Invoice Split (SH Region)

[Former Member]

Hi All,

I have a scenario in which a sales order has two line items. Both the line items have separate ship to party (SH). There is no ship to party (SH) at the header level. When i am creating an invoice, the system splits the invoice in two documents.

I checked the split analysis & it says:

difference in ship to party (ADRNR Number) & the field is "region".

My customer wants to create a single invoice regardless of the ship to party. I have checked the routine "003-Single Invoice" at the item category level but this doesn't solve the requirement.

Is there any other standard routine or a customization to fulfill this requirement?

Thanks & regards,

Allabaqsh

[Former Member]

Hi Allabaqsh,

By standard SAP splits if there is a difference in the key fields that makes the header of an invoice document. The Region is one of the key field as that governs your country taxation and export/import rules. Before you make any change, make sure that you look into all the possible impacts this change can have on the tax/export/import calculations.

The logics for creating single invoice or split the invoices based on addition logic is generally placed in the copy control. You can try using routine 003 or create a new one to skip the ship to regions while copying over the line items to billing document. If it still splits, then you may have to go to the user exit route and put your code in the place when the document header is created.

Let me know if you need more information.

Thanks

Kapil Sharma

[Lakshmipathi]

My customer wants to create a single invoice regardless of the ship to party

As you are aware billing will not split due to different ship to party. In your case, I have a feeling that it is splitting because of different ADRNR of ship to party.

For information, I have also tried with the same scenario what you had indicated after deactivating foreign trade but still system is splitting due to ADRNR field. If this is going to be a regular scenario to your client, with a billing exit, ABAPer can write a code to ignore this ADRNR field in billing.

thanks

G. Lakshmipathi

[Former Member]

Hi Lakshmipathi,

The invoice split analysis shows the ADRNR field as the criteria. In addition to this the region of both the ship to parties is different which is also displayed in the split criteria.

I checked an OSS note # 161545 which talks about the split criteria because of ADRNR field. According to this the corrections need to be incorporated in the versions after 4.6E and my current version is 4.7C.

1. Will this note eliminate the effect of the region (at customer master level)?

2. Should ABAP development be done to write a Z routine to eliminate the effect of splitting caused by different ship to parties & regions?

Which option will be more useful?

Thanks & regards,

Allabaqsh Patil

[alex_zheng]

Hi Allabaqsh,

Note 161545 is not helpful for your sys release.

A split can result when any changes in the data of the partner detail screen have been made (for example, changes in

the address). If the partners are identical or not, you can see in table VBPA. If it contains an entry in field ADRNR, then the partner detail data has been changed manually and it cannot be combined.

Please see note 22609.

Please note that when you manually change partner address the system generates a new address number for each change. Even if the address is changed back to the original and made the same, the system will still maintain two addresses and hence will split the invoices.

Possible workaround would be to create your own copy routine at item level which clears the field ADRNR and add this the copy routine between the order and delivery.

Please also try to set the ship-to party on item level instead of on header in the billing, this could also avoid the invoice split.

Thanks,

Alex

[Former Member]

Hi,

We are facing a similar problem, could you please inform the workaround to fulfill the soltuion. I tried to open the note stated in your reply however its not available.

Anticipating a positive reply

Thanks

Best Regards,

Goutham