cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Conditoin change the billing net value but does not account

Former Member
0 Kudos

How can I insert in a specific pricing a condition that change the billing net value but does not account the value in a FI document?

This condition should be statistic in the pricing and, on the same time, change the billing net value.

Thanks!

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

As stated your requirement does not make sense.

The billing net value is the amount that is posted as a debit to the customer's account. There must be offsetting entries to keep the books in balance.

Please provide more detail of how you expect your requirement to work, and what it is that you are trying to achieve.

Former Member
0 Kudos

I'm sorry for my explanation (my english is not very good).

Look, I have a pricing, where the user inform the price and the discounts. All this values are sent to a FI document (each one to its account, based on its account keys).

I need insert in this pricing a new discount that it will change the billing net value, but it does not will be sent to a FI document, because it will be a statistic condition (it does not have a account key).

If I put in pricing a new condition as statistic, it does not change the billing net value. If I dont put the condition as statistic and dont inform a account key, the billing document is generated without account document.

I dont know if I was most clear, but I hope so.

If you sent to me your email address, I can send to you a picture as example.

Thanks!

former_member396676
Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi,

You mean to say that user want overbill to customer than actual books of acounts.

1) This is not possible in standard SAP by configuration.

2) If net value of invoice is different than amount passed to account than SD-FI reports will be wrong. Periodic Trail balance a/c will not tally.

3) I suggest to find out work around solution by business itself. or consult BPO or business for implication of these changes.

thanks,

Vrajesh