[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]