Fixed Assets Depreciate Button Disabled For User – Solution

This issue was a bit tricky but not THAT tricky, though.

One of the users reported to me that he was not able to run depreciation because when he opened the Depreciation Process Information window (Microsoft Dynamics GP -> Tools -> Routines -> Fixed Assets -> Depreciate), the Depreciate button was disabled. Below was the screenshot that he sent to me (disabled button is highlighted in RED box):

Depreciate Window


Reason: After quite a bit of analysis (Dex Script Log & SQL Profiling using SDT), I found that there is a table where FA module temporarily records the depreciation activity initiated by any user and will retain that record the process is complete.

User confirmed to me that last time when he ran the depreciation process, it got stuck at the time of printing the results.


The table which records the activity is FA40203 (display name: Book Setup for Depreciation). The table contains three fields: User ID, FA Book Index & FA Book ID.

I took a backup of this table (a simple T-SQL SELECT * INTO…) and removed that stranded activity record for that user.

User confirmed that he could then start depreciation process.

Its always good to start a day with some brainy troubleshooting. But not certainly good for users to start with an issue, though.


Fixed Assets Suffix

Fixed Assets Suffix is quite confusing, at least that’s what I was thinking about.

According to GP:

When you enter an asset ID, you also must enter a suffix for it. The asset ID is used throughout Fixed Asset Management to identify assets; the suffix is used to identify components of assets. The default suffix is 1. You can accept the default suffix or enter or select a different one.

For someone who do not understand what exactly it is, I would like to simplify.

Consider the following scenario:

I am purchasing 10 laptops of identical configuration for my staff. Following will be my asset record:

Suffix: 1
Acquisition Cost: $3000 ($300 per laptop)
Quantity: 10
Location: My Office
Physical Location: IT Stores
Custodian: IT Manager or IT Department (whichever way you would like to perceive)

Now, my IT department allocates one laptop to an employee belonging to Finance department. I must now pass an Asset Transfer for one laptop from this asset ID. Once I transfer one laptop, following will be my new & updated asset records:

– For all other 9 laptops that are not allocated yet
Suffix: 1

Acquisition Cost: $2700 ($300 per laptop)
Quantity: 9
Location: My Office
Physical Location: IT Stores
Custodian: IT Manager or IT Department

– For 1 laptop that got allocated to an finance employee
Suffix: 2
Acquisition Cost: $300
Quantity: 1
Location: My Office
Physical Location: Finance Department
Custodian: Employee to whom this laptop is allocated to

Asset Suffix will be incremented as and when you do a partial transfer. It is not advisable to use Asset Suffix for non-identical assets. For instance, if you purchase 10 laptops but non-identical configurations, it’s not standard practice to create one asset ID with quantity 10.

Hope this helps.


Significance of Fixed Assets REQUIRE ACCOUNT Setup Option

That was quite a precise advise from Mark Polino about Fixed Assets Setup Option.

Mark’s article, Putting the Fix in Fixed Assets, saved my day today literally. The advise, which saved me, is not in the article but in one of Mark’s reply to a query from a visitor.

The issue is this: When I add a new Asset and run the GL Posting, it did not clear FA Clearing Account and add the cost to FA Cost Account. Typically, FA Clearing Account Debit to FA Cost Credit.

In a nutshell, FA Company Setup has got an option called Require Account which needs to be checked. This will make sure that you enter an Asset Account Group or all FA Accounts separately.

The reason why I overlooked this option: When I integrated Fixed Assets onto GP10, and ran the GL Posting, it was working perfectly without any issues. That time Require Account option was not checked as my understanding towards this option was completely in different context.

Anyways, I thought I would re-blog Mark’s post for those who are struggling to understand this point.

And, Thanks Mark. You saved my day.