10th Day. It could also happen that due to any network issues, value for 10th of the month is received on 13th and then first time it will hit the SAP data base on 13th but in the profile it will be value for 10th Day.

So in this case I want to find out for any particular day when was the value first received and processed in the system?

Many Thanks,

SJ

• Security Deposit has configuration setting "Determine date from payment date"; Deposit document start date was adjusted after payments clears the deposit. 
• Annual Deposit interest run was done last year (Feb2014 with calculate interest to “12/31/2013”).  Sample accounts shows interest calculation as expect. 
• For example: Deposit A, Create Date=05/07/2012, Payment clearing on 07/03/2012.  Feb2014 SD interest Calculation History displayed as:

Doc Num                    From-Date   To-Date           Amount IK rate amount

           SD-ClearingDoc-A        07/04/2012    12/31/2012         ***      ** ** ***

           SD-ClearingDoc-A        01/01/2013    12/31/2013         ***      ** ** ***

• Annual Deposit interest run this year again (Jan2015 with calculate interest to “12/31/2014”).
• But Deposit B, Create Date=05/08/2012, Payment clearing on 06/08/2012.  Jan2015 SD interest Calculation History displayed as:

           Doc Num                    From-Date   To-Date            Amount IK rate amount

          SD-ClearingDoc-B         05/09/2012    12/31/2012        ***      ** ** ***

          SD-ClearingDoc-B         01/01/2013    12/31/2013        ***      ** ** ***

          SD-ClearingDoc-B         01/01/2014    12/31/2014        ***      ** ** ***

Two questions regarding the scenario I observed:

1. Why SD-Doc-B get security deposit interest calculated from 05/09/2012(creation date of the SD) not the Start Date (payment clearing date) as expected on SD-Doc-A?
2. Why SD-Doc-B did not get interested calculated last year?  I check the contract account, there is an interest lock on CAA3 screen (lock till 12/31/9999).  If this is the reason. Why interest get calculated this year?

Thanks,

Mei

Hi there,

I've received Information recently regarding new IDOC basetypes used on our exchange device. My question is, whether there will be a new Service Pack.

We are now working on EhP7 SP16.

Thanks in advance and best regards,

Stefan Paul

The periodic I changed to an estimate (due to the inside meter reading differently than the outside meter) but the final read is an actual read.  When I invoiced the account and pushed it through the EA19, I only had the 4 installations.  I am not sure why the estimated final bill message is appearing on this quarterly invoice. See screenshot.

How do we cancel a contract (reverse move in), if the invoice associated with the contract has been archived?

Standard SAP calls for reversing all invoices if the move in is being reversed. If the invoices in question has been archived, is there a workaround to reverse the move in?

Any inputs on practices followed will be appreciated.

Regards,

AM

Hi experts,

Can any one please let me know what is the difference between  "Document line type 1" (DLT1)  "Line item type 2" (LIT2)and  "Document line type 3" (DLTy3) which is mentioned in Rate steps?

Any help will be highly appreciated.

thanks  in advance

Vipin KV

Hi Experts,

There is an issue we are facing while replicating bank details in BP from CRM to ECC.

BP is created in CRM with a custom role (The custom role is copied from the standard role "Sold to Party") and it is successfully replicated to ECC.

In ECC, Contract partner role (MKK) is assigned to the BP so that contract account can be created.

In this scenario, when bank details (IBAN) are updated in the BP in CRM, such bank information is not getting updated in the same BP in ECC side.

We have checked through T code SMW01 in CRM and it is showing an error "Validity of role MKK must not be restricted".

But if we check the validity of BP in MKK role in ECC, it is till 31.12.9999.

Bank details replication is working correctly if the BP is in the same role in both CRM and ECC.

Can someone please advise us as to what is causing this error? Is it due to the fact that role of the BP in CRM is different from the role in ECC?

Thanks in advance,

Anwesha.

Hi Experts,

We are upgrading the CRM ISU system for EHP1 to EHP3 in ISU. After upgrade while I confirm the BP and click on create new contract(Move IN) I am getting the error  as bleow:

"Error retrieving process IUMI"

"Error New Contracts process is not permitted".

Anybody is having any idea on this please update.

BR

Chinmaya Parida

Hi Experts..

I have query reg. simulation in RTP billing.

