Skip to Content
Product Information

Paid Family and Medical Leave

Hello community,

This is blog to discuss Paid Family and Medical Leave for U.S. If you have any  questions about PFML you can post it here. This blog will be updated with tips, best practices and, SAP Notes related to this subject.

Notes for State of Washington:

2722361 – BSI: Tax Types 098 to 103 (Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave)
2723165 – BSI: Tax Types 098 to 103 (Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave) [CE]
2732298 – Prerequiste objects for SAP Note 2731200
2731200 – BSI – Change BTX screens due to 3-digits Tax Type change
2724688 – TAX: Changes in Payroll Driver log and Sync Tax Data due to 3-digit Tax Type enablement
2736529 – TAX: Incorrect cumulation of YTD amounts for tax types 100 and above
2737921 – TAX: Washington Paid Family Leave not calculated correctly when the employee is not resident in WA
2736319 – TAX: Virtual Tax Types 888 and 999 are not restricted to WA
2740042 – TAX: Adjustments to the WA Paid Family and Medical Leave calculation
2740876 – TAX: Prerequisite objects for SAP Note 2740042
2749956 – TAX: Wage type /T6Z is not sent as year-to-date wages to TaxFactory
2751080 – TAX: Non-taken tax for Tax Type 87 for Washington (WA) is being refunded
2768221 – TAX: Incorrect WA PFML in case of payroll results before SAP Note 2740042
2777590 – BSI: Sync. Payroll Tax Data displays PAL error for TUB 162
2768221 – TAX: Prerequisites for SAP Note 2788251
2788251 – TAX: Configuration for WA PFML wage types for Concurrent Employment [CE]
2788717 – TAX: Corrections to WA PFML 999 Tax Type for CE and Posting
2775430 – TAX: Changes to WA PFML calculation to allow self-adjustment
2790914 – TAX: Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave (WA PFML) solution – FAQ

Notes for Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

2788251 – TAX: Configuration for WA PFML wage types for Concurrent Employment [CE]
2751080 – TAX: Non-taken tax for Tax Type 87 for Washington (WA) is being refunded
2740042 – TAX: Adjustments to the WA Paid Family and Medical Leave calculation
2775430 – TAX: Changes to WA PFML calculation to allow self-adjustment.

TUB 166 is required for Commonwealth of Massachusetts, after the TUB you need to run the Synchronization tool and adjust the tax model.

If you have applied the Support Package that contain these note and cannot see the new wages type, the reason is these changes are delivered in client 000, you should transport the changes to the other working clients, the wiki page has instructions in how to do it.

After the transport you need to adjust the Tax Model to include the wage types that your company need to pay.

You must run the Synchronization Tool.

Regards,

Graziela

101 Comments
You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
  • Thanks for opening this Blog, Graziela.  Hope folks with questions and issues regarding PFML will utilize this blog will post here.

    I will go first.  But mine is not directly related to the PFML but relating to the tax types  When the tax types got extended beyond the two digit code,  there were several notes released to accommodate the three digit tax types.  However there is one area that requires to be addressed – in the BTXRATE maintenance screen (via SM30), the tax type field needs to be extended to accommodate the three digit field.  Not sure why it wasnt done.  Not a big deal but it doesn’t display well.

    Thanks

    Chandra

  •  

    Hi Chandra,

    I hope so! So we can keep the assumptions separetelly is easier to manage.

    I tested this in my internal system and this is being displayed correct.
    As per my search this have been delivered in SAP note:
    2731200 – BSI – Change BTX screens due to 3-digits Tax Type change

    Do you have this note in your system?

    Thanks and regards,

    • Thanks Graziela,  Yes, we have that note in our system.  The issue is with the screen field in the baxrate table, even though the underlying tables may have been adjusted to accommodate the three digit TT,  the on-screen field needs to be enlarged a bit.  I have attached a screenshot of it (not sure if the image attachment works but have tried to attach one).

      Thanks

      Chandra

       

          • Was this issue ever resolved?  We have the same view on this table, but it also appears that other tabs now have a limited view and we are unable to see the full entry.

          • Hello Alicia/Chandra,

            I have contacted developers and the note delivers the change in the dynpro. Once you apply the SP that contains the note this will be fixed.

            We tested applying the note and this should be analysed by the upgrade colleagues, to see why the SNOTE is not changing the lenght.

