Re: [tax] Tax XML Suggested Direction

[Andy Greener <andy@gid.co.uk>]

Folks,

At 3:14 pm -0500 20/12/02, John.Glaubitz@vertexinc.com wrote:
>Coming out of our initial meeting as the Tax XML Technical Committee, one
>of the next steps was to suggest some ideas on what we hope to accomplish
>as a group and how we intend to accomplish it.
>Attached is an initial suggestion for the direction we may take in the Tax
>XML TC.  It's expected that there will be a variety of opinions on the
>direction that we may take.  The primary purpose here is to start to
>generate the discussion, so any feedback or counter suggestions are welcome
>and encouraged. 

Thanks to John and Michael for getting the ball rolling! I'm in broad
agreement with the overall approach, which echoes the "componentisation"
theme that seems to be running throughout the XML world these days, and
which was much in evidence in Baltimore (UBL for example). We should
avoid, where possible, the temptation to re-invent any wheels. For
instance, there are a number of naming and addressing standards (perhaps
too many!) that we could usefully re-use, and one obvious initial task
is to survey them all.

I would like to take one step back, however, and ask that we address the
fundamental question: not 'what' (which is John's first question) but, 'why'.
We had a stab at it in Baltimore, but I think the rationale for a Tax XML
standard needs to be established - in doing so we may well determine the
boundaries of what it is we need to do, because my primary concern is to
avoid biting off more than we can chew.

For instance, I'm struggling with the concept of interoperable or "standard"
tax registration - it strikes me that this is a highly localised, one-off
type of transaction that is not going to benefit much from standardisation
efforts.

On the other hand, the low-hanging fruit of tax reporting, tax compliance
and tax calculation would seem to be ripe for picking :-) Aside from the
ultimate destination within a tax-collecting body, I can see up-stream
interactions which would benefit from a sound standards-based framework.

So, can we begin by assembling the rationale? - where the benefits are,
and to whom they accrue? I see more value in standards at the 'production'
end of the chain than at the 'consumption' end, but that doesn't mean that
tax collection agencies shouldn't be trying to encourage standards - as
we have learnt from experience in the UK, encouraging third-party software
vendors is crucial to the success of filing services and rates of take-up.

When we tried to address this round the table in Baltimore we got one
or two relatively luke-warm (in my opinion) reasons: "common standards
permit transformations to be made more easily" (ok, but what do we need
to transform, and why?); and "there may be benefits for taxpayers with
filings in more than one country" (ok, but a tiny minority, surely?).
Now that you all have time to think about it at your leisure over the
Xmas turkey :-) perhaps we can come up with a better and more rounded
list!

I would hope that we could then begin to hone the list of processes to
address into something more manageable, or at least partition it into
areas that we can address more easily (One key process that appears to
be missing - unless it falls generally under 'Tax Filing' - is the
transmission of compliance data between tax authorities, the very
task that the OECD STF format is designed to facilitate).

Given that it is now late on Christmas eve, I'll leave it there and
wish all of you a peaceful and happy holiday and a prosperous New Year.
Here's to some lively debate in January!

	Andy
-- 

Andy Greener                         Mob: +44 7836 331933
GID Ltd, Reading, UK                 Tel: +44 118 956 1248
andy@gid.co.uk                       Fax: +44 118 958 9005