Parallel accounting in FI-AA, Which is recommended delta or complete post u00A0

[Former Member]

Dear Experts,

Our customer are using ECC6.0 and no plan to activate NEW-GL. We need to handle parallel accounting, one is IFRS and other is J-GAAP. So we have decided to use accounting approach method in one GL.

Question is, In FI-AA, which is recommended between complete posting method and difference(delta) posting method?

Iu2019ve tested both methods and felt neutralu2026  only one concern about complete posting method is acquisition posting. Post 2 asset a/c isu2026u2026uhhhh.

Any suggestion is welcome.

Thanks in advance.

Masa

[former_member240869 · Accepted solution]

Hello Masa,

I believe that my reply in the thread below may also help you in this case:

Regards,

Thaiane

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Thaiane

Thanks for your reply, but your answer is based on multiple ledger approach.

My customer is using additional account approach(they are not using New-GL).

based on the SAP online help,

http://help.sap.com/saphelp_erp60_sp/helpdata/en/f5/61ee40898c702ae10000000a155106/frameset.htm

"In Asset Accounting (FI-AA), both difference postings and complete postings are supported."

my question is which posting method(difference postings or complete postings) is recommended and why.

I've tested both method based on below setting;

Case A) difference postings

.................Real........Posting to G/L........account assignment

Area 01.......X...................1 ...................IFRS account

Area XX.......X...................0 ..................

Area YY...........................4 ...................JP-GAAP Account

Case B) complete postings

.................Real........Posting to G/L........account assignment

Area 01.......X...................1 ...................IFRS account

Area XX.......X...................4 .................. JP-GAAP Account

and I've tested below scenario.

APC value 1,000k

Depreciation IFRS 200k

Depreciation JP-GAAP 250k

Case A,

Acquisition; 1 document was post

Dr. Asset-IFRS 1,000k

Cr. xxxxx

Depreciation 2 document was post

Dr. Depreciation-IFRS 200k

Cr. Accum Dep-IFRS 200k

Dr. Depreciation-JP-GAAP 50k

Cr. Accum Dep-JP-GAAP 50k

Case B,

Acquisition; 2 document was post

Dr. Asset-IFRS 1,000k

Cr. xxxxx

Dr. Asset-JP-GAAP 1,000k

Cr. xxxxx

Depreciation 2 document was post

Dr. Depreciation-IFRS 200k

Cr. Accum Dep-IFRS 200k

Dr. Depreciation-JP-GAAP 250k

Cr. Accum Dep-JP-GAAP 250k

Both case looks fine, so I want to know pros/cons.

Thanks

[former_member193511 · Accepted solution]

Hi Yamamoto-san,

A comment from my side that for case A, there was no posting of acquisition purchase cost (APC) for local GAAP, meaning it takes the values of acquisition from IFRS accounts if report (for e.g. financial statement) were to be produced.

As for case B, both IFRS and local GAAP accounts are updated, in this case should there be a local GAAP requirement on APC or net book value there would not be an issue as the APC accounts are maintained separately.

Although both are fine in your case, case B would be more consistent and flexible as compared to case A.

Hope the above helps.

Kind regards,

John Chin