            Regards,
            Graziela

             

          • Hello Graziela,  this is the note (NOTE_2732298) that needs to be analyzed, correct? is this something that will get fixed only in an SP or even by applying the note itself? we only applied the note, not the corresponding SP.

            Let me check with my ABAP engineers.

             

            Thanks

            Chandra

          • Hi Chandra,

            In my test with the Support Package the issue is solved. The note number is 2731200 (BSI – Change BTX screens due to 3-digits Tax Type change).

            This note delivers the change in the view.

            Regards,
            Graziela

          • Thanks Graziela,  we do have that note in our system. But I’m going to wait until SP63 is applied in our system.  Sometimes certain changes dont get implemented fully until the full SP implementation.

  • Hi Graziela,

    is there any issue with retro? for WA employees system doesn’t calculate the retro taxes.

    System calculate the taxes correctly for current pay period, issue is only with retro taxes?

    we have just implemented following notes with all other notes ….

    2740042 – TAX: Adjustments to the WA Paid Family and Medical Leave calculation
    2740876 – TAX: Prerequisite objects for SAP Note 2740042

     

    Regards,

    Faisal

     

      • Hi,

        We also have an issue with the retro.  It has something to do with the ER tax being self adjusting and the EE taxes going to /Nxx’s.  When the current period is calculated the ER tax adjusted in the prior period is deducted from the total family and medical leave for the current period and that amount is split to calculate the current periods PF and Medical leave, thus causing the amount in the current period to be lower than expected.

        Averil

  • Hi Graziela, is there a guidance on to which GL accounts we should be posting the Wagetypes introduced by this Functionality.

    In our case we are using the following Wagetypes for Processing –

    /487 – EMPLOYEE FAMILY LEAVE INSURANCE TAX
    /499 – EE MEDICAL LEAVE INSURANCE TAX
    /4A0 – ER MEDICAL LEAVE INSURANCE TAX

    Can you please advise.

    thanks

    Anand

    • You can model after the NY PFML taxes (tax type 87) if they are applicable to your organization; these are mostly similar.  Alternatively you can leverage the WA unemployment posting set up and follow the same, of course with concurrence of the payroll business and FI business team.

      Thanks

      Chandra

  • Hello community,

    TUB 158 contains some changes to WA PFML, mainly for the companies who uses Gross-up this should be implemented.

    Regards,
    Graziela

  • Hi Grazela,

    Before implementation  below mentioned Notes we had issue of meeting SS Max Cap when ran payroll for next month

    for example

    if Employee have wages more than 132900 in month of Jan 2019 PFML work fine and calculate correct and meet SS Max Cap

    but for Feb 2019 Payroll it still calculating PFML and ignoring MAX Cap

    After implementing Notes below Notes

    2737549:              TAX: Reduced Withholding Formula for Missouri (Formula 3), effective Januar

    2740042:              TAX: Adjustments to the WA Paid Family and Medical Leave calculation

    2740876:              TAX: Prerequisite objects for SAP Note 2740042

    2751080:              TAX: Non-taken tax for Tax Type 87 for Washington (WA) is being refunded

     

    After ran force retro Payroll CE Driver we are experiencing refund of PFML  WA deduction in PP 02 for all employees  it look like a bug

    But good part is that it is not calculating for employee who met SS Wages limit of 132900 in PP02, so above mentioned issue was resolved, but new issue it refunding for all employees in  PP02

    let me know some one have same issue or we need to create ticket for SAP

    Thanks,

     

    Ali

  • Hi Graziela,

    Our payroll coordinator in WA brought to our attention that we should not be retro-ing the WA Paid Family and Medical Leave for periods we did not withhold these taxes.  If payroll retroes it automatically tries to calculate these taxes.  We can’t turn off the retro as sometimes we need payroll to retro.  How is SAP handling this?  What is the best way to refund the employees the retroed amount?  IT 221??

    From the WA website

    https://paidleave.wa.gov/employers#helpcat55

    If you did not start collecting premiums from employees on Jan. 1, there is no penalty and you can begin withholding at any time provided you give your employees notice one pay period in advance. However, you cannot retroactively withhold premiums from employees, and you will be responsible for paying any missed premiums on their behalf. You should not remit your premiums to the Employment Security Department until quarterly reports are due this spring. If you remit now, we will issue a refund and you will need to remit again when you report.

