Product Information
TaxFactory 11.0
Hello community,
Updated on 09.12.2022:
3273042 – BSI: introduction of Tax Types 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 122 has been released to cover the changes released by BSI on Regulatory Bulletin 96
Updated on 02.12.2022:
SAP Note 3260101 – TAX: De Minimis number of days worked criteria for nonresident state withholding
Updated on 03.05.2022:
Important change with US HCM Tax Calculation and BSI TaxFactory 11 Cyclic H. Apply at the earliest HotNews SAP Note 3088446 (BSI: Updates to TaxFactory 11.0 reverse engine processing) to your payroll systems. It is required for BSI TaxFactory 11 Cyclic H.
Blog Reverse Tax Engine – Payroll USA
———————————————————————————————————————————
BSI TaxFactory and TaxFactory SaaS released version 11.0 is available.
After our partner BSI has extended the maintenance for their offering/Product BSI TaxFactory 10.0 up to April 30,2021. SAP has also decided to provide support for BSI TaxFactory 10.0 up to April 30, 2021.
Regardless of the extended support period for BSI TaxFactory 10, SAP strongly recommends not to postpone your upgrade to BSI TaxFactory 11 and still plan to complete the upgrade during this year.
As announced on BSI website JAVA/Tomcat 32bits is not supported anymore by BSI after TaxFactory 11.0 cyclic C and TaxFactory 10.0 cyclic X.3. For any query about this, please contact BSI Support.
Upgrade your payroll system to the corresponding BSI TaxFactory 11.0 product way before the decommissioning of BSI TaxFactory 10.0 support.
There are NO options to extend the support for TaxFactory 10.0 after the decommissioning date.
If you have any questions about BSI TaxFactory 11.0, you can post it here. I´m going to keep this updated with tips, best practices, and, SAP notes.
Important SAP notes:
2760305 – BSI: Tax Factory 11.0 – Main Note
As a prerequisite, you must apply the following SAP Notes:
2760918– BSI: TaxFactory 11.0 – DDIC Changes
2763228 – BSI: TaxFactory 11.0 – Function Modules Changes
2770832 – BSI: TaxFactory 11.0 – General Technical Changes
2780204 – BSI: TaxFactory 11.0 – Changes required for TaxFactory SaaS
2868617 – BSI: Tax Profile Factory SaaS correction
2780716 – BSI: TaxFactory 11.0 – BSI Tools
2790902 – BSI: TaxFactory 11.0 – Payroll Driver Changes
2844516 – BSI: TaxFactory 10.0 – Additional Configuration Options While in Transition to BSI TaxFactory 11.0
2852878 – BSI: Technical Correction changes
2854888 – BSI: TaxFactory 11.0 – Configuration Option
2860747 – BSI: Tax Factory 11.0 – system not able to run TaxFactory SaaS
2864644 – BSI: Tax data synchronization error during transition from TaxFactory 10.0 to TaxFactory 11.0
2855926 – BSI: internat error US_UPDATE_TXIT_FROM_TAXES in BSI Tax Calculation
2865938 – BSI: Tax Factory 11.0 – system continues using TaxFactory 10.0 after upgrade – SaaS
2876817 – V_BTXRATE & V_BTXOVFR: not saving Experience Rate and incorrect number of digits for Tax Type
2853869 – TAX: Additional withholding not considered and Regular wages classified as Supplemental
2878074 – BSI: Update to BTXRATE reader class usage
2904103 – BSI: TaxFactory 11.0 – Missing Changes in Structures for Release 600
2915653 – BSI: Unemployment Override not Being Considered on TaxFactory
2948446 – BSI: installation instructions for TaxLocator 11.0.
3008339 – TAX: Community Safety Payroll Taxes for Eugene
3013127 – BSI: Enablement of Tax Type 106 for Concurrent Employment
Important:
Before applying SAP note 2915653, you must apply note 2844646 – Ignore the local class definition, implementation, definition deffered, definition load , definition local friends changes this notes contains a fix to SNOTE transaction and without this you will get an error.
2919499 – TAX: Experience Rates Calculated Incorrectly in Tax Result Log
2920181 – TAX: TaxFactory Version Source in USVERS
2934419 – TAX: TaxLocator not proposing Tax Areas in TaxFactory 11
2944465 – TAX: Full refund of Unemployment tax when using BTXRATE override
Further irformation about the installation can be found on:
2844034 – TaxFactory 11.0 – On-Premise Installation
2843977 – BSI: TaxFactory 11.0 – SaaS Installation
2948446 – BSI: installation instructions for TaxLocator 11.0.
