In SAP Asset Accounting (FI AA), the chart of depreciation has been assigned to a company code and all necessary data for asset accounting has been maintained for that company code. As a result, the company code is available for productive use in asset accounting. How should this statement be evaluated?

Introduction / Context:
In SAP Financial Accounting, Asset Accounting (FI AA) is a subledger that requires specific configuration for each company code. A core configuration step is to assign a chart of depreciation to the company code and maintain all required parameters for asset accounting. Only after these settings are in place can the company code be used productively for asset master data and asset postings. This question asks you to judge whether a specific configuration statement about chart of depreciation assignment and company code availability is correct.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A chart of depreciation exists and has been defined in Asset Accounting customizing.
• This chart of depreciation has been assigned to the relevant company code.
• All other necessary data for asset accounting (for example, account determination, number ranges and depreciation areas) has been added for the company code.
• The statement claims that, as a result, the company code is now available for use in Asset Accounting.

Concept / Approach:
Asset Accounting requires company code specific settings because depreciation areas, account determinations and other parameters must be aligned with the legal and reporting requirements of that company code. The chart of depreciation is a central element, grouping depreciation areas and defining their behavior. SAP customizing steps explicitly state that, after assigning a chart of depreciation and completing company code specific settings, a company code becomes active for Asset Accounting. Therefore, to evaluate the statement, we compare it with these standard configuration guidelines.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall that the chart of depreciation is assigned to a company code in Asset Accounting customizing and that this assignment is mandatory.Step 2: Recognize that additional company code settings must be made, such as specifying number ranges for asset classes, account determinations and depreciation areas.Step 3: Understand that once these settings are complete, the system treats the company code as ready for asset master data creation and asset postings.Step 4: Review option A, which states that the statement is correct and describes exactly this relationship between chart of depreciation assignment, configuration and availability of the company code.Step 5: Review options B, C and D, which contradict standard SAP customizing practice by denying the role of the chart of depreciation or the link between company codes and Asset Accounting.Step 6: Conclude that the original statement is correct and that option A best reflects the correct evaluation.

Verification / Alternative check:
If you follow the SAP Implementation Guide (IMG) steps for Asset Accounting, you will see clear instructions to define a chart of depreciation, assign it to company codes and maintain further settings. SAP documentation explains that only after these steps is a company code ready for productive use in FI AA. Consultants performing rollouts also check this configuration to ensure that asset postings, such as acquisitions and depreciation runs, can be executed successfully. This practical experience confirms that the statement in the question is accurate.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B is wrong because the chart of depreciation is indeed assigned to company codes as part of standard FI AA configuration. Option C is wrong because asset accounting cannot operate without a defined chart of depreciation. Option D is incorrect because company codes are explicitly linked to Asset Accounting parameters, including the chart of depreciation, to satisfy legal and reporting needs. These options all contradict well established SAP configuration principles.

Common Pitfalls:
One common misunderstanding is to assume that the chart of accounts plays the same role as the chart of depreciation. While both are important, they serve different purposes; the chart of depreciation structures depreciation areas, whereas the chart of accounts structures general ledger accounts. Another pitfall is to forget that company codes require customizing in each subledger, such as FI AA, FI AR and FI AP. Passing the exam requires recognizing these relationships and not assuming that defining a company code in FI alone is sufficient for every subledger.

Final Answer:
The correct evaluation is that the statement is correct; assigning a chart of depreciation and completing the required asset accounting settings makes the company code available for asset accounting.