ICBOOK RULE

[former_member335210]

Hi,

We have ICBOOKING rules configured in the system. We have a requirement

from business to change CREDIT account of one of the rules from March

2016 on-wards. This can be done by simply updating the old credit

account with new credit account.

However this update may cause issue during restatement. Suppose if we

ever run the rule for a historical period ( period before March 2016 ),

the new Credit account will be applied to the Historical periods, which

we don't want to happen. We want historical periods to retain old

Credit account and only new periods (March 2016 on-wards) have new credit account.

Does anyone has any idea how this could be done?

Thanks,

Sanjeev

[former_member335210]

Hi All,

has anyone else faced this issue? And how did you resolve this ?

Appreciate your help in advance.

Thanks,

Sanjeev

[former_member186338]

Hi Sanjeev,

To my mind the historical periods have to be locked by Work Status. Then the data will not be changed.

Vadim

[former_member335210]

Hi Vadim,

You are right that historical periods are locked. However during restatements historical periods are unlocked again so that restated balances could be loaded again, and consolidation is run again.

Thanks,

Sanjeev

[former_member186338]

I hope you don't have constant restatements For some extraordinary change you can temporary change the rule back...

[Former Member]

Hello Sanjeev,

You can try the below work around,

create one dummy inter-company member and assign the same in debit and credit interco fields in the IC Booking rule. so that this rule wont work for actual data's.

then create new line with new credit GL account.

I have not checked, but you can try.

Regards,

Raja

[former_member335210]

Hi Raja,

That won't work for us. The problem is that we are trying to find work around the lack of time dependency functionality on ICBOOk rule. ICBOOK rule is not time dependent and therefore it is causing issue if we change a rule and then run it for historical period when we had used different account in the rule.

Thanks,

Sanjeev