It is recommended that you don't use that report.  It doesn't know how to calculate a partial year for an employee.

Agreed.  I do manually do a sense check on this and if the amounts are negative then I am good knowing that the partial year employee or part-time ones are okay.  

That is what I was saying, I was seeing if Sage will correct that.

I don't think it can be corrected. The computer doesn't know how to recognize if an employee has worked a partial year or not due to putting on the payroll  masters how many pay periods in a year.  

No offense but that is inaccurate. The computer can easily know how many periods a person works. Not only I have used other programs that can do the PIER review correctly but also would know how to fix it if I can program it. I can export it into Excel and have my formulas do the calculation but I don't want to do that every year.

Simple solution

1) have the pay period frequency set in the master (company) setting

2) The formula would be: [Gross pay - ((# of payperiods / Pay periods in the year) x exemption amount (3500 is current))] x rate of CPP

A simple command can add the # of pay periods. In Excel it is simple @count(range).

Good Point, I stand corrected. After 11 years I just gave up on it and like you I dump it into Excel and add formulas to do the calculations. 

Another pet peeve with the in-Sage 'PIER report' is Sage's assumption that EI deducted from the paycheques is always right.  Sage DOES NOT track EI insurable earnings separately on each payroll, instead it back-calculates from EI actually deducted.  So the PIER report always says that (surprise, surprise) the amount of EI deducted is within pennies of the correct amount.  The PIER report can be useful for finding EI problems, but only if you manually check each line to how the EI insurable earnings compares to the gross (or gross plus EI-able benefits) for that employee.

EI calculation is the easier one since its calculated on the first $ earned, you have to setup what is EI hours calculated on if you have a benefit that is considered Hours for EI or not. CPP is the one that is dependent on the # of periods that the employee is paid since the exemption amount is prorated based on that.

If your report for EI is wrong then you need to check the settings are set right. I would not think in any situation other than the payroll tables was not updated at the time or EI amount was manually changed that the EI calculation could be wrong. Once the Benefit or other income has been setup for EI it calculates it out.   

You are correct that EI should be right unless something was set up wrong or something was manually changed.  However, even when someone experienced has done the setup properly, inexperienced payroll clerks override things all the time, and Sage's lazy method of figuring out EI insurable earnings - for both T4 purposes and PIER report purposes - makes it much less likely that an inexperienced payroll clerk will find the problem.

Our office does the T4 filing for a lot of clients who handle their payroll all year, but want a second look before their T4's are filed.  Here's a situation we see all the time, where the PIER report will say 'EI is perfect':

Really simple payroll.  Hourly pay of $30,000 for the year, EI has been taken at $474.00 (I'm using 2022 rates for the example).  Then there is a Christmas bonus of $200 and the inexperienced bookkeeper manually overrides EI, CPP, and tax deductions to zero because 'the boss wants to actually hand out a $200 cheque'.  So there's gross pay of $30200, which should mean EI of $477.16.  However, because Sage back-calculates EI insurable earnings based on the EI actually deducted, the Sage PIER report says "EI of $474 matches back-calculated EI insurable earnings of $30,000, all is good".

I understand that, if left to itself, Sage will also fill in the T4 slip to say that the EI insurable earnings were only $30,000, and this client will likely not get an actual PIER report from Canada Revenue Agency.  However, the fact remains that both the EI insurable earnings and the EI deductions were wrong for this payroll.

Sage should be doing one of 2 things:  Either keeping track of EI insurable earnings separately... if an income code is set as EI insurable in the setup, then $ get added to EI insurable earnings when that income code is used.  OR, leave the EI figures off of the internally-generated PIER report, as they are essentially meaningless at present.

So true. There should be 100 % better PIER report and way to adjust. As it stands I would say the PIER report from SAGE is a worthless tool. More hassle than anything.

True.  Especially when the inexperienced bookkeeper takes the PIER report as right, and 'corrects' their payrolls to make the 'over' or 'under' contributions go away.