New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Value: Taxes (VAT) #383
Comments
Are there any jurisdictions where tax is not fraction of the value, but fixed amount? What about "staged" rates, when rate depend upon the amount? |
This is a very good question, and one we can consult on. I did try to define I thought this offered a compromise between modelling complexity, and giving users information they can use to evaluate the tax being paid in a contract. (e.g. same as effective tax rate for income tax) |
The proposed scenario will work for VAT in Ukraine, but won't work for some other taxes (thankfully they are not used in procurement). However even the fact that it's is "effective" rate can complicate the process, since we are capturing change of |
In EU forms, historically, we used to have values, indications of whether VAT is included or not, and the VAT rate. Currently we collect only VAT-free values, because the previous approach seemed to be confusing to users. Basic question - can I ask for some more use cases when it's useful to know both the VAT-free value and the VAT-included value? Comparability could be reached by only being interested in the VAT-free value. I guess this is mainly for the comparison of final spending between countries with different VAT rates as well as comparison with other data sets, e.g. budgets? (Tim, are you sure that "It should be possible to calculate the contract value net of tax by dividing amount by taxRate" is correct? Shouldn't it be "It should be possible to calculate the contract value net of tax by multiplying value by (1-taxRate)"?) |
I am afraid that ambition for covering even other taxes beyond VAT may lead to very tedious and complex solutions (which will possibly not be consistently grasped by different publishing authorities anyways). Also in my personal experience I see little value of use even of the data on VAT. Thus I agree with Jachym - publishing prices without VAT seems good enough in terms of comparability and simplicity. |
The approach proposed by colleagues in Ukraine is a simple 'valueAddedTaxIncluded' field as follows (json merge patch example): {
"definitions": {
"Value": {
"properties": {
"valueAddedTaxIncluded": {
"type": "boolean",
"description": "A true/false field to indicate whether the value tax was included"
}
}
}
}
} |
I would suggest VAT to include also the tax rate - so that one can calculate the value without VAT. To have numbers comparable with other tenders. |
An implementation in Moldova has advised us that law requires both the with and without tax figures to be published. In this case, the proposal is to extend This would give: "value": {
"currency":"USD",
"amount":96,
"amountNet":80
} This could be combined with the Any views on the label |
This was left out of 1.1 on grounds of available time, and as it will be possible to add as a community extension at a later date. |
Noting that this comes up at every training I've co-facilitated so far (Kiev, Tbilisi). |
Hello guys! I'm confused about the value that is captured in the |
Here, Will think about terminology here and come back with updated proposals. |
From discussion at EBRD workshop today, there is a clear view that The validator could/should raise a warning when the |
@timgdavies I understand that this field, according to schema.org, is Boolean, but at least in the implementations that we are trying to do in Mexico, we need a way to capture the values with and without taxes. Can we do it with the amountNet field without the ambiguity that it suppose? |
INAI published a repository for this extension: https://github.com/INAImexico/ocds_taxes_extension |
Note: Ukraine also has a VAT extension: https://github.com/openprocurement/ocds_valueAddedTax_extension |
https://github.com/openprocurement/ocds_valueAddedTax_extension adds Value.valueAddedTaxIncluded (boolean) (same as the Schema.org property). https://github.com/INAImexico/ocds_taxes_extension adds Value.netAmount (string, integer). Going through earlier discussion:
I tried to find relevant notes (searching for "vat", "tax" and "taxes") in the event's folder, but there is no documented explanation for this view. Without having participated in that table at the workshop:
It seems preferable to have, like in the EU, only tax-free (net) amounts in the OCDS field (for the reasons discussed), and to offer other amounts with VAT included in separate fields. However, the INAImexico extension uses the OCDS field for the gross amount, and a new field for the net amount. A minimal new proposal would be to start recommending tax-free (net) amounts for the existing field, and to add I'll create a new issue regarding the definition of the existing field. |
It is strange to have the tax-free (net) amount in the OCDS field, because it does not seem to fit well with the current descriptions of the values objects. For example, the
In the case of
For me, when referring the total value of an award or contract we are talking about the gross, then the total value of something. |
I think we should discuss this as part of #817. The present definitions are vague, as the "total" can also mean "the total of all lots" or "the total of all items". In the EU, for example, there is an element named "Estimated total value", which excludes VAT. What we know for sure is that some use cases require the net amount, others require the gross amount, and others require more detail on which taxes are included and recoverable and at what rate. Before we add a field like |
Closing this issue in favor of #817, which discusses the main points of this issue. |
This issue is under consideration for an extension in version 1.1 of OCDS.
This builds on issue #112
The issue
Our current approach to amounts does not capture whether values are inclusive or exclusive of taxes such as VAT.
At the tender stage a procuring entity will know whether the goods or services being procured are subject to VAT, but not whether the supplier will charge VAT (or other taxes).
They may or may not be able to claim back the tax.
At the award or contract stage, the procuring entity will know whether the contract includes tax or not.
Taxes may change over the course of a contract, affecting the total value paid, if taxes are passed onto the buyer.
The proposal
A tax extension which will introduce the following fields to value:
It should be possible to calculate the contract value net of tax by dividing amount by taxRate.
If this extension meets clear user need, it could be considered for adoption into core in a future version.
Engagement
Please indicate support or opposition for this proposal using the +1 / -1 buttons or a comment. If opposing the proposal, please give clear justifications, and where possible, make an alternative proposals.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: