|
Correct to how many decimal places?  
|
|
|
|
|
I've actually had a customer who wanted VAT on invoices calculated per product, which was completely irrelevant, instead of over the complete invoice.
The problem is, you're going to round VAT to two decimals, because no one ever pays €0.001.
So by adding up all the VATs for each product we got rounding errors (and those rounding errors added up!).
If you calculated the VAT over the entire invoice (like EVERYBODY in that business does) it wouldn't add up.
But for some reason they really wanted to have the VAT per product.
We went as far as to round to 16 decimal places, but we still ended up with rounding errors 
Ultimately, we actually went for "as correct as possible with x decimal places."
In this case "correct" was of course VAT over the entire invoice because that was the only legal kind of VAT
|
|
|
|
|
Those little bits can add up 
Here if a product is marked as 4.99 you'll pay 4.95 at the till / cashier, due to us no longer having 2c coins. AFAIK the rounding is only done on the total, but if you wanted to save a few cents you could pay for each product individually.
|
|
|
|
|
Not around here as mathematically correct rounding is applied here. 4,99 and 4,98 will result in 5,00. 4,96 and 4,97 will become 4,95. Unless you pay with your debet/credit card then it remains whatever it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Over here, in a store (for example, supermarket), VAT is included in the product price.
So 500 gr. (pre-packaged) grapes costs €2.19 incl. VAT.
If you buy two packs, you pay €4.38.
If you pay cash everything is rounded to 5 cents, so €4.38 would become €4.40, but €4.37 would be €4.35.
I can't remember the last time I paid cash at a store 
This particular company sold meat (wholesale), so a customer would order five ribs, but they would pay per kg.
The customer gets an estimated price, based on what my customer sent them, then that customer would weigh everything again, and that weight was invoiced.
Naturally, you don't know the VAT until the actual invoice.
And since the VAT isn't included in the individual prices, like in a supermarket, you really can't do anything other than calculate VAT over the entire invoice
It's how I invoice too, and pretty much every business in the Netherlands.
|
|
|
|
|
If we didn't have the 1c piece (penny) here in the US, not too many cashiers would be able to round it correctly to the nearest 5c. It goes to show that we should better fund our education system. Because it is biting us in the rear.
|
|
|
|
|
At least in the UK, it's perfectly fine to do it either way:
17.5 Calculation of VAT on invoices - rounding of amounts[^]
Calculating per line makes it easier to deal with invoices where different products attract different VAT rates.
And if you calculate and round per line, you sometimes end up paying slightly less VAT.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
So in practice you could get that new car invoice to be itemised by the atom and because HMRC allows you to round down there would be no VAT to pay
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I have a small feeling HMRC may see it slightly differently ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: itemised by the atom
That would be a long invoice.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a thing called "Summenerhaltendes Runden"
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
We tried that too, but that's really not an option with prices that can easily be checked by the customer
|
|
|
|
|
I had a similar experience years ago. Did a report showing project costs based on hours and rates, shown for each individual on the project, then totaled up to the project, then all projects for each manager, all managers for each director, then a grand total. Since the directors, managers, etc. wanted to see the "real money", everything shown to the (U.S.) cent - no "extra" places shown.
Report was pretty nice - controls so each manager or director could only see "their" projects information, could switch between various summary-levels or go all the way into the details, etc.
Everyone happy until a new director comes in from HQ Sales to take place of a retiree. He insists that rather than just using the online reports that everyone else loves, it is "required" that PRINTED versions be prepared for all 5 directors every month (remember, he came from HQ so seemingly had to throw his weight around). Each monthly set ran to three 3-inch binders. It would take two admin assistants 2 weeks to get everything printed, copied, collated, and delivered.
The other four directors would just sigh and throw the printed copies on a shelf. This guy, however, would go through everything with a fine-toothed comb, as evidenced by him coming to me one month and starting to ream me out because his totals shown in the report summary were off from what he got by adding up every single line-item of every project under him - by $0.02 (of his multi-million dollar monthly budget - this was a pharmaceutical company in the 1980s). Thankfully, the director I was actually working under, who also happened to be the "managing director" and a VP, plus the auditor heard the commotion and came over. Mr. "2-cents" was given a lesson on rounding in reports and asked to explain why he was wasting so much of his time, plus taking a person-month of admin assistant time and 4 feet worth of dead trees looking for these kinds of "problems" rather than actually directing his projects. The reports stopped being printed and copied, and the fine-toothed-comb director was seen out the door shortly afterward.
|
|
|
|
|
Navanax wrote: The reports stopped being printed and copied, and the fine-toothed-comb director was seen out the door shortly afterward.
I'm glad this story at least has a happy ending
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: If it's any less correct than "correct" it's not correct
That is the most true statement I've ever read.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Just realized you are a lefty. Keeping an eye on this one.
Thanks. 
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Search results I saw on a page recently: About 18 games found
|
|
|
|
|
Our local newspaper reported that "approximately five candidates" had failed this public exam.
(The same local newspaper also once told about this guy who had one a huge prize in an English lottery: Until this, he had been selling fish and ships at a London street.)
|
|
|
|
|
Excel does a lot of magic; read theoldnewthing if you want details that you never need.
Fun fact; Excel has better VB than the other MS products.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Read The Old New Thing in any case!
Some posts are really entertaining (especially when he tells about crazy legacy issues), and some of it is really useful! (I made an adjustment as late as last night, based on what I read in one old entry about file system tunneling.
C++ / Win32 people will find more useful stuff there, there is less of C#/dotNet. But a lot is also general, about Windows in all forms.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if by correct they mean no hacks. In some cases hacks are acceptable if undesirable. The real world (deadlines and budget) often intervenes to undercut design, leading to kludges, and also maintenance can lead to kludgy code over time. Maybe by correct they mean with as little of this as possible. If I'm reading it charitably this is how I would interpret it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that could be true.
However, that doesn't show from the context.
It's really just a form that users have to fill out and since they always enter the same thing (everything is fine, if it isn't there's another form) the filling of the form has to be automated 
Filling out the form regularly for all employees is a legal obligation and it could add up to thousands of forms per year.
It's really stupid, expensive and time consuming, but it's bureaucracy at its finest
|
|
|
|
|
Is it a case that parts of it are simple (but not correct) and other parts are correct (but not simple)
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I can think of is they're warning against overengineering this process?
In other words, it maybe could be made "more correct" to catch every single possible error, but the time involved in tracking down those corner cases and implementing a new part of the process is more costly than just having a human fix the spreadsheet when a corner case comes up.
Still seems weird; a fix is done once, so its cost is fixed. Manual fixes have an ongoing cost over time.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
