On 10/30/07, Mike Heins <suppressed> wrote: > Quoting Dan Bergan (suppressed): > > On 10/30/07, Dan Bergan <suppressed> wrote: > > > On 10/30/07, Mike Heins <suppressed> wrote: > > > > Quoting Dan Bergan (suppressed): > > > > > On 10/16/07, Dan Bergan <suppressed> wrote: > > > > > > I'm having an issue where negative sales tax amounts are computed. > > > > > > The issue arises when there is a discount on the entire order, and the > > > > > > products in the cart are nontaxable. > > > > > > > > > > > > A detailed description and potential solution is here: > > > > > > http://www.icdevgroup.org/pipermail/interchange-users/2007-May/047410.html > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was also found here (with no resolutions): > > > > > > http://www.icdevgroup.org/pipermail/interchange-users/2005-September/043923.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this a bug? It doesn't seem like a negative sales tax should be valid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Back in May, Carl had what looks to be a good solution for this > > > > > problem, which I am going to implement for my installation (see > > > > > below). > > > > > > > > It is unclear if it should be a bug at all. If you wanted to implement > > > > refunds, you would need negative tax. > > > > > > > > The bigger problem would seem to be the negative amounts. > > > > > > > > In any case, I have set up the ability to exclude negative tax > > > > amounts with: > > > > > > > > Pragma no_negative_tax > > > > > > > > That is in the latest CVS. > > > > > > > > > > Mike - > > > > > > Ahh... refunds -- I hadn't thought of that! :-) > > > > > > For refunds, the taxable sales amount would be negative, so the tax > > > would calculate as a negative. In the case above (non-taxable > > > products with a discount), the taxable amount should still be zero > > > (not negative). > > > > > > I currently don't use Interchange for refunds, but that doesn't mean I > > > never will! So, I think I'll have to ponder this some more and dig > > > deeper into the code. > > > > > > > I think this might be more of a question about sales tax law. Should > > a ENTIRE_ORDER discount reduce the taxable amount? > > Without doubt. > > > > > The only mention I have found when searching sales tax documents are > > coupons for individual items, and percent off of all items. In the > > case of ENTIRE_ORDER the actual sale prices of the individual items do > > not change, so my client reports that number to their state as the > > taxable amount. My client treats this type of discount like a gift > > certificate -- it is applied after the tax is calculated. > > That is simply wrong. The user is over-paying taxes. in Ohio, that may not be the case: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:sJHJL5Jp2KEJ:tax.ohio.gov/divisions/legal/documents/02ST_Opinion020004_TMZ.pdfl&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us (google cache of a tax commissioner judgment pdf...) > > > Of course, this is just my client, in one state and in the US. > > > > Would it work to have a catalog variable to determine if an > > ENTIRE_ORDER discount should be applied pre-tax or post-tax? > > It won't ever be applied post-tax on my watch. > > If the order total is reduced, the tax is reduced. A gift-certificate > is pre-purchased, and is paid for. > I haven't yet determined how Iowa (my client's state) applies their law. But, Connecticut's formula makes a lot of sense: http://www.ct.gov/drs/cwp/view.asp?A=1529&Q=395904 The ENTIRE_ORDER discount is split proportionally among each item, then each item's taxablility is determined to figure the total sales tax. This would fix the problem of a negative tax being calculated for nontaxable items. The consumer is neither overpaying nor underpaying taxes. Dan _______________________________________________ interchange-users mailing list suppressed http://www.icdevgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/interchange-users
Mail converted by mhonarc 2.6.15
This archive provided courtesy of JSW4.NET, Internet Hosting Services for Small Business.