Sell-to, Bill-to

idiot

I need some advise on this. I've been confused by many.

Cust A (linked to G/L Acct 1001)
Cust B (linked to G/L Acct 1002)

Sell to Cust A, bill to Cust B. In Navision the G/L Acct 1002 will be updated.

There's this argument put forth that the G/L Acct 1001 should be the correct one since the Sales is to this Cust. The Sales should be under Cust A.
Cust B is just going to take care of the $ & he didn't initiate the Sales so he didn't owe anything.

Is this argument valid?

kine

Cust B is just going to take care of the $ & he didn't initiate the Sales so he didn't owe anything

But because Cust B is responsible for the payment, he is the one who owe me something...

idiot

But the Sales must be attributed to Cust A such that when doing Sales Analysis, it will show Cust A bought something & not Cust B...
However in Aging, Cust B is the debtor...

According to the potential client this is the way it works in their legacy system, which makes a lot of sense...

Is Navision's way of working unconventional?
Does it essentially render the Sell-to Customer & its associations redundant since the Bill-to takes precedence over everything?

idiot

Anyone can offer any insight?

Karenh

The Accounts Receivable account has to be the one set up for the Bill-to Customer. The Bill-to Customer is the one legally responsible for the debt, and is the one that will appear on the AR Aging. That is not only conventional and proper accounting, it is commonsense. When the payment is late, who are you going to call?

Since Navision uses Posting Groups, and since it must use the Customer Posting Group of the Bill-to Customer for the reasons above, then then other G/L accounts are those from the Bill-to Customer.

You can analyse sales using the Cust. Ledger Entry table, and the Sell-to Customer No.

Ian_Piddington10199

I have seen it done so that the initial debt is attributed to Cust A and immediately then cleared to Cust B. This way you can see the initial sale etc but ultimately Cust B owes you the money.

This was a mod to the standard system but it seamed to work well.

Ian

idiot

\:D/ Ah ha! That means this is not an unusual practice...
In fact I believe this is the actual practice whereas navision has a strange process...

Thanks for the input.

LibertyMountain

I am an end user, using 3.7. We would like to start using the bill-to / sell-to features.

I posted an invoice with different sell-to and bill-to customer numbers. I noticed that the customer ledger entry went to the bill-to customer, not the sell to customer. This makes sense because the bill-to customer is responsible for the bill.

However, on the customer ledger entry, there is a field called "sell-to customer no.". I expected this to be filled with the "sell-to customer no." from the invoice. But instead it was identical to the "bill-to customer no.".

To me this seems a bug. But possibly there is some customer setup or S&R Setup that I have not done properly. Any ideas?

idiot

LibertyMountain wrote:

I am an end user, using 3.7. We would like to start using the bill-to / sell-to features.

I posted an invoice with different sell-to and bill-to customer numbers. I noticed that the customer ledger entry went to the bill-to customer, not the sell to customer. This makes sense because the bill-to customer is responsible for the bill.

However, on the customer ledger entry, there is a field called "sell-to customer no.". I expected this to be filled with the "sell-to customer no." from the invoice. But instead it was identical to the "bill-to customer no.".

To me this seems a bug. But possibly there is some customer setup or S&R Setup that I have not done properly. Any ideas?

edit

bbrown

LibertyMountain wrote:

I am an end user, using 3.7. We would like to start using the bill-to / sell-to features.

I posted an invoice with different sell-to and bill-to customer numbers. I noticed that the customer ledger entry went to the bill-to customer, not the sell to customer. This makes sense because the bill-to customer is responsible for the bill.

However, on the customer ledger entry, there is a field called "sell-to customer no.". I expected this to be filled with the "sell-to customer no." from the invoice. But instead it was identical to the "bill-to customer no.".

To me this seems a bug. But possibly there is some customer setup or S&R Setup that I have not done properly. Any ideas?

Are you sure that no customizations have been done? We have lots of customers that use the Bill-to/Sell-To scenario. During posting codeunit 80 (sales post) sets the field "Sell-to/Buy-from No." in the "General Journal Line" table equal to the "Sell-to Customer" from the invoice/sales order. This record is then past to codeunit 12 and creates both the GL and Customer Ledger entries.

LibertyMountain

After I posted the message, that was the first thing a colleague suggested: check for customizations. I did not find any. This is what I found:

Codeunit 80 (implicit record: "Sales Header"):
GenJnlLine."Bill-to/Pay-to No." := "Bill-to Customer No.";

codeunit 12 (implicit record: GenJrlLine):
CustLedgEntry."Sell-to Customer No." := "Bill-to/Pay-to No.";

I need a field from GenJnlLine to store the "Sell-to Customer No." from the "Sales Header". As far as I can tell, in my 3.7 version, codeunit 80 does not pass the "Sales Hader"."Sell-to customer no." to any field in the GenJrlLine record.

I have seen code from other posts on mibuso that shows GenJnlLine having a "Sell-to/Buy-from No." field. My version does not have this. My guess is that a later version (4.0 maybe?, or possibly a 3.7 patch) added this field to solve my exact problem.

bbrown

LibertyMountain wrote:

After I posted the message, that was the first thing a colleague suggested: check for customizations. I did not find any. This is what I found:

Codeunit 80 (implicit record: "Sales Header"):
GenJnlLine."Bill-to/Pay-to No." := "Bill-to Customer No.";

codeunit 12 (implicit record: GenJrlLine):
CustLedgEntry."Sell-to Customer No." := "Bill-to/Pay-to No.";

I need a field from GenJnlLine to store the "Sell-to Customer No." from the "Sales Header". As far as I can tell, in my 3.7 version, codeunit 80 does not pass the "Sales Hader"."Sell-to customer no." to any field in the GenJrlLine record.

I have seen code from other posts on mibuso that shows GenJnlLine having a "Sell-to/Buy-from No." field. My version does not have this. My guess is that a later version (4.0 maybe?, or possibly a 3.7 patch) added this field to solve my exact problem.

From a base 3.70 (Idon't know what HF level). It is possible that this was a fix at some point in the 3.70 life cycle.

CodeUnit 80

GenJnlLine."Sell-to/Buy-from No." := "Sell-to Customer No.";
GenJnlLine."Bill-to/Pay-to No." := "Bill-to Customer No.";


CodeUnit 12

CustLedgEntry."Sell-to Customer No." := "Sell-to/Buy-from No.";

LibertyMountain

My Table 81 - Gen. Journal Line is version NAWV13.70, NAVUS3.70 (7/16/03) and I don't have the "Sell-to/Buy-from No." field. (I wish I did. ).

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if my solution provider missed some updates. Because if you are correct that this functionality exists in 3.70 Base version, then I can only assume that I don't have a complete 3.7 base version??

I was contemplating a fix to Codeunits 80 and 12, to make mine look like what you have shown. Any reasons why I shouldn't?

thanks for your help.

bbrown

LibertyMountain wrote:

My Table 81 - Gen. Journal Line is version NAWV13.70, NAVUS3.70 (7/16/03) and I don't have the "Sell-to/Buy-from No." field. (I wish I did. ).

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if my solution provider missed some updates. Because if you are correct that this functionality exists in 3.70 Base version, then I can only assume that I don't have a complete 3.7 base version??

I was contemplating a fix to Codeunits 80 and 12, to make mine look like what you have shown. Any reasons why I shouldn't?

thanks for your help.

The version tag from my Table 81 is "NAVW13.70.02,NAVUS3.70.00.27"