Hello UBLers,
please find some comments below.
Best regards
Roberto
Il 06/09/2017 14:13, Duvekot, Kees ha scritto:
All,
As part of the analysis
of tickets UBL-44, UBL-60 and UBL-137 I have looked at all
the billing documents in UBL and see where they are “not in
sync” with each other.
I have looked at the
following billing documents:
Invoice
CreditNote
SelfBilledInvoice
SelfBilledCreditNote
FreightInvoice
I have done a comparison
of the various UBL elements that are in these documents on
“header level”.
This is the result:
cbc:DueDate
This is only available
in Invoice, and not in the other documents.
As part of bringing all
billing documents in sync I would propose to add this the
the 4 other billing documents (preferably at the same
“position” as invoice)
I agree
cbc:InvoiceTypeCode /
cbc:CreditNoteTypeCode
In all documents except
SelfBilledCreditNote there is a “TypeCode” element.
I would propose to add
the cbc:CreditNoteTypeCode to the SelfBilledCreditNote to
bring it in line with the normal CreditNote Document.
I think a self-billed invoice (or Credit Note) is already a specific
type of invoice, there are no other parallel types associated.
cbc:BuyerReference
This element is
available in Invoice and CreditNote, but not in the
SelfBilled equivalents.
I would propose to add
this to both SelfBilledInvoice and SelfBilledCreditNote
I would NOT include It
in the FreightInvoice to avoid confusion about “Buyer” in
the FreightInvoice context.
I agree
cac:DiscrepancyResponse
This
element is available in both the CreditNote and
SelfBilledCreditNote, not in the other documents
I
would propose to leave this .. because this is a specific
element that is only relevant in the CreditNote context as
far as I can tell.
I agree
cac:Shipment
This
element is only available in the FreightInvoice, and is the
only real element that is different with a “normal” invoice.
I
would NOT add this to the other documents to keep the
separate status of FreightInvoice.
I agree
cac:StatementDocumentReference
This
element is missing from the FreightInvoice.
As
far as I can tell the statements can not be used for
“Freight” purpuses .. so not having this on the
FreightInvoice makes sense
A Statement can be exchanged for listing pending debts. it is not
specific to freight but it is a commercial practice, so its
reference could be useful in any kind of invoice.
cac:ProjectReference
This
element is only available in the Invoice, not in the other 4
billing documents.
I
would propose to add this element also to all the other
billing documents.
Makes sense
cac:BuyerCustomerParty
/ cac:SellerSupplierParty
These
two element are not available in the FreightInvoice
It
makes sense that they are NOT in the freightInvoice, but
what would be the equivalants for Freight? Based on
TransportExecutionPlan(Request)Type I would think
TransportUserParty /
TransportServiceProviderParty
but I would leave that discussion for 2.3
Main parties in a freight invoice are the Shipper (or freigth
forwarder) and the Carrier.
The Carrier is playing the role of Seller and the Shipper is playing
the role of the Buyer.
Further freight-specific parties are available under the Shipment
information aggregate.
cac:Delivery /
cac:DeliveryTerms
These
elements are not available in the FreighInvoice
I
would NOT add them to FreightInvoice, as that they are
really “Ordering” related
The Shipment is a superset of the Delivery information, infact it
contains a cac:Delivery too.
I agree the Freight invoice do not need this.
cac:PrepaidPayment
This
element is not available in the CreditNote and
SelfBilledCreditNote
But
it makes sense that it is NOT there, because prepaying your
credit … that does not make sense at all
J
I agree
cac:WithholdingTaxTotal
This
element is only available in the Invoice not in the other
documents
I
would propose that we also add this to all the other
elements to bring the WithHoldingTax handling on all
documents in line with each other.
I agree.
It makes sense to mention that the PayableAmount should take into
account the withholding tax when used (subtracted).
I know it is not nice to bind such rules into UBL but it could be
nice to mention that the PayableAmount may be reduced by the
WithholdingTaxTotal.
Please
lets discuss this in today call.
Kees
D.