Periodic bill document is created based on profiles using RTP interface but for same period if simulated billing doc is created it shows diff. billing calculation.

While checking result parameters of periodic & simulated doc  they perfectly matching.

But in periodic billing doc & simulated bill doc calculation is different..means amounts are not matching.

Pls help as why simulation & periodic doc dont match as base profile values are same ?

Thanks in advance!!

Hi,

I want to execute EhP6 interface i.e. "UtilitiesDeviceERPSmartMeterBulkChangeRequest_Out". But i am not getting trigger point anywhere in SAP. I followed release document for EhP6 provided by SAP which says to use t.code EG31. But, i didn't find any help in eg31.

I am able to change data of a single device but i am not getting how to change data for multiple device at a time.

Thanks & Regards,

Ashish Agarwal

Hello all,

we have a UCES web application active. If new user registered, the user data was per remote ABAP program (on SAP Netweaver Application Server ABAP 7.40) saved in Java UME (SAP Netweaver Application Server Java 7.40). The remote ABAP program has only declaration, no implementation. So I think, the remote ABAP program calls a service on Java Server over JCo connection. I found the JCo connection. But die configuration between the remote ABAP program and the java service I could not find. Could someone tell me how to find it? thx.

best regards,

Fanglin

Hi All

I'm evaluating a proposed change to the use of the BB Proc field on the Contract Account - FKKVKP-KZABSVER.  We currently bill bi-monthly, and have an enhancement that auto-changes the value from 00 to 03 when customer requests BPP, and a 2nd enhancement that reverts it when the plan is de-activated.

We are now switching to monthly billing and also want to limit the creation of BPP to residential accounts.  The plan is to remove both enhancements and perform a mass update to switch all non-BPP residential accounts from 00 to 03.

Having the value preset will allow users to create BPP without an enhancement or extra manual work, and with the value being 00 for non-residential accounts the plan creation is prevented unless there's some back office intervention.

While the possible values in the field aren't changing, the meaning of those values is, which I believe is technically "overloading", and I'm concerned about downstream impacts.

Can anyone advise as to what those impacts might be, or am I worrying un-necessarily.

Thanks

Astrid

Hi Experts,

I have a requirement in FICA. If the users are clicking Authorize button in FPCD transaction more than once, transaction is completing with blank Authorization Number.  So I need to deactivate / disable the Authorize button once the user clicked the button.

How can we to do this? Is this requiring a code change or Config change will be enough?

Or is there any other way to  handle this?

Regards,

Dipin

Hi all.

While testing the IS-U data migration using EMIGALL transaction I came to a strange error.

In the PARTNER migration object, Im using TAXNUM automatic structure, as I want to import tax numbers for the business partners Im importing. I enabled/generated four fields: TAXTYPE, TAXNUM, CHIND_TAX and INTERNAL. When I either import/convert a file or I manualy enter the values, I get the error "Enter a tax number for the tax category". In EMIGALL, Im entering the following data: defined tax category in the TAXTYPE field, correct tax number in to TAXNUM field, "I" (as Insert) in the CHIND_TAX field and "X" (as enabled) in the INTERNAL field.

Meanwhile, while I start the BP transaction and create a business partner using the same data that I enter in the EMIGALL transaction, business partner gets created and I can enter the tax numbers. Its the same if I want to import one or more tax numbers per business partner.

Tax categories are defined (I checked IMG - Cross-Application Components - SAP Business Partner - Business Partner - Basic Settings - Tax Numbers - Maintain Tax Number Categories). I have entered the correct data (I have also tryed turning the checks off in OY17).

There is one strange thing I noticed:

- when I check the BP transaction, tab "Identification", the tax number field is TAXNUML

- when I check the DFKKBPTAXNUM table (via SE11), the tax number field (for the records manualy entered through the BP transaction) is TAXNUM

I have checked and imlpemented note 2058367 but it didnt change anything regarding import process and error.

Has anyone come to a similar error or has some ideas on what to check or how to solve this?

Thanks in advance.

Marko

Dear Experts,

I have an open item against Business partner for an amount of 50000/-.

Scenario:1----> During the cash desk recording, if i record single payment like cash or check, the payment document is getting generated and clearing the open item as per the clearing rules.