    Thanks!

    Averil

      • Graziela –

        What wage types should we use on the IT0221 if we have to create them?  Typically we would only use the /487, /787 etc, but now all these new wage types exist and have some part in the calculation.  Should we use any of the new wage types on the IT0221 so that the totals are updated correctly and if so which ones?

         

        Thanks!

        • Hello Alicia,

          This depends of the wage types you use. Some companies don´t use tax type 100.

          You need to remove the ones related to the employee and include the one related to the employer.

          Regards,
          Graziela

          • Graziela –

            I’m not sure I understand that answer.  We are using tax types 87, 99 and 100 for the payroll process.  Why would we remove the employee tax types if we are doing the IT0221 to update the employee year to date monies?  The main answer I was looking for is – which if any of these new wage types that has been created (/4zz, /6zz, /T4z, /T6z, etc) do we need to add to the IT0221?  Do any of these need to be added in order to keep the YTD amounts in sync within the payroll results and for the BSI interface?

            Thanks!

  • Hi Team – I have made possible changes to the Tax Model set up – however still seeing the PFML Tax calculating based on ‘Taxable Income’ and not ‘Gross Pay’.

    Did anyone face the same issue ?

    Could see –  Ali Kazmi & Chandramouly Veeramony

    talked about the same issue .. – did it get resolved for you?

     

    please advise.. thanks

    regards

    Anand

    • Hi Anand

       

      Yes my client had same issue, and we got resolved by reconcile and shuffle  wage types  and assign  processing class  71 / 0 for PFMLA illegible wages and other wage types to different PC 71/ 1

      Take extras caution and do testing, so it should not impact any other  tax and withholding calculation

       

      Thanks

      Ali

  • Community,

    We have an issue with the Washington Paid Family & Medical Leave Calculation.

    We are exempt from paying any employer related tax as we are under the number of employees required.

    We have set the correct formulas for the tax types to be exempt.

    We are seeing that for the employee taxes (TT087 & TT099) as we move through pay cycles that the tax is escalating. I have reported this to BSI but they say the calculation is correct by the formula. I believe the formula is in error.

    Please see attached (Pay Period 1-4) test case in development system. We are up to TUB 158 and have installed the most recent Notes: (2740876 & 2740042)

     

    Any Advice?

    Thanks,

    Greg

     

  • Hello community,

    Note released today:
    2749956 – TAX: Wage type /T6Z is not sent as year-to-date wages to TaxFactory

    This fixed an issue with a negative tax to be calculated in some scenarios.

    Regards,
    Graziela

  • Hi Graziela,

    I dont know if any anybody else has this scenario, but we have a question about the /N wage types being generated when doing the retros. Initially you suggested for us to change the standard operation operation UTPRI parameter from Uncapped to Capped. With this change we are able to see that /N87 & /N99 wage types are being generated, this is due to the UTPRI operation is processing the tax priorities using the the EE tax originally deducted instead of using the the Total Gross as it did before. This solution is working fine for the WA employees for the WA PFL, but is also affecting the employees from other states. For example, we have an employee who was working in the state of OH during the period 01-2019 and has payroll results in this period. Then, before executing the period 02-2019 the employee work state was change from OH to MO all the way back to the period 01-2019. When executing the period 02-2019 with a forced retro to the period 01-2019, a /N01 wage type was generated with a difference of the tax amount withheld in OH during period 01-2019 and the tax amount withheld for MO when the system did the retro.

    We just want to know if the SAP final solution is to change the UTPRI parameter from Uncapped to Capped even if is going to affect the other states taxes calculation while doing retro-accounting. The UTPRI standard function uses the Uncapped parameter ‘U‘, and we are concern that making this change is affecting the standard operation functionality we initially had in place.

    Please advise.

    Thanks,

    Santhiel

    • Hello Santhiel,

      Lets make this clear. UTPRI capped or uncapped both are standard, if you go to PE04 transaction and select UTPRI payroll function, you can find the documentation that explains this functionality. This is avalailble for a long time in SAP and this is not just related to WA PFML.

