PRREGPARM table - FLD NBR 5095 record

Margie Gyurisin

Veteran Member

Posts: 538

3/24/2017 2:14 PM

I am hoping someone can tell me the source of this record. Ever since we upgraded to Lawson 10, another record for each tax authority is being added to the PRREGPARM table. It has field number 5095 on it but I can not find that filed number in PADICT and also not in PADICT2. I don't see it from the PR06 forms or the ones associated with PR06 unless I am missing something.

The reason it is important is because we store our PA PSD codes on the PR69 that is accessed from the PR06. Our local tax reports have been off since the upgrade occurred and we've had to add additional local tax codes.

The last Data File Text for Payroll that I find online is for 9.0.1 version dated Feb 2009. PR69.1 isn't even listed in it.

Any help or direction you can point me to would be appreciated.

TIA

John Henley

Senior Member

Posts: 3348

3/24/2017 2:55 PM

That is a "truncate wages" flag. You need to look at PRREGDICT not PADICT/PADICT2.

Margie Gyurisin

Veteran Member

Posts: 538

3/24/2017 4:54 PM

Thanks for the information.

Karen Ploof

Veteran Member

Posts: 118

3/26/2017 3:52 PM

Hi Margie,

We ran two full parallels for our v9 to v10 upgrade and did not see a problem with our local tax reports so I am concerned that we are missing something important.

Would you mind giving me an example of a tax authority where you're seeing a problem, or a list of them? I'd like to look at our data more carefully.

Karen

Margie Gyurisin

Veteran Member

Posts: 538

3/27/2017 11:48 AM

Our local PA tax reports are done through a third party reporting tool joining several tables. The problem began to show itself as we set up new PA localities. An additional record is written to PRREGPARM with the fld_nbr 5095. Previously, we only had on record written to this table with the fld_nbr 5094. I believe our solution will be to exclude the 5095 records. Prior to this, we just did a simple equal join and didn't exclude based on fld_nbr. As John mentioned the new record is associated with the truncate wages flag which is only valid for one state that I could find but I stopped looking to be honest.