Re: [ubl] Proposal of new business process model.

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>]

Peter

This was discussed in the Pacific-time TC call last night and I was
asked to send you details of the agreement we came to.

The minutes will have a less detailed summary.

We decided that there would be the need to extend the Payment
phase to include post-remittance reconciliation.

1. There would need to be remittance reference details added to
Invoice, DebitNote and CreditNote so that these three documents
could be used to reconcile descrepancies found following remittance.
Typically this would work as follows (though variations might be lilely):

Where there is overpayment by the Buyer then - 
if there is frequent business between buyer(and/or originator) and seller
then either a credit note and/or a debit note could be used to
correct both remittance and tax in a following remittance (with reference
to remittance advice details including related invoice/debit/credit details)
but if there is infrequent business and less likelihood of a near-future
remittance then the correction could be in the form of an invoice from
buyer to seller (referencing the remittance and associated document id's).

Reference(s) to a remittance advice may need to include remittance line details.

A similar process would be used for corrections to errors which were in the
favour of the buyer where the seller might need to send a further debit
note (or credit note request) or invoice to the buyer referencing the remittance
and associated documents. A debit note can be used for the correction by use
with a further remittance where parties are agreed to its use in place of a credit
note (such as where there is no need to reconcile taxes and where a further
remittance with sufficient total for the reduction is expected).

It is and important aspect of these corrections that they may involve tax 
payment/reclaiming corrections too.

2. The need for the help of a statement for information about possible 
overpayments, underpayments and duplicate (or more) payments
requires that a Statement document be reinstated in the process.
Invoice, CreditAdvice and DebitAdvice would need to be able to (optionally
since not all collaborations would include statements) reference the statement
at document and/or line level as well as (or instead of) the remittance.
A typical use case for Statement would be where a duplicate payment 
occurred a long time after the original remittance or where
a needed correction was a long time outstanding and the seller needed to
give regularly repeated reference to it. After much time if the buyer agreed to 
make a further remittance to correct it but required, say, a credit note or copy invoice
from the seller in order to do so then the buyer could send a debit note
referencing the relevant statement line.

A note about the Statement document is that it would be worth adding
something in the documentation/definition of it to distinguish it from Invoice
in that an Invoice is a document for the purpose of remittance (and possibly tax
remittance) whereas a Statement is for information which may lead to the
need for a further invoice or credit note or debit note whic reference it or
reference the respective remittance(s) and/or previous invoice(s) and/or debit note(s)
and/or credit note(s).

[Apologies that in the above I use the terms CreditNote and CreditAdvice interchangeably.]

I'd be happy to provide further details if you need them.

All the best

Stephen Green


>>> Peter Larsen Borresen <plb@itst.dk> 27/05/05 14:28:15 >>>
 <<Proposal for UBL 2.0 process.doc>> 

Dear all

Here is my proposal for a procurement process in UBL 2.0. I look forward to
receive you comments on the document. 

Kind regard

Peter L. Borresen