      Using uncapped or capped is a business decision. For any tax if there is uncolleted amount the system will generate /N when you if you use the option Capped. If you use uncapped the system will adjust the taxes wtithout creating /N. In any scenarios for WA PFML, you will have to make adjusting in case of retro, using IT0221.

      Regards,
      Graziela

  • Thanks for the comments Graziela.

    Initially when we had the UTPRI with the Uncapped parameter in our system, the /N87 & /N99 was not being generated, therefore you suggested for us to use the Capped parameter. Uncapped = Use EE Total Gross & Capped = Use EE Tax originally deducted.

    By us making the suggested change, is allowing us to see the /N for the WA PFL when retro, this is fine. But we did the change because we had payroll results for several periods in 2019 before we moved any of the WA PFL notes, and we had to forced retro in order to collect the EE uncollected tax amounts. But now with this change to the UTPRI, when we process a Regular Payroll run with retro, it will prioritize the taxes based on the EE Taxes originally deducted, instead of prioritizing based on the EE Total Gross.

    Before the WA PFL notes were released, we didn’t have the necessity to change the UTPRI, this was changed because you told us to. I was just wondering if SAP has a proper standard solution where it does not involve making the change to the UTPRI function.

    Even thought you are saying this is a business decision, you suggested us to make the change in order to have the solution working for /N wage types, but this change is affecting other states.

    Please let me know. Thanks much for all the support. I greatly appreciated.

    Santhiel

    • Santhiel,

      If you wish the taxes will be generated /487 and /499 in retro and you just need to adjust the taxes using IT0221, instead of using /N.

      Regards,
      Graziela

  • Hi Graziela:

    #1 – Is there any long term solution or enhancement SAP has in mind which would allow customers to configure prior period WA PFL to automatically generate /NXX and still keep UTPRI as UNCAPPED?

    #2 – In the scenario you described, it seems that the customer must violate the law or I am not understanding.  If we set the system to UNCAPPED, and an employee is retroactively switched to WA, the system would automatically create the /487 and /499 to deduct for the prior period(s).  Thus, it seems we have violated the law, which specifically says employers cannot deduct from periods that were missed.

    Then, we recover by creating an IT 221 to refund the /487 and /499 taxes for the previous period (s) to the employee in a subsequent  paycheck.

    By definition, it seems that we are forced to violate the law and perform manual steps if we want our system’s WA PFL to comply with the statute.

    Am I missing something?

    Thanks so much for sponsoring this interactive site — really appreciate it!

    • I agree with Kathrine, but as she has addressed Grazella and I apologies for interference, there is  work around till sap delivered the solution, in my opinion if you can create IT 0235 for employee for that period where you don’t want to generate PFML wages, I think it will help

       

      Thanks

       

      Ali

    • Hi Karhryn,

      1) You can use UTPRI CAPPED or UNCAPPED, there isn´t an option in the standard to use just for one tax type. There is a detailed explanation in PE04 transaction.

      2) You can select the start date of the tax model just the date you start effectively to collect these tax types. With this the system will not send to BSI the tax types and there isn´t any issue with the retro. You just need to collect the employer taxes using the adjustment.

      3) You can create a rule in payroll, to control if there is any retro, if so change the employee taxes to employer taxes.

      4) You can create the adjustment in the same period, you don´t need to wait for the next period.

      5) ASUG is also an option to request a different approach. So the SAP Product Manager can evaluate the change in standard system.

      6) There are some other solutions, as Ali mentioned using IT0235 for that period.

      I´m glad to help with the blog. 😉

      Regards,
      Graziela

  • Hi Graziela,

     

    Do you have any idea, if SAP going to provide report for filing PFML wages to WA state? or we have to build our self?

     

    Thanks

    Ali Kazmi

      • Hi Graziela,

         

        Was this confirmed?   Also, do you know when or if the changes to produce the mag media file for reporting to the state.   Looks like it is something different from the UI file.

         

        Thanks

        Tim Holt

          • Yes, I have that.  One more question.  Should there be entries in BTXRATE for these tax types?   I’m not saying it’s a valid idea, but it seems like I would be able to put a rate there for one of these types and override it, but that doesn’t seem to work.

             

            Thanks

            Tim

             

  • Hi Graziela,

     

    So far we implemented tubs till 156. Earlier my company decided not to have WA PFML. Hence we didn’t implement any of the notes related to it. Now my company wants WA PFML. Now I have a few queries.