2977383 – BSI: Changes in Sync Tool Tax due to incorrect State
2988140 – IT0208: Performance issue when using Tax Locator
Frequently Asked Questions – FAQ
1) Which are the options for transition from TaxFactory 10.0 to TaxFactory 11.0?
- In transaction SU3, define the user parameter BSI_TF_VERSION with value 11.
- In transaction PE03, configure the BSI Tax Factory Version (10BSI) feature with value 11.
- In transaction SM30, open table view Customer values for configuration options (V_T5F99K2) and set the value of constant BSI TAX FACTORY: CUSTOMIZING SWITCH (BSITF) to 11.Once your company switches to TaxFactory 11.0, you may no longer use TaxFactory 10.0, nor may you switch back to it later.
2) Which is the start date to be used in table V_T5F99K2 and constant BSITF?
The start date should be 01.01.1800, once you decide to upgrade the system to TaxFactory 11.0, as the system should use the version 11.0 for all the tax calculation, even in retroactive scenarios, where TaxFactory 10.0 were used.
3) When there is a negative value the system is not calculating taxes after the upgrade to TaxFactory 11.0, what is the cause?
Check if the Reverse Tax Engine is turned ON in your system, table V_T5F99K2, constant ADTMD, further information can be found on the KBA 2984562 – Reverse Tax Engine TaxFactory 11.0
4) Filing status/Marital status is missing or not updated in T5UTK. What should I do?
As T5UTK has delivery class C, you can update this table manually. To find the filling status that should be update in T5UTK you can go to MYBSI Portal (https://mybsiconnect.force.com/CustomLogin) with your credentials:
· Select Product Maintenance > TaxFactory -> 11.0
· Under Maintenance select Cyclic Bulletins -> BSI TaxFactory 11.0 Cyclic Bulletin
-> Bulletin Data nformation
5) There is a syntax error in LPBSUD01 after implementing SAP note 2915653, what is the cause and what are the steps fix it?
This is because SAP note 2844646 is not implemented in your system, or was applied after note 2915653.
To solve this SAP note 2844646 must be applied.
Detailed steps:
1) Perform the de-implementation of SAP note 2915653
2) Apply note 2844646
3) Retrieve the version of objects LPBSUD01 -> To do it go to transaction SE38 select LPBSUD01 -> Utilitiles -> version -> version management -> select version prior the note implementation
4) Re-apply note 2915653
6) Is it possible to extend the validity date of TaxFactory 10.0?
There is no extension to TaxFactory 10.0. Support for BSI TaxFactory 10.0 will be decommissioned on April 30, 2021.
7) How Local Reciprocity is working in BSI Tax Factory 11.0?
Detailed information is available on the KBA 2973907 BSI TaxFactory Local Reciprocity Process (Basic Local Reciprocity and Advanced Local Reciprocity)
8) I don´t see the WF parameter in BSI script, why?
The parameter WF: 0,0 is not being sent in all scenarios in the BSI script, as BSI considers it as WF: 0,0 if there isn´t this parameter in the BSI script. Parameter WF: 1,1 or 1,2 is always being sent in case the employee has an IT0210 record that follows the new W-4 Form Model for year 2020.
For further information, please check the KBA:
2985123 – The Parameter WF on the BSI Interface
9) Parameter WF is not in the correct line in BSI interface in TaxFactory 11.0?
There is a change in TaxFactory 11.0 cyclic B the parameter WF should be placed in other line in BSI script. This change has been delivered in the W-4 notes for States, after you apply the notes this parameter will be send in the line BSI expects to do the calculation for FED taxes.
The change in the parameter has been delivered in SAP notes:
2895426 – Prerequisite objects for SAP Note 2878657
2878657 – 2020 State Withholding Tax Calculation – Based on the State (or State-equivalent) Withholding Certificate (SAP_HR) – Phase I
For further information, please check the KBA:
2985123 – The Parameter WF on the BSI Interface
10) After the Support Package the system is calculating higher taxes when employee has IT0161, why?
After SAP notes 2888094 TAX: Lock-in letters override for W-4 exempt and 2880846 TAX: Lock-in letters not overriding New W-4 is now considering the values of IT0161 and now the system is calculating more tax, which is expected.
Refer to KBA for further details 2984188– Tax calculation for an employee with both IT0161 and IT0210.
Regards,
Graziela
What should the FED exemem date be on T5UTZ? I thought this date was always 2/15. Now it's 2/17.
It is February 15 per IRS. And, in our system T5UTZ has 2/15 as the date.
