Skip to Content
A misunderstanding often takes place when analyzing the output provided by report RAZUGA_ALV01 (asset acquisitions). It occurs that users of this report think that information is missing due to a program error.

Transaction types related to a transfer of prior year acquisitions, are not shown in report RAZUGA_ALV01. They are treated as transfers, and should be listed by report RAUMBU_ALV01. Correspondingly, transfer of current year acquisition is considered as an acquisition that is listed in the acquisition report.

Here below I show an example of an asset with a prior year acquisition.
Transaction AW01N:

As you can see this asset is not shown in report RAZUGA_ALV01 (asset acquisitions):



However it is displayed as a transfer in report RAUMBU_ALV01 (intracompany asset transfers):



The logic behind the Acquisition/Transfer – determination of the transaction is the following:

  • Determination of the transaction type group (e.g. 31 for acquisition transfer prior year).
  • If field GITCOL (in table TABWG) for the group is 01 (Acquisition) or 05 (Post-capitalization), then it is an acquisition.
  • If GITCOL is 03 (acquiring Transfer) or 04 (Retiring transfer), and if field XZUGNE (Indicator: Current-year acquisition transaction) is ‘X’, then it is also seen as an acquisition.

In the example transaction type 310 belongs to transaction type group 31; GITCOL = 03 and XZUGNE = ‘ ‘ so it is not shown as an acquisition:


In any case you can select all the transaction types in the selection screen of report RAZUGA_ALV01. Due to customizing and the given logic (see above), the report RAZUGA_ALV01 can determine all standard transaction types to be handled as an acquisition. But if at least one (or more) transaction types are specified on the selection screen, the determination of the standard acquisition transaction types is skipped. Then only the choice of the selection screen is used for further processing.



To report this post you need to login first.

1 Comment

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.

  1. Nathan Genez

    Good blog. 

    This problem is an old one and particularly mis-understood here in the US.  As I understand it, the notion that a transfer which occurs in the year of the asset’s initial acquisition be treated (reported) as an acquisition and NOT a transfer is a European requirement (although I’m not sure if this is still true or not).  But here in the US, a transfer is a transfer is a transfer, regardless of when it took place.  Most of my customers are particularly dis-pleased with this.



Leave a Reply