Michael Management: Settlement transaction types

Message

   SAP appears to be inconsistent with their usage of transaction types as it relates to AuC's and project system.

To create a settlement rule we use transaction CJIC and specify the WBS element that has the costs that we want to settle.  We have a one for one link between WBS elements and AuC's, so whatever costs are on the WBS are equally on the AuC's.

When running a capital spend settlement using either CJ88 or CJ8G the settlement type is set to automatic and SAP uses transaction type 114 for the settlement from the WBS element to the AuC.  When running a capitalization settlement, generally as a partial capitalization, the system uses transaction types 331,336,338, & 339 on the AuC's and final assets.

However, if we settle from the AuC to a GL account in the case of a failed project SAP reverts back to using transaction type 114.  I would think in this case either transaction type 200 or 250 would be more appropriate.

Has anyone else had any issues with this?

Author	Message
Laun1234 Newbie Joined: 15 Sep 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 12	Topic: Settlement transaction types Posted: 15 Sep 2006 at 8:36am
	SAP appears to be inconsistent with their usage of transaction types as it relates to AuC's and project system. To create a settlement rule we use transaction CJIC and specify the WBS element that has the costs that we want to settle. We have a one for one link between WBS elements and AuC's, so whatever costs are on the WBS are equally on the AuC's. When running a capital spend settlement using either CJ88 or CJ8G the settlement type is set to automatic and SAP uses transaction type 114 for the settlement from the WBS element to the AuC. When running a capitalization settlement, generally as a partial capitalization, the system uses transaction types 331,336,338, & 339 on the AuC's and final assets. However, if we settle from the AuC to a GL account in the case of a failed project SAP reverts back to using transaction type 114. I would think in this case either transaction type 200 or 250 would be more appropriate. Has anyone else had any issues with this?
	IP Logged

Tom333 Moderator Group Moderator - Asset Accounting Forum Joined: 07 Sep 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 39	Posted: 15 Sep 2006 at 10:38am
	Hi Laun, SAP uses transaction types 114-116 for the DR to the AuC (since it considers it an acquisition)...when you then place the final asset in service, SAP uses transaction types 3xx (since it considers this a transfer from one AuC asset to another final asset). When you decide to expense the project, SAP will use the same initial tranaaction type 114-116 to CR the AuC and move the money back to the project and then DR your expense account. Kinda makes sense to me since you wouldn't want CIP/Fixed Assets involved in an expense project... Tom
	Regards, Tom Michael ------------- Michael Management Corporation 2836 Villas Way San Diego, CA 92108 Ph.: 619.804.2631 Fax: 619.282.8027 http://www
	IP Logged

Laun1234 Newbie Joined: 15 Sep 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 12	Posted: 18 Sep 2006 at 10:07am
	Tom, Within project system itself we create WBS elements that are either capital or expense in nature. Those WBS elements that are capital settle to the AuCs. Those that are expense settle out to a cost center. For a capital project that fails we want to write off those costs, but we still want to show that the capital spending did occur. Within the fixed asset system we would want to see an acquisition transaction for the capital spending, and a later retirement transaction for the write off. For costs that are misapplied between capital and expense portions of a capital project we do a journal entry reallocating the funds from a capital WBS element to an expense WBS element. When those settle they do correctly CR the 114 transaction type. Basically, the company considers any capital spending on a project, whether or not that project fails, to be legitimate capital spending for the year. We are trying to trap that amount for reporting purposes. The easiest way is to use all 114 transaction type activity, but we have to make adjustments for these write offs and would like to find a way around making adjustments. Thanks for your help. Laun
	IP Logged

txm1004 Admin Group Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 329	Posted: 18 Sep 2006 at 12:39pm
	Hi Laun, Well, if you want the initial spending to go to Fixed Assets you have to do a full & final settlement to an asset...and then post a disposal right away to expense the amount...I would probably use a custom transation type and the user exit to substitute the regular gain/loss account for another expense account. Hope this helps. Tom
	Regards, Thomas Michael Michael Management Corporation ------------- http://www.michaelmanagement.com
	IP Logged

txm1004 Admin Group Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 329	Posted: 18 Sep 2006 at 6:56pm
	Hi Laun, Just thought of one more thing...transaction AO90 (account determination) contains an accoutn field called 'Settlement from AuC to CO' - do you have an entry in it? The system should use this account in your specific scenario...$$ were settled to AuC and then the project gets expenses. Give it a try and see if this will give you the desired results. Tom
	Regards, Thomas Michael Michael Management Corporation ------------- http://www.michaelmanagement.com
	IP Logged

SAP Project System
Michael Management :SAP Financials :SAP Project System