ubl-psc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-psc] Re: Statement document was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents
- From: "Sylvia Webb" <swebb@gefeg.com>
- To: <ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:10:00 -0800
Title: Re: Statement document was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents
Mark,
In the US, the legally binding document is the purchase
order. There are no legal requirements that any other documents contain any
specific data.
In the case of Reminders, what is important is that any
payable charges be defined in the order. The information contained in the
actual Reminder is then optional as long as it references the original order.
The same is true for invoices. In fact, language in the PO can state that
invoices are optional and sent only as a courtesy.
Regards,
Sylvia
From: Mark Leitch [mailto:ml@tritorr.com]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 10:12 AM
To: Sylvia Webb;
ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-psc] Re: Statement document
was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents
Just picking up on your second point
Sylvia........
Denmark has requested the addition of a Rate Reminder
document for suppliers to remind customers of unpaid invoices; the message also
gives notice of payable charges at various rates for the late payment.
I
have checked this with HMRC in the UK and am advised that, depending on certain
technicalities, the charges in the Rate Reminder are either a) exempt from tax
or b) outside the scope of tax. However, although taxes do not apply in
the Rate Reminder, it has to be a tax document in order to state that taxes do
not apply. This may also be the case as regards your second
point.
Please can you check this before we start writing the supporting
documentation. I have also copied this to Dave Chambers at HMRC in the
knowledge that:
- his
knowledge is greater than mine in this area of fiscal metaphysics and
- he is
on the Tax group, but this is the only way I know to address
him.
Dave, your comments are welcome on this
point.
This may seem pedantic, if not fastidious, but we must be clear on
the fundamental use of the documents.
Regards, Mark
Mark Leitch
Director - Tritorr Ltd
Tel.: +44 1932 821112
Cell.:
+44 7881 822999
Mail: ml@tritorr.com
Site:
www.tritorr.com
From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com>
Organization:
GEFEG
Reply-To: <swebb@gefeg.com>
Date: Mon, 19
Dec 2005 09:16:52 -0800
To: 'Mark Leitch' <ml@tritorr.com>,
<ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: Statement document
was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order
documents
Mark,
Are you saying that the PSC will not consider these other uses of the
Statement?
There are many scenarios where taxes do not apply to the purchase of
goods and services and a Statement is all that is needed.
Regards,
Sylvia
From: Mark Leitch [mailto:ml@tritorr.com]
Sent:
Monday, December 19, 2005 5:26 AM
To: Sylvia Webb;
ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] Weights and
measures in Order documents
To me, the important word in ‘consolidated
billing’ is the ‘billing’.
Billing usually means ‘demanding payment’ and/or
‘providing tax evidence’ and the proper document to use in this instance is the
Invoice; known widely in this context as a ‘Consolidated Invoice’.
The most
extreme extreme example of this is the Purchasing Card which effectively
consolidates many Invoices from many suppliers into one billing file. The
VISA XML format for this file is ‘VGIS’ or the ‘VISA Global Invoice Standard’
recognising the fact that, although many people think of it as the card
‘statement’, it is, in fact, an Invoice; a demand from the card issuer for the
card user organisation to pay monies due (and regard particular elements of the
file as tax evidence).
The approach of linking Orders to Invoices at Line
level accommodates the consolidated invoicing approach.
The Statement in our
model is designed for information only and should not be confused with the
[Consolidated] Invoice. Anyone using the Statement for this purpose will
find that it does not contain some of the elements in the real Invoice, most
notably Tax.
Regards, M
Mark Leitch
From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com>
Organization:
GEFEG
Reply-To: <swebb@gefeg.com>
Date: Wed, 14
Dec 2005 18:14:37 -0800
To:
<ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ubl-psc]
Weights and measures in Order documents
All,
If the Statement is for information purposes only, what does a
company do that uses the Statement as the only billing document?. As an example
in the telecommunication industry, some very large well known providers refuse
invoices and only accept statements. This is what they pay from and it may
include allowances and charges. They will not pay from a document that is for
information purposes only. They call this Consolidated Billing. If the Statement
is for a single phone number or department and the allowance or charge applies
to the total amount, it may not be possible or practical to split this at the
line level.
Statement billing is also common in Professional Services industries.
The Statement is sent and no invoice is generated.
Regards,
Sylvia
From: Peter Larsen Borresen [mailto:plb@itst.dk]
Sent: Wednesday,
December 14, 2005 3:18 AM
To: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org; Mikkel
Hippe Brun
Subject: SV: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order
documents
Hi PSC
Mark and I had a meeting this morning and we found out that the
values could have a meening in the order response, order response simple and the
depatch advide (perhaps even in the receipt advice). But it they should be
packaged into a RespondedQuantityTotal ABIE (or an other name e.g. document
Measure) so it is more clear what they are used for.
Mark think that TaxTotal in order response should not be qualified
with "proposed". He does not see the reason for qualifying it in the order
either. I would like it qualified in the order with "expected" in stead of
proposed.
We also found the need for clearifying that a UBL Statement is for
information purpose only. I can not be used a base for billing purpose like a
statemen from Euro card. Therefore we agree with Mikkel that it is a bad idea to
have AllowanceCahnge on a statement
For the fore simple issues on Mikkels list we found
that
-StatementDocumentReference should be
removed
-Order change should have a validityPeriod
-OrderChange should
have a reference to one and only one order.
-We should consider having only
one order for a order cancellation or note that this is best
practice.
-SellersOrderId must be changed to SalesOrderId and BuyersOrderId
to ID in Order Response
/Peter
-----Oprindelig
meddelelse-----
Fra: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sendt:
14. december 2005 01:55
Til:
ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
Emne: [ubl-psc] Weights and
measures in Order documents
It was questioned why we had the
following items in the Order
ABIE.
TotalPackagesQuantity
GrossWeightMeasure
NetWeightMeasure
NetNetWeightMeasure
GrossVolumeMeasure
NetVolumeMeasure
They are there because they were
inherited in the original UBL from the xCBL Order Summary
structure. And, to date, no-one has challenged
them.
The only past comments I could find justifying this
are:
This is particularly important for the
industries like tobacco where tax is calculated on the weight of
the cigarettes rather than on the retail
item.
(UBL 0p65 Jan 2002)
Note, that
they are not used in the UBL 1.0 Small Business Subset. Also
they are all optional and can be derived from the underlying Order
Line Items - they are derivative totals.
So unless we can
get someone to come up with a justification, it looks like we may
drop these.
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618
93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle
western australia 6160
DOCUMENT ENGINEERING:
Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web
Services
http://www.docengineering.com/
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]