OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tax message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: UBL Tax compliance

Title: Bericht
If this really was a question you would not have cc'd the whole group, so I will answer political.
As far as I know I was the only one voting against UBL 2.0 Many more others did not vote at all.  So is spreading negative remarks about me really fair?
As tax-xml we have conducted several attempts to work together with UBL. The UBL TC however had no resources and interest (Marc Crawford) to work with us on the basis of  equality. We could deliver and UBL would decide if they would listen. Furthermore participation was only possible when we contributed under the UBL TC regulations. Of course this is UBL prerogative.
The tax-xml is a small independent OASIS committee with predominantly government members who do this work next to their normal day jobs (like many of us in the standards community).  We cannot keep up with a large TC like UBL.
However we do have our opinions and position. E.g. we are the advisor to the OECD tax community. In our position paper you can read how we think about UBL.
Fact is that UBL made clear that their primary interest is the trade community and not the regulator or accounting community. That is fair. This also means that for regulatory processes we cannot rely on -for instance- proper fiscal audit trails.
For the same reason tax-xml is developing an indirect taxation reference model. This project is not finished yet. After finishing we will use the reference model to advise the OECD in favor or against the use of UBL.
A different position is that we have advised in favor of the use of XBRL for tax-filing and accounting processes. This recommendation was officially accepted in the OECD. Several OECD countries run or want to run  XBRL projects now. For the moment we see XBRL GL as the logical step for transactions. We have ongoing interest in researching to possibility of letting UBL and XBRL "talk to each other". This could be a powerful step forwards. Absolutely necessary for that if we have cooperation on this.  I have not seen any interest in the UBL community for this issue. That is also fair.
Fact is that the XBRL community works harder with us in real cooperation. So for that reason we currently bet on XBRL-Gl rather than UBL
On your original question: what is wrong? I can only simply answer that we have not been able to establish that it is right. The advise to my own government is not to follow the Danish example and wait at least two years to see if the UBL specification reaches stability, if enough knowledge is available, if enough mature commercial software solutions are available, if the accounting community accepts UBL.
This all does not mean that I am overall negative about UBL. On the contrary. However I expect that embracing UBL might lead to heavy investments,, not only for the government infrastructure but also for the business community. The whole idea that the business community does not use UBL and that the government makes UBL for invoicing mandatory is in my mind an absolute undesirable roadmap. This make a standard suspect. The whole point with open standards is that a governments reflects on and react on the business community and not pushes its own proprietary solutions like it has done in the past. Open standards must an can have a good business case. Governments cannot create that.
Harm Jan van Burg
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Mark Leitch [mailto:ml@tritorr.com]
Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2007 13:38
Aan: Burg, HJM (Harm Jan) van (INNOVATIE)
CC: mhb@itst.dk; Tim McGrath; Jon Bosak; Helle Schade-Sørensen
Onderwerp: UBL Tax compliance


As chair of the UBL Procurement Subcommittee, I have been asked by the Technical Committee to find a resolution to your issues with tax compliance in UBL 2.0.

The email below (copied to my by Mikkel Hippe Brun in Denmark) is all that I can find in terms of explanation; obviously this is not enough for me to find a resolution.

Please can you reply explaining, in as much detail as possible, the issue with UBL tax compliance for the Netherlands and the Netherlands' specific business requirements are in this context.  For my part, I will try to sort this out ass soon as I can.

Thanks in anticipation.

Regards, Mark

Mark Leitch
Director - Tritorr Ltd
tel.:       +44 1932 821112
cell.:      +44 7881 822999
mail:      ml@tritorr.com
skype:    wmarkle
site:       www.tritorr.com

-----Original Message-----
   From: Burg, HJM (Harm Jan) van (INNOVATIE) [mailto:h.j.m.burg@minfin.nl]
   Sent: Mon 20-11-2006 14:08
   To: Mikkel Hippe Brun
   Subject: RE: SV: [voting] Northern European support for UBL 2.0 approval =

In my Oasis tc Tax xml we have looked at the way UBL registraits processes in relation to tax compliance. It is my conclusion that UBL is not good enough from a tax viewpoint. That is why we cannot support it yet.

   Harm Jan van Burg

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]