Dynamics 365 Finance

It should be possible to use Financial tags in budgeting module to be able to compare actuals to budget with the same Financial tag.

Customer is using service stocked items with weighted average cost model. These items are bought through project purchase order into an investment project.

If customer posts the product receipt and then corrects the quantity, the reference lot ID is missed for the partial part corrected and therefore the cost is not being reflected in the project.

More details in FinOps 747881

The mentioned report currently is using the Accounting Date to calculate the report, this is not the right date, BOE is mentioning that we need to use a Receive Invoice Date, this is a field we don't have on D365.

This has been developed already for the UK localizations on Statistics on payment practices report, we need the same for Spain.

Project invoice price total is wrong due the rounding precision as the total of the invoice amount is calculated by sum of all line amount after rounding.

Example:

Hour = 8,85

Hour rate = 65,50 usd

On my invoice:

Line 1 = 8,85 x 65,50 = 579,68 usd (which is rounded to 2 decimals)

Line 2 = 8,85 x 65,50 = 579,68 usd (which is rounded to 2 decimals)

Total Line 1 + Line 2 = 1159,36 usd which is different than taking the sum of the hours multiplied by the rate = (8,85+8,85) x 65,50 = 1159,35 usd.



The difference here is small but can become quite relevant when multiple lines are involved.

Import bank statements:

Currently it is not possible to import a single (Banking Statement) CAMT053 file for one bank account with different currencies.

It is however possible to import multiple CAMT053 files for one bank account with different currencies.

Since major banks are currently providing a single CAMT053 file, that include multiple statements for one bank account that consists of multiple currencies it should also be possible to import a single banking statement.

·Business Focused Problem Description 

 The system is allowing to create customers direct debit mandates. As payments and remittances can be made from different bank accounts, several mandates must be created and signed for each customer even if they have same Direct Debit ID.

·        During customer payment journal or remittance journals as there are multiple customers and multiple bank accounts (Aguirre), with multiple mandate id’s per customer due to actual system limitations it will be difficult to select the right mandate per payment transaction which is exactly related to the specific bank.

·        What is the business impact to the customer? Customer expecting only one direct debit mandate for each customer when same Direct Debit Id is identified for banks. This is an important limitation for companies that work with discount lines agreements with banks. Customers don’t define the bank at customer level but at payment or remittance level depending on the available credit with the bank or cash flow situation. Only one mandate is signed with the customer and can be used with any of the company bank accounts using the same Direct Debit Id identified as identified in the mandate.

Actual Results: The system is allowing all customers direct debit mandates during customer payment journal and as there are multiple customers, there will be multiple mandate id’s and it will be a difficult to select the mandate which is exactly related to the specific customer.

Expected results: The system should allow to maintain one mandate in case the customer bank account and the direct debit id in the company bank account is the same. In this way it forces to have just one mandate and always use the same bank account as we cannot ask a customer to sign several mandates.

We Need to Generate Trial balance with transactional details for more than 31 days.

for example: for one year

Microsoft, please imagine such situation:

1) you have done "Settle and post sales tax" for February 2022,

2) you have prepared JPK_VDEK for February 2022 and have sent it to Tax Authorities in POL,

3) you received from Tax Authorities a note that they told you to remove some documents from JPK_VDEK for February 2022 and put to March (or other period - it is only an example)

The easiest way from my point of view would be:

a) reversal of "Settle and post sales tax" for February 2022

b) changing VAT due date for some documents

c) creating new Tax settlement for February 2022

d) creating correction of JPK_VDEK for February 2022

Why we cannot prepare only corrections for that documents? :

• corrections will have different numbers than original invoices (Tax authority said you have to remove pointed documents, not to prepare new corrections)
• sales corrections should be sent to customer (but customer can disagree with that and refuse to accept them)
• Sales orders corrections can be extremely complicated and hard to prepare

I suggest adding a filter to the Vendor aging report that makes it possible to run the report cross company. Adding a filter that can specify what legal entities to include in the report would be very helpful and time saving, for a lot of big customers, with a lot of legal entities in D365.

ITALIAN LOCALIZATION

If the user runs Settle and post sales tax procedure with flag Include zero lines = No, it is not possible changing Include zero lines from No to Yes after the closing of the sales tax settlement period.

In this way, the customer obtains a sales tax register with missing invoices with Include zero lines = No. It would be useful to develop a standard procedure for updating the flag Include zero lines also after VAT closing.