Open ri4a opened 7 months ago
Hi, I wonder what the added value of this rule is even for NL-> NL. It includes 30 but not 31, more and more transactions with webshops are now done with creditcard (54), for example when buying software and other subscriptions services. This one is also not included. I would suggest removing the rule NL-R-008.
FYI, the rule is in here in order to reduce the differences between NLCIUS and Peppol BIS, by matching rule BR-NL-12 from NLCIUS. Why it's limited there I do not know, but regarding your specific example, NLCIUS itself suggests 48 is also applicable for creditcards. Personally I feel that in many cases it's not really up to the supplier to specify how the customer is to pay the invoice anyway, as long as the necessary information is there to perform it (like, say, a bank account number).
But this was discussed in the WG last week, and the plan is to take a two-step approach; first limit it to NL->NL, then discuss full removal.
Update: the change appears to be (tentatively) accepted by openpeppol, but the deadline for the May release had apparently passed already, so they intend to include it in the November release now.
Hi,
For Peppol BIS V3 the rule [NL-R-008]
triggers not only for invoices inside NL, but also for for invoices sent by an NL AccountingSupplierParty, but received by a non-NL AccountingCustomerParty.
Does it make sense for this rule to fire for cross-border invoices? The rule makes sense for NLCIUS (NL->NL) but not for Peppol BIS V3 IMO.
Ticket
PEPPOL-8790
is also open with the OpenPeppol service desk for this.Michael