RE: [tax] Draft Tax XML teleconference minutes

[John.Glaubitz@vertexinc.com]

Andy (and others),

Thanks for laying out the case for establishing a framework where "there
are container "documents" comprising re-usable "common" components" and
suggesting that our direction is to "take a coherent view of the problem
and tackle both aspects within the same fundamental framework where we not
only avoid duplication of effort, but we also fit right in as a logical
extension to existing and emerging business standards."  I agree completely
with this direction and the suggestion that there's an overlap of much of
what is required for "direct" and "indirect" taxation.

However, there is still the question of what "container documents" we care
about and what do those containers need to contain?  What of those contents
are re-usable common components (such as those defined by UBL/ebXML), what
are tax specific and may need to become a re-usable tax component or BIE
(Business Information Entity) and finally what are specific to a tax type
or a jurisdiction?  To determine how to answer these questions we'll need
to understand the context of the tax administration process that a
"container document" supports.  While we may be able to get to a good
general understanding of the requirements for tax administration, perhaps
with some high level modeling, at some point we'll need to focus our
attention on specifics such as tax type to identify the document types
involved and validate the tax-specific components.

There seems to be two ways to approach this.  One is to start by focusing
on a tax type and working through the details and producing the
deliverables for that type and then moving on to the next.  This may get us
the first set of results more quickly, but may require a good deal of
re-work as each new tax type is considered.  The other is to start by
focusing on a tax administration process, understand the commonalities and
then move on to the details for the tax types.  This may be a better way to
identify what is truly common, what is tax specific and what is tax type
specific so that components can be more re-usable.  This approach may allow
us to make progress that will have value to all concerned before selecting
a tax type to focus on.  Ideally, once we start to focus on the specifics
we'll be able to move more quickly from tax type to tax type.

By performing this analysis we'll be able to identify which components or
BIEs are truly tax specific, which are common business elements and should
be reused, and which are specific to a particular jurisdiction, tax type or
application and should not be included in the standard.

To get this effort moving, it would be helpful to know the expectations for
the direction and deliverables of those that plan to contribute to either
the business or technical commitee.  Also, if there are any projects in the
works that could contribute to both the business and technical analysis, we
should determine how to take advantage of these efforts and how this
information could be shared.

John Glaubitz
Michael Roytman
Vertex, Inc.



                                                                                                                                       
                      Andy Greener                                                                                                     
                      <andy@gid.co.uk>         To:       tax@lists.oasis-open.org                                                      
                                               cc:                                                                                     
                      03/11/2003 04:45         Subject:  RE: [tax] Draft Tax XML teleconference minutes                                
                      PM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       




At 8:25 am -0500 7/3/03, Lutes Terence H wrote:
      First, my biases.  It is not news to anyone that the U.S. does not
      have a VAT/GST at the federal level.  The states would likely have an
      interest.  I would not support working on indirect taxes if that
      means delaying income taxes.  I know a large number of countries are
      modernizing or just developing electronic income tax systems.  Thus
      to delay standards development on the income tax side would be to
      miss a tremendous opportunity.  If there is a desire to work income
      taxes right away, I would suggest consideration of two technical
      subcommittees, one for income taxes and one for indirect taxes.  The
      question is, "do we have the bandwidth for this?"