Just got TUB 101 from BSI with changes to the state of Maryland. In reviewing information directly from the state, I see that local tax rates for the following counties (Allegany, Anne Arundel, Cecil, Frederick, St. Mary’s and Washington) have also changed. These don't appear to be part of TUB 101. Any news from BSI on when these updates will take place?
Hello,
Someone got IRS limits changed, but the tax amount is not changed. Is there any way I can confirm that tax calculation is correctly done?
And I've found T5UTKZ is empty. Should there be any records in it?
Thank you,
Euna
T5UTKZ is delivered empty until you run a sync from TaxFactory to ERP after implementing all of the various Notes associated with the new filing status sync feature.
Hi Matt,
That what was what I thought, but I think I ran the sync at least twice since SP was installed. I will pay close attention next time.
Thank you,
Euna
I have also noticed that the new view, V_T5UTKZ, appears to return no records unless you provide a value for BOTH of the selection parameters (tax type and authority). If you leave either field wide open/blank, you'll get "no records returned."
It turns out we're not the right version for T5UTKZ.
Thank you, Matt.
Euna
Hello All -
Looking for anyone to share their experience setting-up the PFML wage types for Colorado.
We followed the manual instructions to setup the tax types / wage types.
Couple questions:
(1) We see two ER/EE sets for Colorado State and Local. Is this what everyone is expecting or should we setup one or the other?
(2) My Payroll Team said there is an option for employers to pay both the EE and ER PFML tax. Has anyone else heard of this .... and how the heck would you setup the tax model config to accommodate?
Thanks,
Brandyn
Our applicable tax types are 117 and 118 (/4B7 and /4B8) which is what we mapped in the tax model; rest other tax types are not applicable to us. If tax types 121/122 (local /4C1 and /4C2) are not applicable, you shouldn't map them in the tax model.
Regarding the optional ER paying both EE and ER, not aware of that. I remember MA PFML had an option like that and SAP delivered tax types for them. The issue is the tax rates are delivered in T5UTX for tax types, so if you are going the route of ER paying both, you will need the combined rates for the TT in T5UTX. Since I dont see a tax type/rate delivered for the combined, you can think of something like having just one ER tax type (118) and override the tax rate in BTXRATE with the combined rate. In this case you would only map tax type 118 in the tax model. You may want to try this and see if it works.
Thanks
Chandra
Hi Chandra,
I already set up the PFML wage type for Colorado but it is not working on my CO employee. There are no deduction for /4B7 and /4B8. I already checked that this correctly entered in T5UTI and T5UTX. Is there any other table that i need to check?
Thank you in advance
Red
Check the tax model set up - T5UTE, T5UTM and T5UTY. T5UTY should have the PFML tax types (117 and 118) for the CO model.
Thanks
Chandra
Yes, there is an option for combined EE and ER PFML. This option can be used by passing formula number 2 to BSI TaxFactory for tax type 118 and/or 122 (only for Colorado) and taxes will be calculated using the applicable percentage. More details on formula number can be found in Regulatory Bulletin #96 released by BSI.
@Chandra and @Mitesh: Thanks for the responses.
Im getting closer ... Ive setup CO Tax Type 118 with formula 2 in table V_BTXRATE and setup the optional rate override directly in BSI, but continue to see FN: 1 in the BSI interface.
ADC TC: CO NR: 0 RP: 0 RC: 0 SE: 0 NX: 0 WF: 1,1
HUD TT: 118 FN: 1 PW: 2403.85 HW: 240.40 MS: 3 NE: 0
ADD TE: 0 RN: 0 PW: 1.00 RF: 0
VDC AT: 0
SDC SM: 9 BW: 4807.70
EDC DE: 0 NA: 0
LUD ES: 0 SA: 0 PND: 0 MND: 0 QND: 0 YND: 0
What am I missing?
Thanks for any help.
Brandyn
Hello Brandyn,
Please, refer to the KBA:
3196605 How to customize the value of the Formula Number send on the BSI Interface
BTXRATE will not override the formula number.
Kind regards,
Graziela
Thanks Graziela!
Worked beautifully.
Brandyn
Hi @Graziela Dondoni,
Sorry if it is too early to ask. Please let me know if there is any update on the delivery of solution for 401(k) Plan changes related to Secure Act 2.0.
Thank you,
Sanjay
Hi Sanjay,
SAP is aware about that and it's currently being evaluated by the Developers and Product Management.
For any update on that, I would suggest you to keep an eye on the Announcement of Legal Changes: 2917160 (New legal change is under evaluation).
Best Regards,
Carlos
Hi Carlos,
Thank you for the update.