    1. After applying all the notes listed above do I still have to run the sync to reflect PFL changes if any? Or implementing the notes solve the purpose?
    2. I noticed tubs 158 have some changes related to WA PFL. So we should have WA PFL prior to tubs 158 for the changes to reflect. Kindly confirm.
    3. After implementing the notes do I have to configure anything in BSI tax factory?

    Also, kindly provide any inputs as we yet to start the activity. Appreciate for the quick revert.

     

    Thanks..

     

    • Hello Chetan,

      1) You must run the Sync tool after the notes.

      2) TUB 158 has some important changes, so it´s recommended to apply it.

      3)  In BSI side you don´t need to customize, just apply the TUB and update the cyclic. You need to customize the tax model in SAP side, to send the new tax types in the BSI script.

      Regards,
      Graziela

  • Hi Graziela,

     

    Many thanks for the quick revert!

    1) You must run the Sync tool after the notes. – As we ran tubs till 156, so once we implement the notes we have to run the sync tool from 153 to 156 including cyclic?

    3) In BSI side you don´t need to customize, just apply the TUB and update the cyclic. You need to customize the tax model in SAP side, to send the new tax types in the BSI script. – Do we have any documentation for the changes to apply in tax models? If not could you please guide what to include in the tax models for WA PFL.

    Thanks..

     

     

  • Hi Graziela,

     

    I have created incident with SAP

    140084 / 2019 Paid Family Leave EE and Employer reverse payment after meeting SS cap in next payroll

    Thanks

    Ali

  • Hi Graziela,

    We have applied below all notes in our system. /*ZZ wage types working fine.

    But we have one issue, for example if WA employee already met $132,900.00 , after implementing these notes , we are getting error /4ZZ wage type Negative YTD in TCRT not allowed. If we run the payroll from retro first payroll period of 2019,then it is running fine. This issue happening only for the employees already met the limit before implementing these notes.

    2740042 – TAX: Adjustments to the WA Paid Family and Medical Leave calculation
    2740876 – TAX: Prerequisite objects for SAP Note 2740042
    2751080 – TAX: Non-taken tax for Tax Type 87 for Washington (WA) is being refunded
    2749956 – TAX: Wage type /T6Z is not sent as year-to-date wages to TaxFactory

    Can you pls check and let us know your update on this issue.

    Thanks,

    Vinodh

    • Hi Vinod,

      This thread is not an official support channel of SAP product support.

      We created this thread so the community could share their experiences, results and doubts and assist each other.

      The scenario you have described is very specific and we cannot ensure a solution without a proper analysis.

      Please double check your customizing and the tax calculation.

      If after that an SAP analysis is required please proceed in one of the support channels available at https://support.sap.com/en/my-support/product-support.html#section

      Regards,

      Roger Oliveira

    • Hi Vinod,

      We are experiencing almost same issue and we have created incident with SAP, let me know if you have got solution

      Thanks

       

      Ali Kazmi

  • Hi,

     

    How do we get rid of the /4ZZ wage type? This is just an accumulation of the other WA FML taxes and is throwing off our reporting by inflating it. We use ADP for tax reporting and they are picking it up for payment along with the correct ones. Anyone have this issue?

      • Hi Linda and Ella, have either of you been able to find a solution for the /4ZZ issue? We use ADP as well and it is being picked up on the file, but we do not want it picked up.

        We are wondering if /4ZZ is necessary to have as an active wage type in SAP. We understand it is used for internal calculations, but we aren’t sure why it is being included in our ADP reports. Has anyone considered (or tried) end-dating the 999 tax type in SAP? Would there be any negative effects of this course of action?

        Thank you!

  • I am trying to set up the WA PFML taxes, and I am getting the below error, which doesn’t make any sense. Please help.

    No entry in table T512W for key 10 /3ZZ

    Thanks

    Ashish

  • Hi Graziela,

     

    We are done with the setup for WA PFL and we noticed all the PFL tax types, tax calculations based on the taxable income instead of gross pay. As per the suggestions above I can change the PC 71 specification to 1 but the tax type 87 is using by NJ too please suggest an alternative to ensure for only WA it should calculate on gross pay and for NJ it is on taxable income. Appreciate in advance.

