The treatment of return orders with a "credit only" disposition code is incorrect. This impacts both the inventory and the general ledger. Our intention in selecting credit only is that we are crediting the customer without involving any return of stock. D365FO, however, creates a transaction for the return of stock and then writes it off; this reflects in both the stock history and the general ledger postings. In the GL the "return" is credited to costs of goods sold invoiced and the write off debited to stock expenditure loss, which have different posting profiles. For the entries to have no impact in our ledger, therefore, a journal is required. EITHER the disposition code "credit only" should be changed to be just that, i.e. credit the customer and debit sales OR user options should be made available to do the same thing and bypass the stock transactions.

Under Review
Ideas Administrator

Appreciate you taking the time to submit the product suggestion. We will monitor the votes and other feedback to consider in future backlog.

Lachlan Cash – Principal Program Manager - Microsoft



Fully agreed with this idea.

The business value for it, some companies accept to return goods while they give the customer the responsibility for disposal.
on the other hand, they need to track there sales.
Currently, they create credit note for customer, and allocate return amount manually.

Category: Sales and marketing


Fully agree with Stuart and Tom. The best solution would be to have a new Disposition code action that would be truly credit only for the customer.

That way, we could still have the action that credits the customer and has them scrap in place (which is what the current credit only does).

Category: Sales and marketing


Completely agree with Stuart. The description of the "credit only" disposition code is highly misleading. "Credit only" should mean that the sole system behaviour is to refund the customer - there should be absolutely no trace of this within the stock history.

Whilst the stock position is "correct", this system behaviour unnecessarily pollutes the stock history with transactions that simply did not happen. This creates significant levels of confusion when trying to understand the transactions recorded against an item.

The system record must be able to match the physical process. Why should our stock controller ever need to explain to auditors what has taken place, simply because a salesman has given credit to a customer?

An alternate disposition could should be created where the behaviour is genuinely "credit only", rather than this 'return and write off'. That way, a D365 user could select the truly intended behaviour - should the return impact upon stock/cost of goods, or should it simply provide credit to the customer; providing greater clarity within the stock history.

Category: Sales and marketing