[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Re: [ubl-dev] Basic Invoice Exploration
Folks, Here is some Australian context: http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/nat5009082004.pdf http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?rank=find&criteria=AND~Tax~basic~exact:::AND~Ruling~basic~exact:::AND~GSTR~basic~exact:::AND~2000%2F17~basic~exact&target=ED&style=java&sdocid=DGS/GSTR2000D16/NAT/ATO/00001&recStart=1&PiT=99991231235958&recnum=2&tot=53&pn=ALL:::ED > Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've just looked at the original UBL 0p7 examples and the > 'reference example' (if you'd regard it as that) for VAT is > the JoineryInvoiceInstance1.xml and its printed format > JoineryInvoiceInstance1.pdf. If you can make head or tail > of that you might have got the right idea of how the VAT > in UBL is meant to be represented and calculated. Of > course it might have changed (as possibly hinted at - I'm > not sure it's more than that - in the definition '...net of tax'). > > > > Here the XML says (in the 0p7, pre-UBL-1.0, format) > > <cat:AllowanceCharge> > <cat:ID></cat:ID> > <cat:ChargeIndicator>0</cat:ChargeIndicator> > <cat:MultiplierReasonCode>trade</cat:MultiplierReasonCode> > <cat:MultiplierFactorQuantity > unitCode="1">.25</cat:MultiplierFactorQuantity> > </cat:AllowanceCharge> > <cat:TaxTotal> > <cat:TaxTypeCode>VAT</cat:TaxTypeCode> > <cat:TaxAmounts> > <cat:TaxableAmount currencyID="GBP">1362.56</cat:TaxableAmount> > <cat:TaxAmount currencyID="GBP">238.45</cat:TaxAmount> > </cat:TaxAmounts> > <cat:CategoryTotal> > <cat:RateCategoryCodeID>STD</cat:RateCategoryCodeID> > <cat:RatePercentNumeric>17.50</cat:RatePercentNumeric> > <cat:TaxAmounts> > <cat:TaxableAmount currencyID="GBP">1337.56</cat:TaxableAmount> > <cat:TaxAmount currencyID="GBP">238.45</cat:TaxAmount> > </cat:TaxAmounts> > </cat:CategoryTotal> > </cat:TaxTotal> > <cat:LegalTotals> > <cat:LineExtensionTotalAmount > currencyID="GBP">1397.50</cat:LineExtensionTotalAmount> > <cat:ToBePaidTotalAmount > currencyID="GBP">1635.95</cat:ToBePaidTotalAmount> > </cat:LegalTotals> > > > And the printed form says (albeit not in typical UK order) > > 1830.00 Gross Total > > 1372.50 Less 25% discount > > Std 25.00 Delivery charge > > 1397.50 Total Lines+Charges > > Std 238.45 VAT at 17.5% > > 1635.95 TOTAL DUE > > The delivery charge plus the total after discount but before tax is > 1372.50 + 25.00 = 1397.50 ("Total Lines+Charges") which in UK > is what I think is sometimes called 'Net Total' or 'Nett Total' (a UK > accountant could tell us which and whether there is a difference). > If I look for how this is represented in the XML it is obviously there > as LineExtensionTotalAmount which I see as what eventually came > to be called LineExtensionAmount in the invoice total in UBL 2.0. > > Now it appears that the definition may either show a change of > semantics or be a little misleading but perhaps not deliberately > ambiguous. Maybe someone somewhere along the line just > misunderstood what in UK is meant by 'Net Total'; or maybe it > was a change of semantics toward something more familiar to > some in Europe. IMO. I would like to think this joinery example > is worth regarding as a reference implementation anyway. > > > Stephen D Green > > > > 2009/6/22 Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>: > > OK, I went and grabbed a utility bill (phone bill) > > > > It has totals at the end of the invoice as follows: > > Prices in GBP > > > > Cost of calls 68.16 > > Your benefits - 5.60 > > Rental charges 99.53 > > One-off charges 23.41 > > VAT 32.47 > > > > If it had an early payment discount and/or late > > payment charge, that would follow the VAT (as > > it is not included unless the payment is late or > > early so it cannot affect the VAT calculation). > > > > Now I had assumed that the one total here which > > seems to be called 'line extension total' is 'Cost > > of calls'. I think it is the same total which gets > > called 'Nett total' on many UK invoices. When I > > look at a couple of invoices from a hotel in Germany > > I see that the total first mentioned is one which > > includes tax (on one invoice it says it includes tax > > and on the other it just says 'Total' but it clearly > > includes tax). Then it says how much the tax is. > > Now this worries me because there is clearly the > > possibility