Document display is Bank A/c----Dr

                                     To BP A/c---Cr (Sundry Debtors A/c)

Sceario:2----> If i record both the cash and check payment, i am generating 3 documents.. one document for cash with 2000/-, another document for check 3000/- and 3rd document is a clearing document is for 5000/-.

But here, the clearing, cash and check documents that are getting generated are hitting to Debtors Advance A/c instead of Debtors A/c

Clearing Document display is--- BP A/c----Dr 5000/- (Sundry Debtors Advance A/c)

                                                    To BP A/c----Cr   5000/-   (Sundry Debtors A/c)

Cash Document display is---  Bank A/c----Dr 2000/-

                                                     To BP a/c (Sundry Debtors Advance A/c)

Check document display is---  Bank A/c----Dr 3000/-

                                                     To BP a/c (Sundry Debtors Advance A/c)

Question Here is----->  in the second scenario, while i am recording multiple payment modes like cash or check, instead of hitting the sundry debtors account(as there are open items against the BP) why its hitting to Sundry Debtors Advance A/c)

Am i missing some config here, please suggest.

Thanks

Aditya Viswanath

Hello

Right now I have my ISU_BILL and ISU_BILLZ retention periods set to 520 days, and the ISU_PROFV set to 732 days.  When I try to update the retention period for ISU_BILL to 1070 days, i get the following error message:

Diagnosis

    A retention period has been entered for a profile value category, that
    is shorter than that of the billing document headers.

    This is an invalid entry, because you cannot archive profile values
    before billing document headers.

System Response

    The system does not permit you to save the retention period combination.

Procedure

    Correct the retention period for the profile value category or the
    corresponding billing document header category accordingly.

I know this can be resolved by extending the value in ISU_PROFV, but I would like to understand the implications of making this change.

(What is the archiving object ISU_PROFV used for? What is the relationship between the retention period for ISU_PROFV and ISU_BILL and ISU_BILLZ?  Are there any dependencies? What are the impacts to other areas/modules of changing the retention period for ISU_PROFV?)

Thanks

Hello,

we are facing a problem with BBP with partial bills (non statistical items) when 1 or several partial bills are not paid and the final invoice (1 every year) is created.

Open items from partial bills (main transaction 0051) are not properly cleared by the final invoice (where compensation of partial bills open items are created in an item 0250 / 0100 by the SAP standard).

Let's say that we have 2 partials bills of 5€ with 2 items on the posting document :

-Main transaction 0051 / sub 1000 : 2€

-Main transaction 0051 / sub 2000 : 3€

If the 2 partials bills are not paid. Assuming that the partial bills of 5€ (10€ over the year) were overestimated and 7€ should have been billed.  I will have on the next invoice :

- Main transaction 0100 / sub xxxx : 20€ (for instance) => x items corresponding to the actual billing,

- Main transaction 0250 / sub 0100 : -3€  (-10€ from partial bills +7€ from "re-billing")

=> the item 0250 / 0100 is a transfer from invoicing generated by the standard. it contains the cancelling of all partial bills unpaid in the subitems (- 2 - 3 - 2 - 3 = -10€ on my example) and everything that should have been billed (I can see subitems for instance + 1,5 +2 +1,5 +2).

Our issue is that all cancellation of the partial bills (main transaction 0051) and "rebilling" are in the same item (0250) :

1) the clearing of partial bills is not made properly

2) with this 1 item, we don't have the detail of what "should have been" billed  and can't display it to the customer.

From what I see :

1) I have the possibility to use customizing "Item Selection in Account Maintenance/ Define Sub-Items" and tick for every main/sub transaction : Transfer to credit memo/receivable for consumption billing. All 0051 will automatically be cleared when the invoice is created, but it doesn't solve 2) as I will not have the detail of the real consumption of the client on my posting document.

2) I can use user-exit R402 to "rebuild" exactly the posting document that I want. On this exit, I have the main transaction 0250 with all amounts and GL account. With the GL accounts, I create one item on the posting document by GL account to have exactly all details that I want.

I was wondering if anyone had to face this issue.

We are using for most customers BBP with statistical items and the standard works exactly as we wish (with cancelation items + rebilling items). In fact with the BBP with partial bills + non statistical items we would expect exactly the same behavior but as I described this is not the case.

Does anyone know if it is possible in standard to solve our issue ?

Best regards

Pierre-Yves