On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Cédric Krier <cedric.kr...@b2ck.com> wrote:
> On 02 Sep 23:10, Cédric Krier wrote: > > On 01 Sep 10:52, Sharoon Thomas wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Cédric Krier <cedric.kr...@b2ck.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I created a module to add from/to country on the matching mechanism > of > > > > tax rule. It is more a POC about how tax rule should be customized. > > > > Comments are welcomed. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Cedric, > > > > > > This would be very useful if the pattern would also consider > subdivisions. > > > This solves the tax requirement for CA and most states in the US. > > > Do you think it could be a part of this module, or should be part of a > > > different > > > module, which depends on this module and extends pattern to have > > > subdivisions ? > > > > Why not having it in this module. > > But will it not increase exponentialy the combinations? > Should not it be a list of subdivisions? In the US the tax will need to be collected only on states where the business would have a "nexus" (usually from a physical presence). Since most states have a destination based sales tax, the tax rule would have to just add the taxes for that state. So, if the default is not to have taxes and the rules add taxes (rather than substitute) then the number of combinations would be equal to the number of taxes enforced by the states where the business has a nexus in. It would be great to have it in the same module :) Thanks & Regards -- Sharoon Thomas Openlabs Technologies & Consulting (P) Limited w: http://www.openlabs.co.in m: +1 813.793.6736 (OPEN) Extn. 200 t: @sharoonthomas - We Win When our Customers Win
