Re: Action item from the Pacific call

[Oriol Bausą Peris <oriol@invinet.org>]

Hi Peter,

There is a requirement about withholding taxes we raise some time ago but it seems not covered in the current 2.1 invoice data model.

The requirement is to have a class to identify withholding taxes. 

Wikipedia:
"Withholding tax is a government requirement for the payer of an item of income to withhold or deduct tax from the payment, and pay that tax to the government. In most jurisdictions withholding tax applies to employment income."

As Roberto said, the explanation for this requirement is:

" is a binding for the invoicee that is required to pay withholding taxes on
behalf of their consultant (supplier).

The Invoicee (or Customer) is pratically doing the same like the Employer
that payes withholding taxes for Employees.

This is the same concept.

The invoice it is just used to transport and evidence this information,
but this is a separated legal issue from VAT or other invoicing things.
 that we is to have document level withholding tax support "


So the point is that we need an structure to enable carrying withholding taxes. 

I would suggest to create a new ASBIE at header level using the class TaxTotal and with a Qualifier called Withholding. The main reason why not using the actual TaxTotal ASBIE is to avoid requiring calculations based on the values of a codelist, You could argue that we do not need this new Withholding_ TaxTotal as this can be achieved by the current TaxTotal with the proper TaxScheme/ID, but the point with this approach is that you need to create difficult calculation expressions:

Not summing up taxes if the taxscheme id equals "Withholding taxes".
Deducting total taxes where taxschemeid equals "Withholding taxes" from the Payable Amount.

Regards
Oriol



El 22/03/2011, a las 15:40, Jon Bosak escribió:

> Peter, Oriol,
> 
> Please note this from the minutes:
> 
>   PSC (TM): An issue has arisen offline: the Spanish government has a
>   requirement to describe withholding tax on invoices.
> 
>      AGREED that this is a PRD3 issue that the PSC should begin working
>      on now.
> 
>      ACTION: PLB to contact Oriol to get a formal statement of the
>      requirement.
> 
> Jon