I have never used this feature. A user posted an invoice in May 2012 before I had an opportunity to defer a portion of the invoice, so I wanted to use the retroactive deferral option. I went to our test database and performed the deferral process on a historical invoice and posted the batch. This works fine and I see at the G/L level the amount being deferred from revenue in the original month (ie, May 2012) and the subsequent months revenue being recognized.
But when I drill back at the g/l level's Journal Entry, GP will not take me all the way back to the SOP document. Instead, when I drill back from the account summary to the journal entry detail, it shows the Source Document as ALTRN with e a Reference of SOP (GP placed this in the reference because at no point was I able to enter a reference...at least that I know of). When I try to click on ALTRN, GP pops open a message "This document has been removed from Sales Order Processing history." So, I am unable to drill back to the original SOP document even though during the retroactive deferal process, I had to choose the SOP document that I needed to use and setup my deferal from that SOP document. So, now, I have a document in GP with no reference point and way to provide auditors with what the amount represents because I can't drill back to the original document?
Am I correct in what I am seeing in my test environment? If so, does Microsoft acknowledge this is a clitch in the programming? I know I cannot use this nice feature based on the test because I know if our auditors review the transaction, they will eat us alive for the system not having the ability to get to the original document and just as importantly, that there is no documentation to support why the entry is done. If the system took me from the g/l entry back to the original document, then the auditors could see and validate what was happening, but by GP stopping at the G/L level and there is no written words explaining the entry, they will see this as a system control weakness (heck, I know I do and I am not an auditor). If this is a known issue by Microsoft, is there a date yet for fixing it?
Best regards,
Dale
*This post is locked for comments