Re: [ubl-psc] FW: UBL Fiscal Accreditation

[Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Just to note that the Small Business Subset of UBL aims to include all
necessary tax-related UBL content as would apply to a typical low-end
implementation of UBL (particulary invoice, etc). As a strict subset it
doesn't change or add to anything in the UBL documents. It is *not* as
such a customisation but merely a list of the elements and attributes,
including those pertaining to basic indirect tax, which can be used
in a UBL document message which aims to meet small business and
related interoperability requirements. The main tax related aim is that
it should not *exclude* any tax-related UBL elements or attributes
which are likely to be a requirement of a document transaction involving
a small business. It is hoped that the success or otherwise of this aim can
be assessed as authoritatively as possible and the outcomes of such
assessments established with similar authority.

Many thanks

All the best

Stephen Green
co-Chair OASIS UBL Small Business SC

On 09/02/06, Mark Leitch <ml@tritorr.com> wrote:
> An action point on me from the Manhattan TC was to investigate the
> opportunity for fiscal 'accreditation' of UBL 2.0 by the UK authorities.
> Below is the reply from Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) which,
> briefly, states that no formal accreditation process exists but that HMRC
> can make 'statements' to the effect that the relevant documents comply with
> fiscal requirements.
>
> In developing the UK's Standard Procurement Process Model, we (OGC) have
> worked very closely with HMRC to ensure that their requirements are met.  I
> have tried to ensure that the outcome of this work has been adopted in UBL
> 2.0 so that it reflects UK requirements and, albeit less specifically, those
> of other EU members i.e. the EU eInvoicing Directive.  Indeed in UBL 2.0 we
> have added several new tax documents over and above the Invoice; namely
> Credit Note, Debit Note, Self-Billed Invoice and Self-Billed Credit Note.
>
> I believe that, certainly in Europe, one of the keys to the promulgation of
> UBL 2.0 will be it's fitness for purpose from a tax perspective.  So I
> propose that as we move through public review towards UBL 2.0 release, we
> actively engage our respective tax authorities in order to achieve this.
>
> Regards, Mark
>
> Mark Leitch
>
>
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: "Chambers, David {LBG Audit Service}" <dave.chambers@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk>
> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:15:56 -0000
> To: Mark Leitch <ml@tritorr.com>
> Subject: RE: UBL Fiscal Accreditation
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> I hope you are well and had a good meeting in New York.
>
> I appreciate the requirement for UBL 2.0 to be "marketed", but I am afraid
> that I cannot give an HMRC "approval" to assist in the marketing. Although
> HMRC can certainly state that a set of messages which comprise tax documents
> meet our requirements, we cannot provide any "certification".
>
> The nearest HMRC gets to certification is the Publicly Available
> Specification (PAS) 76 which we have developed in conjunction with the
> British Standards Institution. The PAS has recently been published and will
> be formally launched later this year. It spells out the requirements for VAT
> compliant accounting software in the UK and will form the basis of an
> independent certification to a British Standards "Kitemark". Even in this
> case, although the requirements have been developed by HMRC, it will be
> another organisation that undertakes the certification.
>
> I hope you saw Dave Watt's e-mail regarding Sylvie Colas.
>
> I understand also that the UBL "SME subset" has also been published
> recently. I have not yet had the opportunity to review it, I am afraid. Are
> VAT requirements handled differently in the SME subset to other versions of
> UBL, please?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Dave Chambers
> H M Revenue & Customs
> Eldon Court
> 75 London Road
> Reading
> RG1 5BS
>
> T.      0118 908 4442
> GTN:    8207 4442
> Mobile: 07900 137369
> Fax     0118 908 4209
> E-mail: dave.chambers@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Leitch [mailto:ml@tritorr.com]
> Sent: 04 February 2006 12:11
> To: Chambers, David {LBG Audit Service}
> Subject: UBL Fiscal Accreditation
>
> Dave
> I was at the UBL TC Meeting in New York Last week.
> One of the subjects I raised was the apparent lack of 'marketing' for UBL
> 2.0.
> I suggested that a good selling point might be that UBL is accredited or
> acknowledged as meeting UK/European (in this particular case, Danish) fiscal
> requirements.
> Is this something the HMRC would consider in a form that could be used by
> UBL e.g. a stamp, approval or accreditation ?
>
> M
>
> Mark Leitch
> Director - Tritorr Ltd
> Tel.:   +44 1932 821112
> Cell.:  +44 7881 822999
> Mail:   ml@tritorr.com
> Site:   www.tritorr.com
>
>
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
>
> On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable &
> Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> Please see
> http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
> for further details.
>
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
> be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
> recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must not,
> read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.
>
>
>
> HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
> carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
> and for lawful purposes.
>
>
>
> The Commissioners for H M Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
> personal views of the sender.
>
>
>
> This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered
>
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure
> Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable
> Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
>
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>