Which statement is false about generating an Internal Material Transfer for expense destination Transfer Order?

Question

Options

• AExpense destination transfers are expensed upon delivery hitting an expense account instead of an
• BIf the receipt is not required Cost Accounting will pick up both the issue and receipt activity from
• CIf the receipt is required, the accounting of the receipt delivery transaction will happen only on
• DCosts for Lot and serial numbers are tracked at put away time when the items are recorded in a
• ECost Management will pick up the delivery transaction directly from Receiving and process the

• A
  10% (3)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  3% (1)
• D
  83% (24)

Explanation

Option D is false because expense destination Transfer Orders do not involve a putaway step - items are expensed directly upon delivery to an expense account rather than being received into inventory stock. Since no inventory putaway occurs, there is no "put away time" at which lot/serial costs would be recorded, making this statement inapplicable and incorrect for expense destination transfers.

Why the distractors are true: Option A correctly describes the core mechanic - expense destination transfers hit an expense account, not an inventory account. Option B is accurate: when receipt is not required, Cost Accounting picks up both the issue and receipt activity directly from inventory transactions. Option C is correct that when receipt is required, receipt delivery accounting is triggered only upon confirmation of delivery. Option E accurately reflects that Cost Management can pick up the delivery transaction directly from Receiving for expense destination flows.

Memory tip: Think "expense = no shelf." If goods go to an expense account, they never sit on a shelf (inventory), so there is no put away event - anything referencing putaway cost tracking for expense destination transfers is automatically false.

No community discussion yet for this question.