  • All,

     

    After we applied 2740042 we found that we had accounting symbolic mapping entries added for /4ZZ and /T4Z.  They were mapped to symbolic 2220, which does not exist in our system, so the postings errored.    Did anyone else see an issue around these two?  Do you have symbolic 2220 defined in your system?

     

    Thanks

    Tim

    • Hi Tim,

      Yes we had same issue, we just remove symbolic account, as it should not suppose to post to accounting

       

      Thanks

       

      Ali

      • Hi Graziela,

         

        Issue: Tax type 87 (Employee Family Leave Insurance) & 099 (Employee Medical Leave Insurance) are not getting calculated correctly during retroactive calculation.

        Tax type 87 (Employee Family Leave Insurance) & 099 (Employee Medical Leave Insurance) are not getting calculated correctly during retroactive calculation. The expected value of

        Currently, we are at support package level D1.

        We have implemented ALL the suggested SAP notes related to Paid Family and Medical Leave for Washington tax authority, The notes implemented in our system are given below.

        2722361 – BSI: Tax Types 098 to 103 (Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave)
        2723165 – BSI: Tax Types 098 to 103 (Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave) [CE]
        2732298 – Prerequisite objects for SAP Note 2731200
        2731200 – BSI – Change BTX screens due to 3-digits Tax Type change
        2724688 – TAX: Changes in Payroll Driver log and Sync Tax Data due to 3-digit Tax Type enablement
        2736529 – TAX: Incorrect cumulation of YTD amounts for tax types 100 and above
        2737921 – TAX: Washington Paid Family Leave not calculated correctly when the employee is not resident in WA
        2736319 – TAX: Virtual Tax Types 888 and 999 are not restricted to WA
        2740042 – TAX: Adjustments to the WA Paid Family and Medical Leave calculation
        2740876 – TAX: Prerequisite objects for SAP Note 2740042
        2749956 – TAX: Wage type /T6Z is not sent as year-to-date wages to TaxFactory
        2751080 – TAX: Non-taken tax for Tax Type 87 for Washington (WA) is being refunded
        2768221 – TAX: Incorrect WA PFML in case of payroll results before SAP Note 2740042

        Post implementation, we have found an issue for the employee who has retroactive calculation.

        the tax type 87(Employee Family Leave Insurance) & 099 (Employee Medical Leave Insurance) are not getting calculated correctly.

        Root cause – We have analyzed payroll log and found that, /N87 & /N99 were populated in UTPRI (Process tax priority uncap tax in retro) function, however these wages did not adjust in /487 & /499 wage types.

        I have raised the same issue in Marketplace also.

        Regards,

        Siraj.

  • Hi Graziela/ Roger

    URGENT

    SAP Delivered Wage type /T4Z is giving hard error during 3rd part remittance run Schema “U50C”.

    in our system processing class 78 is set to 2 for SAP delivered wage type /T4Z,  is this wage type  suppose to be part of 3rd party remittance, in my opinion, “No”

    Can any one please check in system T Code SM 30 Table v_512w_d  and processing class 78 have configure with specification “2” please confirm or let us know if having same issue

     

    Thanks

     

    Ali

     

     

    • Hello Ali,

      You are correct, this wage type doesn´t need to be posted. YOu can change the PRCL 78.
      I will talk to the developer to change the delivered.

      Regards,
      Graziela

  • Hi Graziela/ Roger – new to the blog.   Configuring Washington Paid Family & Medical leave now… good discussion.

    Comment to above statement – I realized yesterday that /4zz and /T4z were copied from /498 which is an TX ER Family Leave Insurance (just set up for DC) and therefore, these new wage types for Washington State had the same config in Table T512W_d.   Therefore, they were set up for both FI CO and Third Party posting.   In my mind, neither of these wage types should impact FI CO or TP so I changed T512W to remove the data in the related processing classes and I could process in testing with no issues.   I did wonder if PC 72 should remain as a 2 for ER taxes – wasn’t sure about that piece.

    I also noticed Table T51P1 has an entry for /T4Z that relates to /N98…I would not think this is correct.  Do I need an entry at all for /T4Z in T51P1?

    Everything seems to be working very well in testing but I am not generating any /T4z or /T6z entries at all.   Is that okay?   In my test environment – I had generated results through 4/2019 prior to applying the OSS Notes so based on the documentation in Note 2740042, I assumed I should see these new WTs but I do not.   I get all the ZZ entries just fine and the limits for 2019 seem to be working.