Best regards,
Sanjay
Hi Carlos,
I keep watching but haven't see any announcements about Secure Act 2.0 being evaluate or a planned delivery before the end of 2023. I will keep watching, but due to customizations in many 401k plans, we are hoping to see something soon.
Best Regards,
Kim
SAP, please advise as to the plans for implementation as most US employers will need to do the required configuration to support the Secure Act 2.0.
This has not hit the Announcement of Legal Changes page yet. Is there any way we could request an update? Would it be better if I were to submit an incident for one of my clients? Many are concerned about timing and having the ability to test thoroughly before moving to production.
Best Regards,
Kim
Hello Kim,
I just sent a message to Developers to see if they have any update. Once I heard from them I will post here.
If you open a case, you will receive a reply to get in touch with Product Manager.
Kind regards,
Graziela
Hi Graziela,
Checking back in to see if you have heard anything from your Developers.
Kind regards,
Kim
Hi Kim,
They said they are still evaluating what will be changed.
You can reach out the Product Manager via email.
Kind regards,
Graziela
Graziela, please advise who the current USA Benefits Product manager is or how we can find that out. Thanks, Jeff
Hi Kim, Hi Jeff,
As I just mentioned to Jeff (separately), we are analyzing the requirements of the Secure 2.0 Act at our end and hope to have the requirements published in the SAP Legal Change Notification as a Service portal over the next few weeks. Hence, I would request you to please keep a lookout there.
Kind Regards,
Attreyee
Product Manager, SAP OnPremise Benefits Management
Looks like a note has been delivered! 3362032 - FAQ: Secure 2.0 Act - Section 603
Announcements of Legal Changes - SAP for Me
Thanks!
Kim
Yes, but eagerly awaiting more details to be released by SAP on Sept. 7th.
Padmanabh and Kim,
The Note due to be released on 9/7 was in fact released yesterday: https://me.sap.com/notes/3365473
Cheers,
Matt
Hi All,
While the Note has been released, please be advised that it is currently meant only for piloting/ early adoption. Based on piloting feedback, and if there are no further changes, the Note will be made generally available on September 07, 2023.
Thank you,
Attreyee
Also, If my understanding is right, this note/solution is applicable for customers that use the standard catch-up functionality/set up (single plan for both 401K regular and CU contribution). Is that right?
Thanks
Chandra
Hi Chandra,
Yes, that´s correct.
Kind regards,
Graziela
Hi Attreyee,
That's not what's recorded in the actual Note. It has status "Released for Customer" and High Priority.
Cheers,
Matt
Hi Matt,
You are correct. To clarify, while the Note is released, the solution in the Note is subject to change until September 07, hence we recommend that you wait until the Note is available in the Legal Change Notification app.
Regards,
Attreyee
The IRS just extended the deadline!
IRS announces administrative transition period for new Roth catch up requirement; catch-up contributions still permitted after 2023 | Internal Revenue Service
Kim
Hi,
We've applied the notes and completed configuration V_T5F99K2 with 'Error', but I'm not getting any error message in payroll processing. Any suggestion where to check?
Thank you,
Euna
Graziela,
When do we expect BSI to re-implement the taxation for the Washington Cares Act?
Thanks, Greg
Greg,
According to https://wacaresfund.wa.gov/employers/, the 18-month delay for WA CARES Act is still in effect, and employers are supposed to start collecting premiums from employees on 1 July 2023. So, I would expect (and hope) that BSI would release a regulatory update to re-enable WA CARES sometime ahead of that date, unless the Washington governor or legislature make another change in the meantime.
Cheers,
Matt
Matt,
Understood, we were configuring for a 7/1/2023 start but BSI pulled the entries for T5UTD and calculations when they recinded it. Trying to get ahead of the curve but unable to test until BSI reapplies their changes. Can never count on politics 🙂
Thanks, Greg
Greg,
Agreed! My own organization is also trying to get ahead of it, and over the next couple months I expect to need to fight back against insistence upon a custom solution, when we have every expectation a standard solution will be forthcoming. But, if we get too close to that deadline without a BSI update, then I may lose that fight (and I'm sure in that case we won't be the only customer seeking a custom override of some kind).
The problem is that it would not surprise me at all if the legislature makes further changes to the law between now and then, which will necessitate BSI and perhaps SAP needing to make further changes to the solution. I haven't heard of such things in the pipeline; it's just my pessimistic nature to expect it. 😉
Cheers,
Matt
Good Morning, we are on EhP8 608B1 and are getting a short dump with RPCALCU0_CE for an employee that references: "OBJECTS_OBJREF_NOT_ASSIGNED" and the trigger location references: RPC_PAYUS_CALL_BSI_FORM. The Error Analysis states: "you are trying to access a component with a 'ZERO' object reference".
