Hi Mathias, Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:59:53 +0200 Mathias Behrle <mbeh...@m9s.biz>: >* Cédric Krier: " Re: [tryton-dev] RFC: >account_tax_rule_country" (Thu, 4 Sep > 2014 11:49:13 +0200): >> On 04 Sep 11:43, Mathias Behrle wrote: >> > * Cédric Krier: " Re: [tryton-dev] RFC: >> > account_tax_rule_country" (Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:36:58 +0200): >> > > On 04 Sep 09:02, Udo Spallek wrote: >> > > > Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:49:59 +0200 >> > > > Cédric Krier <cedric.kr...@b2ck.com>: >> > > > >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. >> > > > >https://bugs.tryton.org/issue4139 >> > > > it would be good to have additionally a coarse grained >> > > > structuring, for supra-regional groups like, trade agreement >> > > > zones or free trade agreements ... >> > > > These groups are collections of countries or other groups. >> > > > Every membering country has an entry date and could have an >> > > > exit date to the group. >> > > > E.g. countries in the European Union use special tax rules for >> > > > business with other membering countries. >> > > > Instead of defining and maintaining with every single country >> > > > a single tax rule, it would be good to define one tax rule for >> > > > one group. >> > > The main difficulty is that often your local country is handled >> > > differently than others one of the same zone. >> > So the own country shouldn't be added to such a group. >> But such design will make them not shareable. >Indeed. But having the possibility to use them is already better than >nothing at all. >Random thoughts: >- We could share the records for such a group, but disable the own >country on > configuration (e.g. when creating the account chart). Looks hackish, > groups could be used for different purposes. Yes, you are right, I would prefer to re-use these groups for other purposes, too.
>- If we had an excludes field on the tax rule, we could define: >members of the > group, but not the excluded ones. Still hackish, but a little less. It's a better idea. >Other ideas? Maybe just with some documentation: Tax rule lines are evaluated in a sequence. A rule line with a single country will match at least for the exact country. A rule line with a zone, will match at least for every country defined in this zone. A rule line for zones can be *overwritten* by rule lines for single countries, even if the country is member of the zone. Include explicit separate rule lines for every country. Rule lines with zones (collection of countries) needs to have a higher sequence number (evaluated later) than the rule lines with single countries. This will change the actual behavior of tax rules. For now we will have a nice fallback to default product taxes for usually inland parties, when no rule matches. But on the other Hand it does IMHO not bring too much complexity to explicit define rules for inland taxes. Best regards Udo -- _____________________________ virtual things Preisler & Spallek GbR München - Aachen Windeckstr. 77 81375 München Tel: +49 (89) 710 481 55 Fax: +49 (89) 710 481 56 i...@virtual-things.biz http://www.virtual-things.biz
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