    Thanks,  Tricia

    • Hi Bryant,

      I will appreciate, if you could please test your system, in case of after EE Gross Salary met  SS cap of $132900/-.

      In our system after meeting SS cap in next payroll, it reverse all PFML deduction and than hard error in payroll log for wage type /4A0,     “Negative YTD value for wage type /4A0″

      A month back we have raised incident with SAP and waiting for solution.

       

      Thanks

      Ali

       

       

  • Hi Graziela,

    Thank you for all of your input on the blog – it’s been extremely helpful!

    We utilize ADP and are experiencing issues with WT /4ZZ appearing on our ADP files. We do not want this amount picked up on the files, since it is only an accumulation of the WA PFML taxes and is said to only be used for internal calculations by BSI (noted from SAP Note 2740042).

    Do you know of a way to prevent /4ZZ from appearing on the ADP results?

    We are wondering if /4ZZ is necessary to have as an active wage type in SAP. We understand it is used for internal calculations, but we aren’t sure why it is being included in our ADP reports. What if  tax type 999 was end-dated in SAP? Would there be any negative effects of this course of action?

    I would appreciate any input you might have about this issue! It seems that other individuals are experiencing this /4ZZ issue with their ADP files as well.

    Thanks, Emily

  • I have implemented new TUB Bulletin #162 and made configuration required for new Tax type 098 in T5UTI and T5UTY for DC Tax Combo and have a start date of 04/01/2019. When I run payroll driver for a DC employee it is not calculating tax for Employer Family Tax 098. Is someone already tested in their system and if it is all working. Please let me know if I am missing anything or there is an issue with DC Employer Family Tax Type 098. 

    Thanks,

    Aslam

  • I have found the issue, Sync tool is not updating table entries in the transport. I found that table entries for T5UTD are not updated in the transport. I will open a ticket with SAP. Can someone please let me know if anyone has this issue. Graziela, please let us know if SAP has any issue with Sync tool not updating the transport.

    Thanks,

    Aslam

    • Hello Aslam,

      If the issue occurs while installing TUB 162, then it is solved with SAP Note 2777590.

      Can you please apply this SAP Note and let us know the outcome?

      Thank you!

      Best regards,
      Bruna

    • Hi Aslam,

       

      Did you face the error ‘“Error when creating PAL log”‘? SAP has released the SAP Note 2777590 (BSI: Sync. Payroll Tax Data displays PAL error for TUB 162). Check this SAP Note mentioned and let us know whether your issue is related to it.

       

      Best regards,

      Virginia

  • Hi Bruna/Virginia,

    Initially I had this error (Error when creating PAL log) but I did implemented the note 2777950 and that fix the error and I was able to continue without error. Once Sync tool completed and saved to transport. New entries for table T5UTD was not updated in the transport even though it has updated the tables in developer client but not moved to transport. When I did SSC1 to other client, table changes did not move. Please let me know if there is any issue when saving to transport or another step is required to make sure all table entries are updated in the transport.

    Thanks,

    Aslam

  • Hello SAP Team,  I was wondering if you can give any update on the MA PFML that is going to be effective from 7/1/2019.  I know its still early days, but if you can give any updates that will be helpful for us to plan our stuff.  I checked the PFML FAQ notes and didnt see any update for the MA PFML.

    Thanks
    Chandra

    • Hi Chandra,

      Developer is in touch with BSI about this MA PFML, but we don´t have any news yet. Once we have any update I will post here in the blog. The KBA  2646985 will be update as well.

      Regards,
      Graziela

      • Graziela –

         

        Do we have any updates on the MA PFML?  Our client is getting very nervous that we are not going to have this implemented in time for the 7/1/19 effective date.  We have to have time for the configuration and testing before moving these changes to our production system so we are getting anxious as well.

         

        Thanks!

        • Hello Alicia,

          As per BSI Notice TUB 166 will include this change and the following
          SAP notes must be applied in SAP side:

          SAP notes that will be prerequisite:
          2788251 TAX: Configuration for WA PFML wage types for Concurrent Employment [CE]
          2751080 TAX: Non-taken tax for Tax Type 87 for Washington (WA) is being refunded
          2740042 TAX: Adjustments to the WA Paid Family and Medical Leave calculation
          2775430 TAX: Changes to WA PFML calculation to allow self-adjustment

          Once you run the Sync tool, adjust the tax model and have the notes, you should be able to get the MA PFML.

