RE: [tax] Draft Tax XML teleconference minutes

["Jaslow, Kenneth M" <kjaslow@kpmg.com>]

I agree that we should not be reinventing the wheel as several, if not all
of the groups Peter mentioned below would love to have the TC "steal with
pride".  

I also agree that a press release with clearer working group tasks would
benefit the TC.  This is evidenced by the reactions, mainly, "What is the TC
going to work on in Amsterdam?" or "Why should I attend the face to face
meeting?" that I have received while publicizing the Amsterdam TC face to
face meeting.  To date, my response has been that the TC is currently
forming working groups and a product timeline, but clearly we need to create
a more specific vision for our goals and products in order for the TC to be
taken seriously.  

Hopefully we can come to some agreement on these topics during Tuesday's
call.

Regards,
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Horsburgh
To: John.Glaubitz@vertexinc.com; Andy Greener
Cc: tax@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: 3/12/2003 7:25 PM
Subject: RE: [tax] Draft Tax XML teleconference minutes

I agree somewhat with the approaches described below....I would caution
against starting the building process with a set of common (globally
relevant) components (top down approach) as it will result in delays to
any tangible outcomes due to decision churn that is inevitable in a
committee approach to development. I would propose we pick a
jurisdiction, maybe one that has a maturing (or close to) taxonomy that
is willing to donate, which would provide the TC examination and
validate some of the statements below. Sure this will result is some
duplication (which can be mapped of course) - I believe it results in
speedy outcomes.

If we haven't already, we should seek permission to examine the IRS & UK
IR Corporate schema's, and contact X12G2 / Tigers for Sales Tax; EU for
VAT....you get the picture 

Finally I still see the value in creating a statement (press release) to
the effect that the TC will examine and develop generic Individual /
Corporate / GST / VAT / Sales / Transfer pricing.....(one / some / all
of the above) -- this will attract further interest /participation in
the TC so that there are more hands to do the work and acceptance by
association. The current charter is too vague.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: John.Glaubitz@vertexinc.com [mailto:John.Glaubitz@vertexinc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:29 PM
To: Andy Greener
Cc: tax@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [tax] Draft Tax XML teleconference minutes


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?"