Dynamics 365 Finance

In the current design, the Business activity statement report must strictly follow the setup in the official document.

The tax calculation logic for the tax fields on the report is hard coded in the backend, leaving no room for flexible adjustments for end users in case they want to change the mapping to tailor to their actual business scenarios.

Design change request:

It would be better if system provides more flexibility in the tax field mapping logic.

Currently in In the Subscription Billing module, there's an issue with the revenue split template: a stocked item cannot function as both a parent and a child. When used this way, inventory is deducted twice—once from the parent line and again from the child line—upon posting the sales order.

Ideally, the parent line should act purely as a dummy, regardless of whether the item is stocked or non-stocked. Its sole purpose is to structure the revenue split; only the child lines should drive inventory and posting movements.

Example:

Suppose Item A is a stocked item. If it's set as both the parent and a child in the revenue split template, posting the sales order will reduce inventory for Item A twice—once from the parent line and once from the child line.

Ideally, the parent line should act as a dummy, regardless of whether the item is stocked or non-stocked. Its role is only to structure the revenue split and generate child lines. It should not trigger any inventory or financial postings.

Correct behavior example:

• Item A (stocked) is used only in child lines.
• Parent line is a non-stocked or dummy item (or the same item marked in a way that prevents inventory movement).
• Only the child lines drive inventory and posting movements.

This approach ensures accurate inventory tracking and aligns with the intended use of the revenue split template.

We would like a change to the way the credit notes function works with subscription billing. At the moment if I choose create new credit note from the sales order lines menu on an order the system will allow the automatic creation of credit note lines to mirror the sales order line already invoiced and this is really useful for us as it allows the quick creation of credit notes for orders with many lines. However, when it comes to the subscription billing the system will alter the deferral schedule on the original order lines so the credit values are spread over the remaining subscription period instead of being fully reversed out in the next open month. This doesn't make sense to me and I would like the option for it to work so it either creates a new deferral schedule for the credit note lines that mimic the original sales invoice line or it allows for the immediate reversal of the invoice values - i.e do not spread the credit over the remaining billing period from the original lines.

Customer requirement:

On fixed assets require Auto Defining Residual value in percentage. Currently in D365 there is no option to define percentage, only residual value can be specified.

If this feature can be implemented through value model (books).

For ex: Furniture and fixtures will have 5% residual value. Through the books if there is any option to specify percentage or through fixed asset group wise. This can be utilized.

Current IRBM Submission Flow

1. A document is created.
2. A submission request is sent to IRBM to submit all the document details.
3. A submission response is received, containing submission results (accepted/rejected) and the submission UID.
4. A status request is sent to retrieve document validation status.
5. A status response is received with the final validation outcome (valid/invalid), including the document UUID, LongID, and Status.

Problem Summary

While the submission response (Step 3) includes the submission UID, this information is not stored in the system at that point. As a result, even though the document is technically submitted and accepted by IRBM, the system continues to display the status as "Failed" until the final validation (Step 5) is completed.

Due to this incomplete status feedback, users believe the submission has failed and make a re-submission of the same document. This is further enabled by the current system behavior, which allows re-submission if the status request (Step 4) fails or is delayed.

Consequences of Current Behavior

• Each re-submission generates a new issuance date and UUID at IRBM, despite the document content being identical.
• All submitted versions appear in the customer's MyInvois portal under their account.
• Customers typically accept only the first document and reject subsequent versions.
• However, D365 F&O retains only the last submitted document’s UUID and metadata, overwriting any earlier accepted version.
• This results in a mismatch between the customer's accepted document and the one stored and processed in our system, which may lead to:
• Customer confusion or rejection,
• Internal record misalignment,
• Risk of compliance and audit issues.

Proposed Solution

We propose the following logic change to improve the reliability and alignment between IRBM and D365 F&O:

1. Mark the document flow as “Completed (Pending Validation)” immediately after receiving the submission response (Step 3).

• This reflects the successful submission and prevents premature user actions.
• Store the submission UID at this stage, as it is already available.

1. Only allow re-submission if Step 5 (validation status) explicitly returns an “Invalid” status.

• This prevents unnecessary re-submissions due to delays or issues in the status-checking process.

When disposing of Fixed Assets using the Disposal Scrap, the system generates a “Depreciation Adjustment” transaction that incorrectly reverses the entire accumulated depreciation.

The expected behavior is that it should only adjust the remaining (pending) depreciation or any excess amount that may have been recorded in error. Kindly consider implementing a solution for this version 10.0.43 or the nearest upcoming version.

Invoice Capture Cost Invoice Transaction Processing:

A customer has raised a question regarding the cost invoice transaction processing. Specifically, when cost invoice transactions are transferred to the AP Invoice journal form, it is a one-to-one relationship between Invoice and Invoice journal. As a result, the Invoice journal form has been congested due to the amount of cost invoice transactions within the grid, Additionally, when the transactions are transferred, the invoice journal description is vague (“AP Invoice”) making it difficult for end users to find transactions. Ideal state would be multiple transaction grouped together in a singular invoice journal record with multiple attachments or a transaction identifier by added to the journal description at time or transfer to D365 F&O.

Are there any workarounds for other customers who are live on Invoice Capture and have the same concern or is this being addressed in a planned release?

The customer account statement report does not display the table header on all pages. The current design uses individual tables for headers, which prevents applying properties consistently across pages. Users have difficulty referencing the column headers as they scroll through the PDF.

Currently, it is possible to create a financial tag purchase order and to add it to the purchase order. However, the financial tag has to be populated in the PO header, manually, and will then default to the lines.

It would be very helpful to have this automated so that the PO number gets autofilled in the financial tag in the header of the PO

It would be great to have a function on general ledger journals that allows reversal of all rows on journal on a specific date, so that selecting each row individually wouldn't be required. This function seems to exist already on payment journals