          Regards,
          Graziela

  • Hello,

    I just saw that BSI is rescinding tax type 999 in BSI Tub #165.  Is there an OSS note to go along with the BSI update?

    Averil

     

    • Hi Averil,

      Yes, there are 2 notes, one FAQ and other for the code changes. I will post here once they are released to customer.

      Regards,
      Graziela

       

      • I see Notes 2788251, 2788717, and 2790805 are just released. Are these the related Notes for TUB 165 and Tax Type 999 that you’re referring to? They do appear to be intended to address the issues we have raised in our Customer Incident.

          • Are there any predictions on how soon they will be released, and/or what interactions they might have with the Notes I just mentioned? We’re at a desperation point, because we start processing for our June 1 payroll tomorrow, and this is the one in which serious errors are going to show up for our chief executive, based upon WA PFML changes we already released to production earlier. See Ali Kazmi’s comments higher in the thread for details (he is working with us on this).

          • Hi Matt,

            The information that I have is they will be released tomorrow.
            With these notes tax type 999 will be recinded.

            Regards,
            Graziela

          • Hi Matt,

            SAP note 2775430 – TAX: Changes to WA PFML calculation to allow self-adjustment has been released.

            The other note 2790914 is a FAQ and will be released next week. But for testingTUB165, just 2775430 is needed.

            Regards,
            Graziela

  • Graziela,

    We had set up the system for Washington PFML about a month ago, and everything worked fine for a couple of pay periods. However, in our current pay period, we are having an issue where /798, /7A0, /7A1, /7A3 and /7ZZ wage types are now giving large negative values (even while /6** wage types are correct). Due to this, we are getting the “Termination in Operation” error with “UNE1********* < ERROR NEG YTD IN TCRT NOT ALLOWED” message.

    Can you please help?

    Thanks,

    Ashish.

    • Hello Ashish,

      If you have any period without /4ZZ this can be causing the issue.

      Today SAP note 2775430 – TAX: Changes to WA PFML calculation to allow self-adjustment was released. With this tax type 999 has been rescinded.

      You need to apply TUB 165,run the synctool and apply the note 2775430.

      Regards,
      Graziela

  • Hi Grazelia,

    Currently, the system is updated to Cyclic V with TUB #165 and have applied all the above mentioned notes in original post by you.

    Currently, we are facing issues that the system is refunding WA employees with Employee Family Leave Insurance Tax . 

    Is there anyone who is facing the same issue? Or are we missing something here.

     

    Thank you

    Lakshmy

    • Lakshmy and Grazelia,

       

      I’m not seeing refunds but the percentages don’t seem correct.  I haven’t been able to figure out what it’s doing, but the percentages are sometimes way too high, even though the rates in T5UTX appear correct.   I guess I will create an OSS incident.

       

      Tim

      • Hello Tim,

        I have tested the TUB 165 and the percentages were correct.
        Can you check if you maybe have an rate override in BTXRATE for the WA tax types?

        Thanks and best regards,

        Bruna

         

         

  • Hello,

    I was Checking for MA PFML and SAP has updated note : 2646985 – FAQ – Paid Family Medical Leave in USA. It states that implement WA related notes. I have all WA related notes already implemented. So, Do I need to update Tax Models for MA. No, SAP note will be released for MA?

    Regards,

    Vineeta Mishra

    • Hello Vineeta,

      The WA notes includes the tax types changes needed for MA. Yes, you do need to update the tax model for MA and apply TUB 166.

      TUB 166 is required for Commonwealth of Massachusetts, after the TUB you need to run the Synchronization tool and adjust the tax model.

      Regards,
      Graziela

  • Hi –

    We just implemented tax type 98 Family Leave for DC.  We have reciprocity so our employees who live in VA but work in DC only have VA tax type 01 withheld.  They are now having both VA and DC tax type 01 withheld.  This only happens as of 4/01/19, the effective date of tax type 98 for DC. If I run March, this does not occur.  Has anyone had this issue?  What is the cause/solution?  BSI said it is an SAP issue.

    Thank you.