Re: [ubl-psc] Re: Statement document was: [ubl-psc] Weights andmeasures in Order documents

[Mark Leitch <ml@tritorr.com>]

Title: Re: [ubl-psc] Re: Statement document  was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

This is actually more complicated than it at first seems.
In the UK (which operates in line with the European Invoicing Directive), charges notified in the Purchase Order and then charged later are ‘Exempt’ from VAT but charges not notified in the Purchase Order and then charged are ‘Outside the Scope’ of VAT.  As I mentioned, a ‘Tax Document’ is required to make this distinction.
If US commercial law (and fiscal law ?) allows the invoice to be optional, then obviously you just drop the entire message.

Dave, please comment.


Back to our original point though.  The Statement was and afterthought in the OGC model and was certainly never intended as a billing document; in the scheme of things, it is not an important (nor transactional) document.  Presumably the users of UBL0.X/1.X (in the absence of a Statement message) are using the Invoice for consolidated billing.

I think that they should continue to do so and, indeed, UBL2.0 will give them greater opportunities with line level connectivity to Orders.

To that end, I propose that, to avoid confusion, the Statement message should be deleted.


Mark Leitch

---

From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com>
Organization: GEFEG
Reply-To: <swebb@gefeg.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:43:10 -0800
To: <ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ubl-psc] Re: Statement document  was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

Mark,

In the US, the legally binding document is the purchase order. There are no legal requirements that any other documents contain any specific data.

In the case of Reminders, what is important is that any payable charges be defined in the order.  The information contained in the actual Reminder is then optional as long as it references the original order. The same is true for invoices.  In fact, language in the PO can state that invoices are optional and sent only as a courtesy.  

Regards,
Sylvia

---

From: Mark Leitch [mailto:ml@tritorr.com]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 10:12 AM
To: Sylvia Webb; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-psc] Re: Statement document was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

Just picking up on your second point Sylvia........

Denmark has requested the addition of a Rate Reminder document for suppliers to remind customers of unpaid invoices; the message also gives notice of payable charges at various rates for the late payment.

I have checked this with HMRC in the UK and am advised that, depending on certain technicalities, the charges in the Rate Reminder are either a) exempt from tax or b) outside the scope of tax.  However, although taxes do not apply in the Rate Reminder, it has to be a tax document in order to state that taxes do not apply.  This may also be the case as regards your second point.

Please can you check this before we start writing the supporting documentation.  I have also copied this to Dave Chambers at HMRC in the knowledge that:

1. his  knowledge is greater than mine in this area of fiscal metaphysics and   
2. he is  on the Tax group, but this is the only way I know to address  him.
   

Dave, your comments are welcome on this point.

This may seem pedantic, if not fastidious, but we must be clear on the fundamental use of the documents.

Regards, Mark

Mark Leitch
Director - Tritorr Ltd
Tel.:   +44 1932 821112
Cell.:  +44 7881 822999
Mail:   ml@tritorr.com
Site:   www.tritorr.com

---

From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com>
Organization: GEFEG
Reply-To: <swebb@gefeg.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:16:52 -0800
To: 'Mark Leitch' <ml@tritorr.com>, <ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: Statement document  was: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

Mark,

Are you saying that the PSC will not consider these other uses of the Statement?

There are many scenarios where taxes do not apply to the purchase of goods and services and a Statement is all that is needed.  

