Reckons Payroll -Incorrect interpretation under "COMPLIANCE" section

faigey
faigey Member Posts: 51 Reckoner Reckoner

I have a new issue which I hope you may be able to assist me with.

I have been checking all my pay runs for the last financial year in Reckons payroll. All pay runs under STP heading are correctly interpreted and marked success and done.

Also the EOY year financial report totals are correct

I then checked on MyGov account and confirmed the total details correlate with those reported under employment income via the ATO link.

However, this is the part which is strange. Although in Reckons Payroll pay runs are all correct. If I check under the section heading “COMPLIANCE”, for some reason, one of my monthly pay runs made on the 31st May 2024 is shown as an adjustment with all data reading zero $0 . As a consequence when I then go to MyGovID account (as apposed to MyGov account ) to process the April to June quarterly BAS report it incorrectly summarises all details for the quarter with zero earnings for the May pay run. Now if I wish I can edit the figures in the quarterly BAS statement to indeed include the May pay run figures. I am afraid to do this if it results in more problems?

My question is - can you explain how this may have happened?

Should I send through the May pay run again? Or by doing this will it cause more problems?

Should I run the May pay run again as an adjustment and simply repeat all figures?

Should I simply re send May pay run as is?

Is it better not to do anything?

For your comments please.


Comments

  • Rav
    Rav Administrator, Reckon Staff Posts: 16,612 Reckon Community Manager Community Manager

    Hi @faigey

    Thanks for posting this here 🙂

    There's a fairly long-winded explanation for this but I'll try to condense it down as much as I can.

    There are two things included in an STP submission when you send it to the ATO; Employer Data & Employee Data

    • Employer Data includes a total gross and total PAYG for the pay run itself and is not a YTD balance. This is the data that the ATO have now started using to prefill the W1 and W2 fields in the BAS.
    • Employee Data includes the Year to Date (YTD) breakdown of the employee’s pays which is used for their Income Statement.

    An update event-type submission doesn't have any employer component in the submission, it only adjusts employee data. When you send an Update Event ie. to make changes to, or make corrections to employee balances it only adjusts that employee data only.
    This is why it only shows that an entry has been received in the ATO Portal but doesn't show any detail. Since there is no employer data component in the submission it won't make any changes to the BAS prefill either.

    Under the old STP Phase 1 method, you could potentially miss a submission and then just send the subsequent one when the next pay run rolls around and the employee YTD balances would update & be correct.
    However now that the ATO is using STP Phase 2 data to prefill using employer data, which just to reiterate, is the total gross & PAYG of that individual pay run itself and not reported as a YTD balance like employee data is. Since its a total of that specific pay run itself this means it will impact prefill balances in the event you send through the same submission multiple times, miss a submission, submission results in an error etc.

    So with all that said, if the ATO's BAS prefill balances are incorrect, its recommended that you edit the W1 & W2 fields to correct them to what they should be.

    Sorry, its not as brief as I originally thought but just wanted to provide the context around this. I'd also recommend checking out our help guide on this here - https://help.reckon.com/article/h2bfwmfz9z

    Merry Christmas & Happy New Year everyone! 🎅🎆

    I'm on leave from 23 December and back on deck again January 6th.

    If you're working through the holiday period, we've got support available and you'll find our holiday hoursHERE.

  • faigey
    faigey Member Posts: 51 Reckoner Reckoner

    Hi Rav,

    Thankyou very much for clarifying this issue.

    What you say seems very logical to me and avoids me running around in circles, wasting time and trying to find any errors created in my processes.

    It also takes away my concerns of being criminally prosecuted by ATO -just joking 😓

    Much appreciated