On 09.11.2015 17:14, Cédric Krier wrote: > On 2015-11-09 16:55, 'Korbinian Preisler' via tryton wrote: >> On 09.11.2015 16:28, Cédric Krier wrote: >>> On 2015-11-09 16:00, 'Korbinian Preisler' via tryton wrote: >>>> On 21.10.2015 15:08, Cédric Krier wrote: >>>>> As already stated having invoice/credit note distinction prevents to put >>>>> in the same document both kind of lines. And in case of such mixed >>>>> document it is name is not so trivial to determine. But we can keep the >>>>> numbering distinction using the total sign. >>>>> About the cancelation sub-type, I don't think we have to create a new >>>>> document (record in invoice table) for that. The current design is to >>>>> create a cancelation move linked to the invoice. If a specific number is >>>>> needed for customer cancelation, I guess the module (I talk above) could >>>>> add an other field to hold the number and the invoice report could be >>>>> customized to use this number. >>>> After some thoughts i agree that we do not need the cancelation sub-type >>>> but my explanation is a little bit different to Cedrics one. >>>> I think we already have the cancelation sub-type. I think that we just >>>> use the currency credit note sub-type in a wrong way because it should >>>> be the cancelation instead of the tax-law credit-note. >>>> >>>> If we do like this many things will be possible or some others should be >>>> done: >>>> * Mixed documents will be possible >>>> * The credit note like it is defined by tax law can be implemented with >>>> a boolean field that marks the "self-billing" and that will switch the >>>> layout of the report. As i noted in my last post there is no other >>>> difference compared to a normal invoice. >>> I don't see the need of such field because cancellation is already >>> implemented. >> Self-billing is not a cancelation. > Oops, yes I re-read your previous post. Indeed I see no need for such > boolean. You can consider all negative invoice as "self-billing". A self-billing is not a credit note you talk about. What you call a credit note is a correction of a wrongly written invoice.
But self-billing is something different. self-billing is not done to make a correction it is just a change in the process of writing an official invoice. Instead of the supplier writing the invoice for his delivery the customer writes this invoice for himself on his own letter paper. 1. Normal case: * Supplier delivers product * Supplier writes invoice for this delivery 2. Self-billing case: * Supplier delivers product * Customer writes invoice for this delivery on his own letter paper in the name of the supplier. This is a completely different thing than the credit note you talk about. I think it is good to repost the part from the legal eu document: Article 224 (taken from [1]) Invoices may be drawn up by the customer in respect of the supply to him, by a taxable person, of goods or services, where there is a prior agreement between the two parties and provided that a procedure exists for the acceptance of each invoice by the taxable person supplying the goods or services. Member State may require that such invoices be issued in the name and on behalf of the taxable person. And this article produces the current confusion: Article 226 (taken from [1]) Without prejudice to the particular provisions laid down in this Directive, only the following details are required for VAT purposes on invoices issued pursuant to Articles 220 and 221: ... (10a) where the customer receiving a supply issues the invoice instead of the supplier, the mention “Self-billing”;’; (taken from [2] which is an extension of [1]) Because in german "Self-billing" is translated into "Gutschrift" that is often retranslated to "Credit Note" what is wrong in our case as you are talking about the credit note in commercial common sense. To complete the confusion the credit note in commercial common sense is called "Storno" which is often translated in to "cancelation" which also does not match your understanding of a cancelation. I just want to show the difficulty what we have here with language interpretation. >>>> * The Wizard 'Credit Invoice' should be renamed to 'Cancel Invoice' and >>>> should multiply the quantities of the invoice lines with -1 >>>> * A constraint should be implemented that the total mount of an invoice >>>> must be positive and the total amount of an cancelation must be negative >>> I don't see the point of having a constraint. It is not needed to work >>> correctly if the "type" is deducted from the sign of the amount. >>> >> Which "type" are you talking about? > You are talking about constraint on specific type of invoice so this > will require to put a type on the invoice. But I think it is not > necessary because the sign of the amount define the type. > Yes you are right. If you define the type by the sign of the amount a credit note (i call it a cancelation) will always have a negative total amount and an invoice will always have a positive amount. I will try to sum up again the things that need to be done: * The invoice/credit note type will be removed * The self-billing like it is defined by tax law can be implemented with a boolean field that marks the "self-billing" and that will switch the layout of the report. As i noted in my last post there is no other difference compared to a normal invoice. * The Wizard 'Credit Invoice' should should multiply the quantities of the invoice lines with -1 to produce the negative total amount * A credit note (which is defined by a record with a negative total amount) must produce move lines with negative amounts For me the current cancelation functionality can be removed as it will now implemented by a credit note (which is defined by a record with a negative total amount). But i could live with it if it will be limited to the supplier side like it is now. [1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006L0112 <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006L0112>
