The following article has been transferred to https://help.synergetic.net.au/s/article/STP-2-Frequently-Asked-Questions
Last Updated: 4 July 2022; 12:45 pm AEST.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below are the FAQ's for the 2022 STP 2 implementation.
STP 2 Deadline - 30 June 2022
Fixes to Date
What Fixes are there to date?
Below is a list of fixes to date.
Scenario : There exists a way to create Paid Leave pay lines without them having a Paid Leave Type. This is not picked up by validations.
(Internal Reference: DSY-22798)
Cause : Post STP 2 upgrade, when changing a non-Paid Leave pay line to a pay code being for Paid Leave, it is possible to create data errors where the Paid Leave pay row was not updated to have a Paid Leave Type.
These errors are not being picked up by the Synergetic STP validations.
Fix : STP validations fixed to check historical pay records for missing Paid Leave Type.
Run 2022-06 - STP 2 Fixes to apply this fix.
Scenario : STP Submission contains incorrect aggregated Gross
(Internal Reference: DSY-22826)
Cause : Current Pay Year historical pays contain Paid Leave records with blank Paid Leave Type field.
Fix : Historical Paid Leave rows must have a Paid Leave Type applied. To do this:
- Find a Current Year Paid Leave row with missing Paid Leave Type
- Use this as reference record
- Ensure all Paid Leave pay codes have a default Paid Leave Type
- Apply 2022-06 - STP 2 Fixes
- Check the reference record has been fixed.
- Run an Update Event
- Issue should be resolved
Scenario : STP (version 1) allowance validation error blocks subsequent submissions
(Internal Reference: DSY-22694)
Cause : Current Pay Year historical pays contain Paid Leave records with blank Paid Leave Type field.
Fix : Historical Paid Leave rows must have a Paid Leave Type applied. To do this:
- Find a Current Year Paid Leave row with missing Paid Leave Type
- Use this as reference record
- Ensure all Paid Leave pay codes have a default Paid Leave Type
- Apply 2022-06 - STP 2 Fixes
- Check the reference record has been fixed.
- Run an Update Event
- Issue should be resolved
Scenario : Invalid Tax Scale error on staff with an invalid pay group
(Internal Reference: DSY-22819
Cause : When performing a payrun (special or normal), if you include employees who have an invalid pay group (most likely not defined) Synergetic will display the following misleading error:
Error: has an invalid tax scale.
Note that the tax scale is not actually mentioned. This is what separates this error from an error where an employee genuinely has an invalid tax scale
Fix : This was fixed in the program logic.
Run 2022-06 - STP 2 Fixes to apply this fix.
Scenario : When creating a special pay without selecting any employees, every employee is being added – erroneously.
(Internal Reference: DSY-22820)
Cause : Programming issue.
Fix : This was fixed in the program logic.
Run 2022-06 - STP 2 Fixes 1 to apply this fix.
ATO Says OK to Not Disaggregating Paid Leave In Transition Year
Scenario : Salary sacrifice Superannuation should migrate with reporting category "Salary Sacrifice - Super and RESC”
(Internal Reference: DSY-22626)\
Cause : Salary sacrifice to superannuation pay codes were being migrated with a reporting category of “Salary Sacrifice”. This causes salary sacrifice to not be reported under RESC in ATO submissions. This should be reported using “Salary Sacrifice - Super and RESC”.
Please note that both individual values are valid, and may be reported as either or both, but the default behaviour should be to include in RESC and report as both.
Fix : For migration - set default value for Salary Sacrifice to “Salary Sacrifice - Super and RESC”.
Run 2022-06 - STP 2 Fixes to apply this fix.
Scenario : STP 2 - Payer Total PAYGW Amount’ should include 'Payee Total ETP PAYGW Amount
(Internal Reference: DSY-22874)
Cause : In STP 2 the Total PAYGW Amount in the STP pay event submission does not include the ETP Withheld amount. The total PAYGW amount field should be the sum of PAYGW + ETP PAYGW
Fix : Fix the total PAYGW amount field to be the sum of PAYGW + ETP PAYGW.
Run 2022-06 - STP 2 Fixes to apply this fix.
Scenario : Employees with RFB (reportable Fringe Benefit) but no other reportable income are not being picked up in the ‘Bulk Set Final Event Indicator’ process
(Internal Reference: DSY-22890)
Cause : Programming issue.
Fix : Fix applied in the Program Code.
Run 2022-06 - STP 2 Fixes to apply this fix.
Scenario : Speed improvement when generating an STP update
(Internal Reference: DSY-22898)
Cause : Programming issue.
Fix : Fix applied in the Program Code.
Run 2022-06 - STP 2 Fixes to apply this fix.
Scenario : Possible timeout error when generating an STP update event
(Internal Reference: DSY-22814*)*
Cause : Programming issue.
Fix : Contact Support and ask for the fix to be applied.
Scenario : STP2 introduced Lump Sum Type AR and Lump Sum AT reporting categories.
If an employee has a line of pay with reporting category of Lump Sum A and another line with Lump Sum AT these pay lines amounts are not aggregated causing an error.
(Internal Reference: DSY-22904)
Cause : Programming issue.
Fix : Fix applied in the Program Code.
Run 2022-06 - STP 2 Fixes to apply this fix.
Tax File Number Declarations
Income Statement
Income Streams
Upgrade Process
Tax Scales
Pay Codes
Leave
ATO Says OK to Not Disaggregating Paid Leave In Transition Year
I asked the ATO the following question:
For our clients who have turned on STP 2 in FY 22, and are submitting FY 22 pay events, the paid leave reporting aspect is causing a great deal of stress.
In many cases their past pays do not separately identify the paid leave component. In order to accurately report this figure manual adjustment of 100’s of employees is required.
Our question is: For FY 22 is it acceptable that paid leave is included in Gross, and not separately identified - as was the case in STP 1.
The overall gross figure will be correct.
Going forward FY 23 the reporting of Paid Leave will be correct.
Please note this is a data issue and is in no way a system shortfall in regards to being STP 2 compliant.
The ATO replied:
Hi Graham
Sorry for the delay and i do have a response from our STP team.
"Yes this is ok to not have a fully disaggregating for the transition year.
Please refer to this link (1.2.3.1 ATO concessional approach when data is not present)
Section 1.2.3.1
ATO STP Phase 2 Guidance Note - Transition to PAYEVNT.2020 Service V1.2 (pp 8 -10).pdf
Full Document
ATO STP Phase 2 Guidance Note - Transition to PAYEVNT.2020 Service V1.2.pdf