Thanks Ludwig for your response, I appreciate it
My mistake if the original post seemed like it was an issue having more than 1 line.
Per conversation w/ an end user, I was attempting to understand what was done out-of-the box vs having to mod for it (not favored since I think it would cause balancing issues upon posting).
For my further understanding, if my Vendor party is like the following...
Same vendor across companies linked by the global address book
Vendor Party: 5637146982, AccountNum: APVA-1, Company: A Transaction Amount $100, Method of Payment in company A: Ultimate (Period set to Total)
Vendor Party: 5637146982, AccountNum: APVA-2, Company: B Transaction Amount $50, Method of Payment in company B: Ultimate (Period set to Total)
Since we are dealing w/ 2 open vendor transactions across 2 companies, rolling them into 1 payment proposal line is not feasible.
I did a search of your mentioning of intercompany postings and came across the following link.
Halfway down the page, there is mentioning of the following: "Same scenario, same facts. In this scenario, however, Centralized Payments has been set up, AND the Property Management vendor account in all the legal entities have been linked in the Global Address Book. The vendor account numbers do not need to be the same, but they must be linked. "
Based on this link, 1 key point that was mentioned was the following: "Consistent Methods of Payment IDs. Same as Currency Codes and Posting Profile IDs – all the Centralized Payment companies must use the same Method of Payment ID. Also, make sure that all the instances of a vendor which you will be paying via Centralized Payments have the same Method of Payment, regardless of the legal entity."
From all of this I gathered, thanks to your mentioning, it seems like Centralized Payments is the best route for this.
If so, please advise and also, if so, is using Payment Proposal still an option (2nd link doesn't mention if so or not).
Thanks in advance