Searching in OneSupport we have found references to a few old notes; including 2330339 that describes the exact message but this note is from 2016. We also see Note 3088446 - Updates to TF11.0 Reverse Engine Processing. We implemented this Note in AUG 2022 and have BSIRS turned ON effective 01/01/1900.
While troubleshoot on the employee we have also found that running retro back to 03/01/2022 on the employee performs without issue. However, there was an Off-Cycle created with a PayDate of 02/28/2022 (this is not the start of a payroll period) and when we retro back to 02/28/2022, then the short dump occurs.
Has anyone else seen this short dump by chance?
Thank you,
Stacey
Why is table v_btxrate so cumbersome to update? Many companies have 100's of SUI rates to update and this table does not behave like all other tables in SAP. You cannot just copy and enter a new rate and have the previous entry delimited. Also, why is there not a fast entry option for this table? This is very frustrating.
Hello, Michigan recently announced a reduction in the State Withholding Tax Rate from 4.25% to 4.05% for 2023. BSI released Bulletin 107 last week to address this reduction in the Tax Rate. However, Michigan's Treasury Department also included direction that businesses may Choose to:
a) Continue withholding the 4.25% OR
b) Use the reduced 2023 income tax rate
They have taken a neutral position on the matter and further state that if withholding amounts are not adjusted, employees will receive the adjustment when filing their Michigan income tax return.
We have elected to NOT change the rate but the Bulletin delivers the reduction in the tax rate. Can anyone elaborate on the best means of addressing this between SAP and BSI? Should we expect that a mechanism be provided from the SAP side to make this rate change optional? Is there a means of overriding the change from the BSI side?
Any guidance is appreciated.
Thank you,
Stacey
Hi Graziela Dondoni
I am trying to set up MCTDT Metro Commuter Trans District, New York – Payroll Expense Tax (/419). Do I need to set up new Tax authority to enable this or can it be set at NY state level? If anyone has set up, can you please share relevant note or steps I need to follow to enable this.
This was released as part of TUBS 60.
Regards
Hello,
Not sure if this is the right platform , the SAP Expert Search is giving errors and this is happening quite often , is anyone else facing the same issue
Thanks
Ejaz
This week the state of AL passed a bill that will exempt overtime hours from state taxes. I do not have a lot of details about this but any thoughts on how this will be handled within SAP?
Thanks,
Katherine
I'm so glad to see someone ask this question! I was going to check today and post myself if I didn't find anything as our payroll dept just informed us of this change yesterday. It appears as though this is just a temporary exclusion on the overtime.
Per our payroll dept there are similar bills in NC and SC as well - just not passed yet.
AL overtime passed
Graziela Dondoni -
Do we know if SAP is going to implement any changes for this? There is a reporting requirement and just assume that SAP would put something in to cover this. We are trying to avoid doing anything custom if SAP is going to supply the changes needed.
Thanks!
Hello Alicia,
The developers are aware of this change.
My suggestion is to keep an eye on the Legal Change Notification App (refer to KBA 2917160) as the details of a delivery, if any, should be published there.
As per timelines, since this change is effective just on January, I would expect to see this as part of the Year End patches, if any change is required.
Thank you,
Carlos
Hi Katherine,
Our plans are to create a new processing class 71 value so it could be mapped to a tax model that excludes only the overtime earnings from Alabama wages. It could be used for other states in the future if needed. This value would be assigned to the overtime wage type.
Kim
Follow-up:
I was able to successfully configure this using memo wage types to store overtime. We pay straight time plus the blended rate at .5. I capture the full hours of overtime and amount and the blended rate dollars and store them in a memo wage type as a negative amount using new rules in the schema with an effective reading a constant in T511K. I then created a new processing class 71 that indicates exempt from state withholding and added it to the Alabama tax model in T5UTM. I assigned this new wage type to this processing class and it reduces taxable wages. I use a secondary processing class to track if the OT is eligible or not since absence overtime is not. The memo wage type is treated like a pre-tax deduction. I am storing both the amount and hours so we can meet the Alabama reporting requirements. Every client is different, but this solution has tested out to be working for us.
Thanks,
Kim
Hi,
We got an update from BSI to re-install the Cyclic 11.0j as they missed some Indiana localities data file, so we have downloaded and re-installed it, after re-installing do we need to run the Sync tool again in SAP?
BSI Cyclic Update
Regards,
Prakash G.
