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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

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

Subject: LineExtensionAmount

Ths is an internal comment submitted in view of future UBL minor releases

It appears that the LineExtensionAmount, where it appears inside
1. LegalMonetaryTotal
2. InvoiceLine
has misleading, unfortunately worded definitions which include the use
of the phrase 'net of tax' in a way which runs contrary to some definitions
of that phrase[1]. Taken together with the examples from as far back as
UBL 0p7 and the rest of the wording of the definition and rules about such
things as settlement discounts and how other discounts are affected by
taxes, it is certain that the intended meaning for 'net of tax' is 'exclusive
of tax'

see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200906/msg00042.html

This is partly because the word 'net' is used in many invoices to describe
a total amount excluding tax but including typse of allowances and charges
which impact on the tax calculation. The wording of the definition does use
'but' to show that tax is excluded from both LineExtensionAmount in the
LegalMonetaryTotal and the InvoiceLine. It also shows that settlement
discount is excluded in the total at invoice level and that both at line level
and invoice level the LineExtensionAmount includes discounts other than
settlement discount (should apply to charges too). However, this fact is
clouded because the phrase 'net of tax' is also used in other tax contexts
to mean 'including all affects of taxes'.

I would propose that, provided it is allowed by the rule that compatibility
is not broken (some implementations may already be using
LineExtensionAmount for the amount including taxes like VAT) that the
definitions are both reworded to replace 'net of' with 'excluding'.

This does bring to the fore another issue: That LineExtensionAmount at
line level, when taken to be exclusive of tax is in some contexts unknown
in that tax may be calculated only at document level on the combined,
document level taxable amount and systems may not store a line level
tax-excluded amount (if their tax context does not require that they report
it in an invoice, say). Therefore it may be that LineExtensionAmount being
mandatory poses a problem. I'm not sure whether I can propose that this
be optional since I do not quite understand what affect making it optional
would have on compatibility.

Best regards

Stephen D Green

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