RE: UBL Tax compliance

Title: Bericht

Mark,

 

If 
this really was a question you would not have cc'd the whole group, so I will 
answer political.

 

As far 
as I know I was the only one voting against UBL 2.0 Many more others did not 
vote at all.  So is spreading negative remarks about me really 
fair?

As 
tax-xml we have conducted several attempts to work together with UBL. The UBL TC 
however had no resources and interest (Marc Crawford) to work with us on the 
basis of  equality. We could deliver and UBL would decide if they would 
listen. Furthermore participation was only possible when we contributed under 
the UBL TC regulations. Of course this is UBL prerogative.

The 
tax-xml is a small independent OASIS committee with predominantly government 
members who do this work next to their normal day jobs (like many of us in the 
standards community).  We cannot keep up with a large TC like 
UBL.

However we do have our opinions and position. E.g. we are the advisor to 
the OECD tax community. In our position paper you can read how we think about 
UBL.

Fact 
is that UBL made clear that their primary interest is the trade community and 
not the regulator or accounting community. That is fair. This also means that 
for regulatory processes we cannot rely on -for instance- proper fiscal audit 
trails.

For 
the same reason tax-xml is developing an indirect taxation reference model. This 
project is not finished yet. After finishing we will use the reference model to 
advise the OECD in favor or against the use of UBL.

 

A 
different position is that we have advised in favor of the use of XBRL for 
tax-filing and accounting processes. This recommendation was officially accepted 
in the OECD. Several OECD countries run or want to run  XBRL projects now. 
For the moment we see XBRL GL as the logical step for transactions. We have 
ongoing interest in researching to possibility of letting UBL and XBRL "talk to 
each other". This could be a powerful step forwards. Absolutely necessary for 
that if we have cooperation on this.  I have not seen any interest in the 
UBL community for this issue. That is also fair. 

Fact 
is that the XBRL community works harder with us in real cooperation. So for that 
reason we currently bet on XBRL-Gl rather than UBL

 

On 
your original question: what is wrong? I can only simply answer that we have not 
been able to establish that it is right. The advise to my own government is not 
to follow the Danish example and wait at least two years to see if the UBL 
specification reaches stability, if enough knowledge is available, if enough 
mature commercial software solutions are available, if the accounting community 
accepts UBL.

 

This 
all does not mean that I am overall negative about UBL. On the contrary. However 
I expect that embracing UBL might lead to heavy investments,, not only for the 
government infrastructure but also for the business community. The whole idea 
that the business community does not use UBL and that the government makes UBL 
for invoicing mandatory is in my mind an absolute undesirable roadmap. This make 
a standard suspect. The whole point with open standards is that a governments 
reflects on and react on the business community and not pushes its own 
proprietary solutions like it has done in the past. Open standards must an can 
have a good business case. Governments cannot create that.

 

Regards,

 

Harm 
Jan van Burg

 

  

  
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Mark Leitch 
  [mailto:] 
Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2007 
  13:38
Aan: Burg, HJM (Harm Jan) van (INNOVATIE)
CC: 
  ; Tim McGrath; Jon Bosak; Helle 
  Schade-S鷨ensen
Onderwerp: UBL Tax 
  compliance

Harm,
  

  
As chair of the UBL Procurement Subcommittee, I have been asked by the 
  Technical Committee to find a resolution to your issues with tax compliance in 
  UBL 2.0.

  

  
The email below (copied to my by Mikkel Hippe Brun in Denmark) is all 
  that I can find in terms of explanation; obviously this is not enough for me 
  to find a resolution.

  

  
Please can you reply explaining, in as much detail as possible, the issue 
  with UBL tax compliance for the Netherlands and the Netherlands' specific 
  business requirements are in this context.  For my part, I will try to 
  sort this out ass soon as I can.

  

  
Thanks in anticipation.

  

  
Regards, Mark

  

  

  
Mark 
  Leitch

  
Director - Tritorr 
  Ltd

  
tel.: 
        +44 1932 
  821112

  
cell.: 
       +44 7881 
  822999

  
mail: 
       

  
skype: 
     wmarkle

  
site: 
        www.tritorr.com

  

  
-----Original Message-----

  
   From: Burg, HJM (Harm Jan) van 
  (INNOVATIE) [mailto:]

  
   Sent: Mon 20-11-2006 14:08

  
   To: Mikkel Hippe Brun

  
   Subject: RE: SV: [voting] Northern 
  European support for UBL 2.0 approval =

  

  
In my Oasis tc Tax xml we have looked at the way UBL 
  registraits processes in relation to tax compliance. It is my 
  conclusion that UBL is not good enough from a tax viewpoint. That is why 
  we cannot support it yet.

  

  
   Harm Jan van Burg