General practice is to re-sync each time you apply a TUB or a cyclic.
Thanks Chandra.
Hello,
I posted this issue within the community but have yet to receive any responses. Thought I'd post it on this thread, too.
We have an employee that opted out of the WA Cares Fund that became effective 07/01/2023. The employee has TT113 on IT0235 marked as Exempt. The paycheck calculated correctly and no taxes were taken.
However, the paystub still shows the WA Cares Fund taxable wages. I have been unsuccessful in attempts to get this removed from appearing on the paystub.
Any suggestions? Is anyone else running into this issue?
Thank you,
Nancy
Nancy -
Are you using the evaluation class 2 to assign the wages to the pay statement?
Hi,
Yes, Evaluation 2 is set at Print wage type on form without specific assignment. This is correct for those that have opted in to the program.
Issue resolved. We need to change the remuneration statement from WT /3B3 to /7B3.
Hi Carlos Accorsi,
Is there going to be any note delivered from SAP on this. Please let me know.
Effective July 1, 2023, New York Senate Bill 4008 increases the MCTMT top rate for employers doing business in certain counties and divides the MCTD into 2 geographical zones.
Thank you,
sanjay
Hello Sanjay,
Usually changes on tax rates require an update/change on BSI side only.
However, my suggestion is to track the Legal Change Notification App (refer to KBA 2917160) as any news should be published there.
Best Regards,
Carlos
BSI has released this update in bulletin 112.
Thank you, Alicia and Carlos for our response. Yes, I saw that. Just wanted to check if there is anything on SAP side.
Best regards,
Sanjay
Hi,
BSI release RB 114 , where there are changes to IL formula for EE's that are hired on or after 6/7/2023 . SAP is not passing Formula 2 to BSI unless I force it on IT0210 to use Alternate formula.
Should this not be standard where SAP passes formula No 2 to IL employees hired after a particular date ?
Most of the IL dont have State W4 as it is not mandatory , for the the formula defaults to 1 even if they are hired after 6/7/2023
Any info on this ?
"Adds a new formula, Formula Number Two (FN:2) - "STANDARD WITHHOLDING FORMULA".
This new Standard Withholding Formula is to be used for employees hired on or after 06/07/2023. It will use an exemption allowance amount of $2,425."
Thank you
Ejaz
I am closing this question as it was answered by SAP that the Formula needs to be maintained on IT0210 for IL employees
Ejaz
Hi Khalid,
I have maintained formula 02 in IT 210 for IL employees who are hired after 06/07/2023 and ran payroll.
How to test this scenario. Could you please help me out with steps if possible.
Iam no sure what fields need to be maintained to check if system is taking exemption amt of 2425. How did you test this scenario?
Thank you and appreciate your help.
Hi Phani,
Thats all you need to do on IT0210 , once you do that and run payroll , check the BSI Log in the Payroll schema and see if the formula that is being used to calculate taxes is 02 for IL
As for the exemption amount , look at it in the schema or calculate the taxes using IL withholding worksheet from BSI Tax formulas to validate your results
Ejaz
Thanks Khalid.
I am able to see formula no.02 in payroll BSI Log.
Hi Carlos / Graziela,
In BSI TUB 112, new tax codes are introduced for NY Metro Commuter Trans Dist tax. When testing we noticed that the Estimated Quarterly Gross Wages (EQ) parameter is missing in the BSI Interface, which is causing the tax not to calculate. Is there an SAP note we can pull in to fix this issue? Please advise.
Tks,
Rosette
The Gross quarterly wages are maintained in VV_T5UX9_ADDINFO; you would have to add a new entry for the new NY metro commuter tax authorities.
Thanks
Chandra
Hi Rosette,
Chandra's recommendation here is correct.
I would also like to mentioned the below Support Content, which has detailed many BSI Interface parameters and where they come from, which may be very useful.
Support Content: https://help.sap.com/docs/SUPPORT_CONTENT/erphcm/3354684302.html?locale=en-US
Thank you,
Carlos
provided a new formula number 2 for tax type 19 for NY MCTMT (tax authority NY2P&NY0F) Zone1&Zone 02 tax authorities.
I want to perform testing for these changes which sap has introduced in Cyclicj.1
I could see that in IT235 we should be able to maintain formula 01 or 02 . How these changes verified through testing Any help?
Did any one performed test scenarios, could you please help with steps .
Thanks to in advance.
We’re testing HR service packs and have questions regarding note 3277295 - BSI: Tax Types not using standard worked hours when worked hours are equal zero. In the BSI Interface for OR Workers Compensation, the note is changing calculation of tax, using default hours instead of worked hours. This is incorrect. Example: we tested an employee who was paid hours for vacation and holiday pay. Per the state of OR, workers compensation tax should not be calculated for sick, vacation and holiday hours.
