In Return of Goods Entry, provide a checkbox or other option that indicates the entry is a "Purchasing Reversal", not an actual return. Then that option should allow returns of Average and Standard Cost items at the PO cost, rather than the current Average/Standard Cost.
Return of Goods Entry is often used for correcting PO Receipt mistakes, as much or more so than they for actual product returns. However, for Average Cost valued items, a variance posting occurs when the average cost is different from the PO cost, which it usually is. So you end up with a variance posting when all you want to do is "un-receive" and "re-receive" the PO.
For Standard Cost items, if the PO cost was different from the Std Cost when the item was received, a variance was posted at that time. Then it gets posted again when the item is returned and re-received. So again, you end up with variance postings when all you are trying to do is correct a receiving mistake.
by: Jeff L. | over a year ago | Sales & Distribution
Comments
yes, this is a real problem for us. we also need the users initials to be tied to the un-receive or reversal. as it is now, we have people returning and doing un-receives and it is a mess.
Purchase Order Return of Goods & Bill of Materials Disassembly Entry variances are a huge problem in my opinion and have been for the last 10 years that I've used MAS 90! Inventory is hard enough to keep straight as it is and these variances are such a hassle and can be thousands of dollars! Not to mention, in my case, it is not proper accounting and affects the profit and loss every time it happens. Second to that is even catching in a timely manner that a variance has happened - then add in constant shipments happening and physical counts, etc. changing inventory and you have a huge mess on your hands. The variances are very difficult to fix, especially if you didn't pay attention to the inventory status prior to trying to undo what was done. Then add in the fact that many employees using MAS 90 aren't accounting trained and therefore just don't understand and usually add to the messy mistake and it is hard to have them recount what they did.
We need a change made here IMMEDIATELY to fix this problem. For my situation, using FIFO, the solution would be to allow us to pick the cost layer to return or disassemble. This seems like such a simple solution. I was told at a Sage Summit probably 4 years ago that this was on the table with the next major upgrade - why has it still not been changed?
I agree with everything said in the other posts and a simple change could make our lives so much less strenuous and stressful if this would be addressed by Sage.
PLEASE CONSIDER!!!!
I agree - I wish returns in PO and SO were done at the original cost that the reurn is being referenced to. This makes sense in so many ways and will assist in making accounts more accurate and give one a real perspective of what costs are when analysing adjustments
this causes a real problem for us as well, there are times wehn a receipt is entered without landed cost and should have been. It is a big hassle to correct it.
We also need this solution for FIFO items. We have several customers who need the ability to access the inventory tier when returning goods. Most of our customers use FIFO. Cost is used from the oldest inventory layer rather than having the ability to select the appropriate tier. The workaround is to enter an inventory adjustment where a specific tier can be selected. However, this leaves the PO with an Open status. We then receive an invoice against the PO so it will close properly and then enter an AP Invoice adjsutment to remove the invoice from AP. It would be so much easier for the client if they could just access the appropriate inventory tier in a Return of Goods. we have at least 10 customers who would benenfit from this enhancement.
thanks.
Landed cost is not an option when return of goods is used to correct a mistake made on the receipt of goods.
Agree that this is needed for FIFO too. Would like the ability to pick the FIFO tier that went to the original PO.
YES!!!! For the love of all that is good and holy please do this!!!
There are multiple ideas related to PO Returns (and costs), for good reason. The manual steps to correct deficiencies within the Returns function are time consuming, prone to errors, and should be unnecessary.