1099 amounts on a voided check when voided check comes in following year

rsaritzky

Hi all,

I believe this is a long-running issue. My user voided a check that was 1099-eligible in 2017. The original check's posting date was in 2016. They then re-issued the check (also in 2017)

When the 1099's for 2017 were printed, the re-issued check was included in the 1099 amounts. But the voided check was not. So the 1099 amount was overstated by the amount of the re-issued check.

The reason that the void-check entry was not included is that in Vendor Ledger Entry, the "Document Type" of a voided check is "Refund" (this is NV2016 - prior versions set the Document Type to <blank>).

The code in CU10202 that determines which entries to evaluate for 1099 amounts does not include Document Type = Refund - it checks only for Document type = Payment. The relevant filter expression in the code below is "VendLedgEntry.SETRANGE("Document Type",VendLedgEntry."Document Type"::Payment);"

GetAppliedVendorEntries(VAR TempAppliedVendLedgEntry : TEMPORARY Record "Vendor Ledger Entry";VendorNo : Code[20];PeriodDate : ARRAY [2] OF Date;UseLCY : Boolean)
TempAppliedVendLedgEntry.RESET;
TempAppliedVendLedgEntry.DELETEALL;

VendLedgEntry.SETCURRENTKEY("Document Type","Vendor No.","Posting Date");
VendLedgEntry.SETRANGE("Document Type",VendLedgEntry."Document Type"::Payment);
VendLedgEntry.SETRANGE("Vendor No.",VendorNo);
VendLedgEntry.SETRANGE("Posting Date",PeriodDate[1],PeriodDate[2]);
IF VendLedgEntry.FINDSET THEN
  REPEAT
    DtldVendLedgEntry.SETCURRENTKEY("Vendor Ledger Entry No.");
    DtldVendLedgEntry.SETRANGE("Vendor Ledger Entry No.",VendLedgEntry."Entry No.");
    DtldVendLedgEntry.SETRANGE("Entry Type",DtldVendLedgEntry."Entry Type"::Application);
    DtldVendLedgEntry.SETRANGE(Unapplied,FALSE);
    IF DtldVendLedgEntry.FINDSET THEN
...

I can change the posting date of the void check to the prior year or change the Document type to Payment and the 1099 report is corrected, but this seems like "non-optimal" ways of making this correction. I agree with any of you who say the posting date of the void should have been in the prior year, but in this case it was an issue of a check lost by the vendor and not reported until months after the prior year had been closed, so that wasn't an available option.

Any thoughts on this?

Ron