that UK invoices usually put first the > > total without tax (which I think is called 'Nett total'), > > followed by charges/allowances and then tax and > > finally what is called the 'gross total' which is the > > payable total before variable allowances/charges. > > This makes it possible that there are locality- > > dependent interpretations possible for the one total > > which has most possibility of confusion - line > > extension. > > > > Regarding 'Nett' and 'Net'; a search for examples from > > UK on internet shows that Net Total in UK means > > without tax > > e.g. random example (but others are like it) > > http://www.nominet.org.uk/registrars/fees/emailinvoice/ > > (apologies to Nominet) > > > > Another example shows this all the more clearly > > > http://forums.contractoruk.com/accounting-legal/27004-nett-vat-breakdown- > expenditure.html > > > > So it may be that in UK 'Net' (or 'Nett') means 'net of > > all non-tax amounts - i.e. combining all line totals but > > before any deductions/charges and taxes - and that this > > word has gotten into the definition in UBL with such UK > > overloading unaware of the meaning calling it 'net of tax' > > will give to it outside of the UK. I guess in the UK, because > > the pre-tax total is called Net Total or Nett Total (I think they > > may have a subtle distinction Net vs Nett), the words 'net > > of tax' might mean 'net - i.e. before tax' whereas in countries > > without the common use of the term 'net total' the words > > would be taken more literally to mean 'inclusive of tax'. > > > > Trouble is that so much of the modern VAT calculation model > > comes from the UK (I believe they even took the VAT system > > to ISO via BSI). Plus Mike Adcock was from UK, as were > > Sue Probert and myself who put know-how into UBL tax model. > > Then UK Gov provided input too, albeit via EU Gov for UBL 2. > > I guess the (perhaps presumptuous) assumption was that even > > EU VAT would follow very much the UK pattern (although now it > > seems one single EU VAT is less likely than we thought a few > > years ago). > > > > So I would still tend to see LineExtensionAmount (whatever > > that means - no idea where it came from) as exclusive of VAT > > especially since we have another total for inclusive of VAT, don't > > we. What does NES say? BII? > > > > Best > > > > Stephen D Green > > > > > > > > 2009/6/22 Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>: > >> Interesting one about the meaning of 'net'. > >> In the same context, in the UK at least it is generally > >> accepted practice to call the pre-tax (pre-VAT) total > >> 'nett' and the tax-inclusive, final total 'gross'. I don't > >> know whether some confusion has resulted from that. > >> > >> I only have experience with paper invoices and XML > >> ones (not EDI) and I hadn't come across the term > >> 'line extension' before joining the UBL TC. To us UK > >> paper invoice people there are two main totals on > >> the invoice - nett total and gross total with amounts > >> for total tax (split by tax type and, for VAT, tax rate) > >> and total discount/charges before VAT and total > >> for discount/charges after. The total of discounts and > >> charges taken after the VAT calculation is usually > >> a varying one, hence it does not get included in the > >> VAT which must be fixed and cannot be changed > >> without cancelling and reissuing the invoice - in UK > >> that is where VAT is sometimes claimed back by > >> the payer and therefore has to be the same when > >> claimed back as it is when paid by the supplier. > >> I don't quite remember all that well but I think the > >> nett total is one which includes any pre-VAT discounts > >> and charges so that it is easy to check the VAT > >> calculation (and ask for a replacement invoice if it is > >> incorrect - or a correctional credit note or whatever > >> if the invoice was already paid). > >> > >> So I too would be interested to know whether line > >> extension amount includes VAT, having always assumed > >> that it didn't. What did the UBL invoice examples say? > >> I wrote some of the examples for UBL 2 but the UBL 1 > >> ones were already pretty much written before I came > >> along. As were the terms like line extension amount. