-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
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
Update Value.amount description to suggest/recommend tax-free amounts #817
Comments
In CRM-5172, we discussed the possibility of a publisher/aggregator having a tax-inclusive amount and not being able to determine the tax-free amount. The options would be:
The first option is preferred, because inconsistent semantics (second option) seems very bad. And it is easier for a tool/analysis to error/warn if an expected field is missing, than for it to somehow know that another field is changing the semantics of |
We should determine whether any publishers are in a scenario where they either (1) don't know which amounts are tax-free or (2) can't calculate the tax-free amount. If so, we can clarify that |
Our scenario as a publisher is mentioned in #817 (comment). We have a dataset that is compiled from many different sources, all of them relating to contracts published by different agencies in the Mexican government. We know that some of the datasets have taxes included in the amount and some don't, but the exact percentage of tax has been impossible to determine. On all of our datasets the exact percentage of tax varies from contract to contract, whether the amount provided includes tax or not. We have filed many requests for information to determine exact tax percentages by contract, but the responses have not helped us solve this, since they only include the possible values for tax percentage but not which contracts are associated with each tax value. So the best we can do is to express whether or not the amount includes taxes or not. We agree with the last comment. The best solution would be to have all 3 fields present in the compiled dataset. This way all contracts provide at least one amount (in the amount field) and in the cases where we do know whether or not tax is included we can fill in either amountGross or amountNet. |
Thank you, @fmatzdorf, for sharing evidence supporting that option! |
I quite like the approach above, but I have two doubts:
|
Yes, For the rest, I think we need a separate issue, as it's about changing the structure of the |
Does this issue (expanding the description of |
#1143 is abandoned. This issue can proceed. |
Checking if this issue can move to PR and if so clarifying that what's required is 2 new fields |
Yes, there seems to be consensus around #817 (comment) |
Following discussion from #383 (comment) and following comments.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: