ath999
1st August 2007, 17:59
Hello,
normally, when I want to enter an invoice (supplier) with more than 1 tax code, I go to form 2, switch the selection to "calculate tax on transaction line level" and that is done.

(ACP Parameter is on "Calculation Tax on Invoice Header Level".)
Now, I got a system (belgium localisation) where I can enter an Invoice Header, then go to form2, switch the Tax-Calculation level. The system deletes the tax code in Form 1 (Header), that is correct because later I want to enter the code in each transaction line. So far, so good.

But I can not go on doing the transaction, because when I try to continue the systems displays a message "tax code for country not allowed". Correct, because there is no combination Country=BE and Tax Code = blanc in the system (Form1: tax code is deleted so the field is empty).

But I am not able to continue entering the transaction lines and add the tax codes after that message.
Any Ideas?

We do a workaround at the moment: everytime such a invoice is there, we change (only for this invoice) the ACP parameter. But that cant be the solution.

sk28756
29th October 2007, 06:47
Try to empty Tax Country and Tax Code before going to form-2

ath999
29th October 2007, 16:21
Try to empty Tax Country and Tax Code before going to form-2

Thank you for the proposal, but that is not working.
When I empty tax-country and tax-code before using the form 2, the system demands an entry for the tax code "blank" (empty field as tax-code, which is not defined).
So I´ve still got the same problem like before.

sk28756
5th November 2007, 03:06
I suggest you to create a blank tax code in that case

ath999
5th November 2007, 09:19
Hello,
yes, a blank tax code would probably solve this problem.
But I don´t want to have a tax code with an empty field as identifying key in the system.
Baan is able to handle the situation with different tax codes in one document when the parameter is switched (current workaround, with existing tax codes), so it should be possible to use the button made for exactly these cases and switch from "VAT on header-level" to "VAT on line-level", don´t you think so, too?