we are not able to conclude the exact XML mapping for the Related Party and Nominal Supply especially on the tags such as cbc:PriceAmount, cbc:LineExtensionAmount and cbc:PayableAmount. We are getting either warnings or errors based on our trial-and-error on the sandbox validation.
We would need more clarity on the logic of populating the amounts for the fields as the final payable is varied for Related party and Nominal Supply cases.
Nominal Supply Example: Transaction fee amount is 100 and its VAT is 15 but there is no consideration or payment from the customer.
Related Party Example: Transaction standard fee is 100, customer’s collected fee is 80 and VAT is 15 (collected based on 100). Customer is paying 80+15.
Could you please clarify the XML mapping for the above at line level and legal monetary total level?
@Roshna - for Nominal Supplies, invoice is not presented to customer, it is generated only for record purposes. In your example, invoice has to be generated just like a regular Tax Invoice with taxable amount 100 and VAT 15. Only change will be in the Invoice Transaction Code to mention it is “Nominal Supply” invoice.
For related party example - You can generate a regular invoice for taxable amount 100 and then provide a document level discount for 20 with VAT Category Code as “out of scope” supply so the VAT will be calculated on 100 but customer will pay 80 + 15. When you include a document level discount with out of scope VAT category, you have to provide another sub-total for “out of scope” category as for -20 (negative value in sub-total for out of scope category).
@Ankit_Tiwari For related party, we tested the solution you mentioned and we are getting the below Warning:
category: BR_WARNING
code **:**BR-S-08
message: In a VAT breakdown (BG-23) where the VAT category code (BT-118) is ’ Standard rated’ the VAT category taxable amount (BT-116) shall equal the sum of Invoice line net amounts (BT-131) minus the sum of Document level allowance amounts (BT-92) plus the sum of Document level charge amounts (BT-99) where the VAT category codes (BT-151, BT-95, BT-102) are ‘Standard Rate’.
Can you please confirm if this warning is fine and we can proceed with the recommended solution?
In addition, can you please share if there are any published documentation for handling such scenarios?