Please investigated and advise a solution?
Thank you,
Rosette
Hello Rosette,
This is a know topic.
Please open a Support Case and we'll further check the issue on your system.
Best,
Carlos
Hi all,
As part of our regular annual Year End update processing, I'm updating to the latest Cyclic and Regulatory Bulletins. As such, in our DEV environment, I just updated our TaxFactory system from Cyclic J to Cyclic J2 (haven't yet updated the Regulatory Bulletins, so it remains on 112), and for the first time ever in years of managing a TaxFactory system I experienced unsuccessful records/transactions while applying the Cyclic Data File. In total, 83 transactions were rejected according to the Update Output report.
Has anyone else experienced this? Did I need to update to a later Regulatory Bulletin first? I didn't see any mention in the installation notes of a minimum Regulatory Bulletin for this Cyclic.
Yes, I did update the Client Package first.
Cheers,
Matt
Matt,
Cyclic J2 has note 3381608 that accompanies it along with two prerequisites 3377590 and 3378026. It is related to change for the Indiana W2. This may be your issue.
Kim
Thanks Kim!
However, I suspect this isn't the cause of the error, as unless I'm missing something, not having those Notes in the backend would only cause the Indiana-specific functionality to not work in the backend, no? We do not have any Indiana employees, so this is not a priority for us.
I haven't gotten so far as synchronizing the TaxFactory changes into the backend system. This error is happening during the Cyclic Update to the TaxFactory system itself.
Or do I need to apply those Notes, then run a sync, then apply the Cyclic? I didn't find anything in the Notes to indicate this would be necessary. I'm reluctant to do this without knowing it's necessary, as the Notes introduce complexity that our team will be loath to have to test at this time on top of all they already have to look at for year end.
Cheers,
Matt
Did you directly update to J2? I know there was J1. If you have skipped J1, would it be a reason?
Regards,
Euna
Yes, I jumped direct from J to J2. In the past Cyclics were cumulative, unlike Regulatory Updates, so this should have been ok. But I am wondering if that's no longer the case.
I'm in the process of restoring my database now to a point before I started the update, and I'll try doing both Cyclics in sequence instead to see what happens.
We had a different error while applying cyclic J (dont think it is same as yours). In our Dev boxes it error'd out with message -
5116 - CURRENT CYCLIC BULLETIN IS I. ENGINE REVISION IS I. CYCLIC DATA J2 IS OUT OF SEQUENCE. CANNOT PROCESS THIS BULLETIN.
The message didnt make any sense as the sequence was correct. Our basis team had to use a command line tool to update. BSI support couldnt explain why this happens but happens sometimes. We migrated both cyclic j2 and TUBs 120 to prod last week.
Thanks
Chandra
Weird! I wonder where the tool got the idea you were on Cyclic I, since that doesn't yet exist for TF11.
Ok, I solved it by including J1 before J2, but also by interleaving the application of the Regulatory Updates based upon what their minimum required Cyclic was. So, the full order of import was:
This worked. I checked the audit reports carefully at each step of the way.
I also successfully synchronized to the backend after finishing the above without any error, despite not having the Indiana Notes related to 3381608 installed, and PA20/PA30 and ESS WDA appear to be working fine.
Thanks Kim, Euna, and Chandra, for jumping in to help!
Hi,
Anyone getting a message "Could not add County to Tax Area KYBR" with TUB122?
Is it something I can fix manually or should I wait for the fix?
Regards,
Euna
Hello,
We're testing note 3392866 - Tax: Alabama Overtime Pay Exemption beginning January 1, 2004, and noticed in the cumulated tax results for AL withholding that the /601 earnings and /701 earning do not match. The difference is the AL overtime pay exemption amount, but these two wage type totals should match. Can this be explained?
Tax authority AL Alabama 257
Tax Category Tax.inc Tax-free Inc.Declare Tax.earning Tax
001 Withholding Tax (REG) 4358.22 459.22 3899.00 2446.52 85.50
Tks,
Rosette Vaughn
Hello Rosette,
Would you please ensure that you have BSI Cyclic K installed on your system as detailed on note 3392866?
If yes and the issue persists, my suggestion would be to first check the calculation with BSI team, since /701 comes from them.
Best,
Carlos
Hi Carlos,
We have Cyclic K installed. Per your suggestion we will contact BSI.
Tks!
