Enterprise Resource Planning Blogs by SAP
Get insights and updates about cloud ERP and RISE with SAP, SAP S/4HANA and SAP S/4HANA Cloud, and more enterprise management capabilities with SAP blog posts.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
lokesh2
Advisor
Advisor

Migration of G/L account balances enables you to migrate all general ledger account balances of a company. You can migrate account balances for multiple accounts at the same time.

The system automatically creates one journal entry per balance, and an offsetting entry, so that the overall balance is zero.

Note: The Offsetting G/L account is always - Initial data carry-forward account for fixed assets, exclusive for migration purpose only.



But what if you try to enter the G/L Account which belong to other sub=ledger in G/L Account Balances Migration ? ( For explanation purpose we considered the G/L Account Migration & Open item Payable here )





This account belongs to AP

And you entered the same unknowingly

The message says that G/L 200000 is replaced by migration clearing account 990010 - Initial Data Carry-forward AP Account and this is done as per the posting logic

If you migrate G/L account balances and you include a G/L account which belong to the above, the amounts are posted on the G/L accounts of the corresponding sub ledgers as well. This way, the same amount would be posted twice on a G/L account and to avoid this the G/L account that you enter is automatically forwarded to migration clearing accounts.


For AP the migration clearing account is 990010 - Initial Data Carry-forward AP Account


You may have noticed this or not but if you proceed further and complete the G/L Migration the end result of the posting may something look like the below screenshot.




Note:

1.If you refer to the data that you entered, it is GL 200000 but here you see GL 990010 and this done as per the posting logic posting to the migration clearing account of AP

2.For all the G/L Migration the offsetting entry is always Initial Data Carry-forward Asset Account only ( this is only migration purpose )

Now if you further proceed with Open item Payable Migration which may result in posting to G/L 200000 due to the account determination of the supplier used in the migration

Now if you compare the both the posting, having this posting logic not in place, you would end up posting double the amount and the Outstanding balances on the G/L 200000 would have been -2000 but system did not do it and avoided this duplicate posting.

Now refer to this below screenshot which shows the exact posting logic which we can see in the above postings.

You can see this same screenshot in help document - Configuration: Migration of G/L Account Balances

Furthermore to explain, With the G/L Account migration directly posting the amount to G/L 200000 on the credit side of G/L Account for domestic payable is wrong, instead it needs to be posting to Migration clearing account for payable, which is right and we can see the same behavior in our postings as well.

Whenever such posting occurs the balances of the Migration Clearing account for payable will be nullified, as you can see in G/L Migration this account is posting to credit and in the AP migration it is debited resulting which there is no balance in this account.

Note:

Further more the same posting logic applies for the following migration activities:

  • Migration of Fixed Assets
  • Migration of Inventory
  • Migration of Open Items Receivable
  • Migration of Balances for Bank Accounts
  • Migration of Open Outgoing Checks
  • Migration of Open Goods Receipts
  • Migration of Bills of Exchange Payables
  • Migration of Bills of Exchange Receivables

When you migrate these objects, the amounts are posted on the G/L accounts of the corresponding sub-ledgers,To avoid this, the G/L accounts (that you assigned to the corresponding G/L account in the SAP Business solution) are forwarded automatically to migration clearing accounts for instance for payable it is Initial data carry-forward A/P Account.

Thanks

Lokesh Sharma

10 Comments