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> Stephen D Green > >> > >> > >> > >> 2009/6/22 G. Ken Holman <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com>: > >>> Forgive me, Steve, for drawing this out but I've got my UBL Human > Interface > >>> Subcommittee (HISC) hat on today. > >>> > >>> Since April 2006 in the HISC we've been talking about documenting > sample > >>> calculation models for UBL: > >>> > >>> http://markmail.org/message/7yzrxwp7ttwleyn6 > >>> > >>> I'm finally talking with a chartered accountant in Canada regarding > a > >>> calculation model for invoices in Ontario Canada (our provincial > >>> jurisdiction). It would be an HISC example of a model where VAT is > not > >>> included in prices. > >>> > >>> The Danish have documented a calculation model where VAT is included > in > >>> prices: > >>> > >>> http://www.oioubl.info/guidelines/en/OIOUBL_GUIDE_TOTALS.pdf > >>> > >>> I would like to transcribe the essentials of that into an HISC > document of > >>> an example model where VAT is included in prices. > >>> > >>> Your comments to jaymuz would be helpful to consider when writing > this. > >>> > >>> Where I'll get the time I don't know, but for three years now we > haven't had > >>> any volunteers join up in HISC and write these up. > >>> > >>> At 2009-06-18 11:58 +0100, Stephen Green wrote: > >>>> > >>>> My knowledge is a bit rusty (I've been out of finance work > >>>> for a year or so now) but I think the LineExtensionAmount > >>>> is the amount without VAT. > >>> > >>> LineExtensionAmount is in the InvoiceLine ... so even if the sticker > price > >>> includes VAT, the InvoiceLine LineExtensionAmount is still the price > without > >>> VAT? > >>> > >>> LineExtensionAmount is also in the MonetaryTotal ... where it states > it is > >>> the total of line extension amounts net of tax. Being a programmer > and not > >>> a businessman, I looked up the term "net of tax" and found: > >>> > >>> http://www.answers.com/topic/net-of-tax > >>> > >>> Which implies to me that "net of tax" *includes* all tax. > >>> > >>> Taken together would imply a contradiction to me that > LineExtensionAmount in > >>> the InvoiceLine is without tax yet LineExtensionAmount in the > MonetaryTotal > >>> is with tax. > >>> > >>> Where is a layman like me getting confused? > >>> > >>>> The VAT is calculated (in my > >>>> country at least - UK) on the total including allowances > >>>> and charges (except those made dependant on payment > >>>> terms like charges for late payment which do not affect > >>>> the VAT calculation). > >>> > >>> Is the VAT then calculated on the individual invoice lines and the > total > >>> included in the monetary total? > >>> > >>>> Also in UK I think it is still true that > >>>> the VAT cannot be altered once it is declared on an > >>>> invoice so there are some things the LineExtensionAmount > >>>> has to include and some things it doesn't. Anyway, AFAIK, > >>>> it is the basis for VAT calculation so it doesn't itself > >>>> include the VAT. > >>> > >>> Which LineExtensionAmount? Both? > >>> > >>>> All this is general accounting knowledge > >>> > >>> (by those who know accounting) > >>> > >>>> so doesn't get dicated by the language (UBL in this case) > >>>> and does have to comply with whatever VAT rules apply > >>>> to your invoice. I do accept that concepts like LineExtension > >>>> have been floded into UBL and need a UBL explanation for > >>>> what they entail - which I guess is at present just in the > >>>> official UBL semantic definition (a bit sparce - could maybe > >>>> be extended to include a general conceptual calculation > >>>> model, albeit one which might have to be a default which > >>>> gets overridden by local customs and rules). > >>> > >>> Hopefully with HISC publishing a couple of examples, then users in > different > >>> jurisdictions will identify what has to be identified where they > are. > >>> > >>> Thanks, Steve, for all your input! > >>> > >>> . . . . . . . . . Ken > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/ > >>> Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video > >>> Video lesson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg&fmt=18 > >>> Video overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE&fmt=18 > >>> G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com > >>> Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc > >>> Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal > >>> > >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]