MANIFEST-025 Rejected ACA xml file

Our xml file was rejected for MANIFEST-025: Manifest 'ChecksumAugmentationNum' must match the IRS-calculated 'ChecksumAugmentationNum' value of the transmission. We had our IS dept generate a new check sum, updated the manifest xml file and resubmitted. This file was rejected again along with the same MANIFEST-025 error. After being on hold for over an hour with the IRS the Benefits analyst was told to submit a replacement file. I ran a new BN299 as a replacement and linked it back to the original rejected IRS Receipt ID. Still Rejected! Same MANIFEST-025 error. Any ideas?

Find more posts tagged with

Infor Lawson Human Resources Group - Discussion

Comments

unknown

When your IS dept generated the new checksum, did they use SHA-256? Previous years used MD5, but this year it switched to a SHA-256 checksum.

unknown

I'm having the same issue with the files for corrections. Used http://onlinemd5.com to generate the new check sum, selecting SHA-256 as the type and then copied & pasted the new check sum it into the manifest file. This same process worked fine for all of the original submissions as well as one of the correction files. My next step is to find a different source to generate the new check sum.

unknown

Yes they did use SHA-256. We have to add a non-Lawson entity to our list of ALE Group members so we have always had to edit the xml and re-generate the checksum. We didn't have problems in previous years. Our IT did make sure to use SHA-256 (check sum was 64 characters, alphas are lowercase).

We are contemplating adding the non-Lawson entity as a Process Level just in order to not have to edit the XML file. We are concerned we are missing the obvious as to why my predecessor didn't add it as a process level in previous year. Our thought is to add the Process Level using an obscure code to ensure it sticks out and then after we are done generating the xml files change the process level to inactive. Anyone do anything like this?

Also - Now that I have submitted an Original and a Replacement file tied to the original, my next attempt will be another replacement but should it be tied to the Receipt ID of the original file that was rejected or the Replacement file that was rejected????

unknown

Last week I needed to edited our 1094C*.xml file to correct some errors (see 'Running BN299 thru IRS Schema' thread for more details and links). I sent a note to our analyst explaining what I did so i would "remember" next year.

What I did:

Downloaded XML Reader (Altova)

Downloaded IRS schema rules for 2017

Scanned file 1094C*.xml (4 errors found)

Removed lines 32, 1667, 2536 (they were optional lines & contained errors)

Fixed zipcode error in line 5126

Downloaded Checksum Utility (MD5_and_SHA_Checksum_Utility)

Downloaded ACA 2017 Manual Checksum PDF from Infor

Executed checksum utility on 1094Cxxxxxxxx.xml

Copied and verified the new generated SHA-256 hash

Updated the 1094C*-Manifest.xml file with the new SHA-256 checksum & the new byte size of 1094C*.xml file (right click properties)

Scanned modified file, File 1094C_Request_BBFRW_20180320T120112000Z.xml is valid

Scanned modified file, File 1094C_Request_BBFRW_20180320T120112000Z-Manifest.xml is valid

Copyright © 2025 Infor. All rights reserved.