Rosette
We are testing the New York Disability Reverse Tax Updates. BSI refers to a reserved amount variable DRSVD1 being enabled to send the Pay Period-TO-Dage Gross (PTG). Is there a setting in SAP to utilize this variable?
Thanks!
Kim
looking for the Bulletin that will have IRS 2024 Tax brackets, does anyone know?
Check here? https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/2024-tax-brackets/
Regards,
Euna
Sorry, deleted my previous comment because I wasn't sure of its accuracy. But yes, BSI typically does put out an annual regulatory bulletin with Federal wage bracket updates. Last year it was in bulletin 98 (at least for some of the brackets), and it wasn't released until December 27th or thereabouts. I think in some years these bulletins have even come out in January. I don't know why they should be so late in the year if IRS has already published the brackets, but this seems to commonly be the case.
Silly me. What was I thinking. I'd rather delete my response, but leave it as that might remove Matt's post along with mine. Sorry, Sandra. 😉
Euna
No worries! Easy to misinterpret the question. 🙂
Also, by now, I'm sure everyone has seen BSI's announcement about this, or at least Jeff Wible's post about the announcement (on the Year End blog comment thread, not this one). BSI says they haven't released the update yet, because IRS's announcement is technically still only in draft form. But they have used the draft to be ready to release it once IRS makes it official. Or, at least that's how I interpreted the announcement.
Hi Carlos,
We've come across another issue while testing AL OT Exemption.
AL Overtime Exemption /PPE testing issue. Note 3392866 and Cyclic K applied.
Employee was paid regular pay plus a bonus supplemental payment in the same pay period. We noticed that /PPE is coming out of bonus supplemental payment which is incorrect – AL OT Exemption is on overtime hours only.
/PPE of $30.00 on regular payment - which is correct.
852.87 (AL /601) minus 822.87 (AL /701) = 30.00 (AL OT Exemption earnings).
Tax result for payment type Regular payment - correct.
Tax authority AL Alabama 257
Tax Category Tax.inc Tax-free Inc.Declare Tax.earning Tax
001 Withholding Tax (REG) 1010.00 157.13 852.87 822.87 28.46
/PPE of 30.00 on one-time bonus supplemental payment – incorrect.
Tax result for payment type Once-only payment.
Tax authority AL Alabama 257
Tax Category Tax.inc Tax-free Inc.Declare Tax.earning Tax
001 Withholding Tax (REG) 3000.00 0.00 3000.00 2970.00 117.96
Tks,
Rosette
Hi Carlos,
Here's some additional clarifying information..
The problem is there are 2 tax calls (one for reg and one for Supplemental) and /PPE is called in both and therefore, doubling the exemption amount.
Tks again,
Rosette
Hello Rosette,
Could you please open a case? I will check it.
Thank you,
Graziela
Hello, We have applied Cyclic K, but TaxFactory is still showing Cyclic J.
Can anyone help with this?
Thanks
Hello Steve,
Please, check:
2443834 - TaxFactory cyclic upgrade doesn´t show the new version
Kind regards,
Graziela
Hello, thanks for the reply.. It was reporting the wrong cyclic in TaxFactory after applying cyclic K.
I had a snapshot running on the host, i rolled it back and then applied Cyclic J2, and then Cyclic K and its now reporting K as being installed. The first time I went from Cyclic J to Cyclic K, I skipped J2.
Are Cyclic versions supposed to be in order, can you Not go from F to K with out doing G, H, I, ect?
Thanks again for replying..
Steve
Hi Carlos.
As suggested, we contacted BSI regarding the difference in the USTAX call between Inc.Declare wages and Tax.earning not matching because of /PPE amount (AL Overtime). BSI replied that we should contact SAP regarding changing the Tax Free column in the USTAX call to include /PPE amount, which would reflect same amount Inc.Declare wages and Tax.earning. Example below.
We’d like to know if this is something that could or would be changed by SAP? And it would only be for AL Overtime exemption amount.
Example:
Tax authority AL Alabama 257
Tax Category Tax.inc Tax-free Inc.Declare Tax.earning Tax
001 Withholding Tax (REG) 4358.22 459.22 3899.00 2446.52 85.50
Tks,
Rosette
Hi Rosette,
Thanks for checking that with BSI.
The tax-free column represents the pre-tax deductions.
This is customized by the customer via Tax Model.
So, my suggestion for you would be to review the Tax Model for Alabama to ensure it follows your needs.
Please refer to this documentation for details on the Tax Model: https://help.sap.com/docs/SUPPORT_CONTENT/erphcm/3354684289.html?locale=en-US
Best Regards,
Carlos