Regards,
Sylvia

---

From: Mark Leitch [mailto:ml@tritorr.com]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:26 AM
To: Sylvia Webb; ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

To me, the important word in ‘consolidated billing’ is the ‘billing’.
Billing usually means ‘demanding payment’ and/or ‘providing tax evidence’ and the proper document to use in this instance is the Invoice; known widely in this context as a ‘Consolidated Invoice’.
The most extreme extreme example of this is the Purchasing Card which effectively consolidates many Invoices from many suppliers into one billing file.  The VISA XML format for this file is ‘VGIS’ or the ‘VISA Global Invoice Standard’ recognising the fact that, although many people think of it as the card ‘statement’, it is, in fact, an Invoice; a demand from the card issuer for the card user organisation to pay monies due (and regard particular elements of the file as tax evidence).
The approach of linking Orders to Invoices at Line level accommodates the consolidated invoicing approach.
The Statement in our model is designed for information only and should not be confused with the [Consolidated] Invoice.  Anyone using the Statement for this purpose will find that it does not contain some of the elements in the real Invoice, most notably Tax.

Regards, M

Mark Leitch

---

From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com>
Organization: GEFEG
Reply-To: <swebb@gefeg.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:14:37 -0800
To: <ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

All,

If the Statement is for information purposes only, what does a company do that uses the Statement as the only billing document?. As an example in the telecommunication industry, some very large well known providers refuse invoices and only accept statements. This is what they pay from and it may include allowances and charges. They will not pay from a document that is for information purposes only. They call this Consolidated Billing. If the Statement is for a single phone number or department and the allowance or charge applies to the total amount, it may not be possible or practical to split this at the line level.

Statement billing is also common in Professional Services industries. The Statement is sent and no invoice is generated.

Regards,
Sylvia

---

From: Peter Larsen Borresen [mailto:plb@itst.dk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:18 AM
To: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org; Mikkel Hippe Brun
Subject: SV: [ubl-psc] Weights and measures in Order documents

Hi PSC

Mark and I had a meeting this morning and we found out that the values could have a meening in the order response, order response simple and the depatch advide (perhaps even in the receipt advice). But it they should be packaged into a RespondedQuantityTotal ABIE (or an other name e.g. document Measure) so it is more clear what they are used for.

Mark think that TaxTotal in order response should not be qualified with "proposed". He does not see the reason for qualifying it in the order either. I would like it qualified in the order with "expected" in stead of proposed.

We also found the need for clearifying that a UBL Statement is for information purpose only. I can not be used a base for billing purpose like a statemen from Euro card. Therefore we agree with Mikkel that it is a bad idea to have AllowanceCahnge on a statement

For the fore simple issues on Mikkels list we found that

-StatementDocumentReference should be removed
-Order change should have a validityPeriod
-OrderChange should have a reference to one and only one order.
-We should consider having only one order for a order cancellation or note that this is best practice.
-SellersOrderId must be changed to SalesOrderId and BuyersOrderId to ID in Order Response

/Peter

> -----Oprindelig   meddelelse-----
> Fra: Tim McGrath  [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
> Sendt:   14. december 2005  01:55
> Til:   ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
> Emne: [ubl-psc]  Weights and   measures in Order documents
>
> It was questioned  why we had the   following items in the Order   ABIE.
>
>      
>  TotalPackagesQuantity   
>  GrossWeightMeasure 
>  NetWeightMeasure   
>  NetNetWeightMeasure 
>  GrossVolumeMeasure   
>  NetVolumeMeasure
> They are there because  they were  inherited  in the original UBL from the xCBL Order Summary   structure.  And, to  date, no-one has challenged  them.
>
> The only  past comments I could  find justifying this  are:
>
>  
>  
>  
> > This is particularly important for the   industries  like tobacco where tax is calculated on the weight of  the  cigarettes rather  than on the retail   item.
> (UBL 0p65 Jan 2002)
>
> Note, that    they are not used in the UBL 1.0 Small Business Subset.  Also  they  are  all optional and can be derived from the underlying Order  Line Items  - they  are derivative totals.
>
> So unless we can  get someone to  come up with a  justification, it looks like we may  drop  these.
>
>
> -- 
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> phone: +618  93352228   
> postal: po box 1289   fremantle     western  australia 6160
>
> DOCUMENT ENGINEERING:  Analyzing and Designing Documents  for Business Informatics and Web  Services
> http://www.docengineering.com/