• (cs) in reply to FreeMarketFan
    FreeMarketFan:
    Willondon:
    Methinks Reggie was playing "Oh, I know. I just want to see if you know."

    This falls under the "If you have to ask, you'll never know" response given by most 12 year olds.

    "If you have to undermine civil behaviour, you don't deserve civil behaviour." - Jesus, 1978. BC.

  • (cs) in reply to Krunt
    Krunt:
    Of course, the real point of any tax system is to be so complicated as to be impossible for anyone to truly know everything about it. That way, the tax-payers are less likely to attempt to do battle with the Inland Revenue, claim everything on their tax return, or deny accusations that they owe tax.

    I don't think it serves the government one bit of good to make the rules more complex. The taxpayers have less battle to do if the rules are 100% clear, and have less loop-holes to dig in. It's the taxpayers that make it so complex, as most taxpayers feel the exemptions they can take are fair and the ones that others can take are the problems.

  • Mike (unregistered)

    There are two ways that this situation could be handled.

    1. Launch a grievance against Reggie and haul his ass through HR hell.
    2. Launch your fist into the centre of Reggie's face.

    Both are equally valid and correct solutions to this problem. (Though for option 2 you may prefer a more metaphirical approach, or at least with nobody else around to witness)

  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered) in reply to Shoreline
    Shoreline:
    Reggie creates a self-destructive working environment, costs his company millions of dollars and gets fired.
    Except he didn't: "and Reggie’s position was too lofty for any consequences."
  • Jim the Tool (unregistered)

    Yo'' the wtf. Reggie wasn't fired...

    Captcha abico. Later Tim had fantasies about abicoing Reggie.

  • Chris Q (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic

    I worked on an order processing system in the UK and asked the Customs and Revenue Service if we should round up or round down on VAT calculations. Their answer? "We don't care as long as you are consistant"

  • Chris Q (unregistered)

    I had to deal with very complex VAT calculations - the company I worked for sold gift vouchers on behalf of a lot of major retailers.

    Because the VAT varies depending on what you buy, the Inland Revenue calculated VAT rates based on th espectrum of sales from the retailer. For example, if you bought a £20 Marks & Spencers voucher, you could spend it on food (zero rated) , Children's clothes (zero rated) or adult cothers (20% rated). The revenue looked at M&S's sales and calculated a pro-rata VAT rate of 13.5% iirc.

    For other retailers such as Comet, their vouchers would attract the full 20%.

  • jrgrizz (unregistered)

    So using the German McDonalds example, if I order my meal to go and then decide after receiving said meal that I'd rather eat it in the dining area am I breaking the law? If so, I think I just gained a little understanding of the anarchist's mind set.

  • (cs) in reply to Chris Q
    Chris Q:
    I had to deal with very complex VAT calculations - the company I worked for sold gift vouchers on behalf of a lot of major retailers.

    Because the VAT varies depending on what you buy, the Inland Revenue calculated VAT rates based on th espectrum of sales from the retailer. For example, if you bought a £20 Marks & Spencers voucher, you could spend it on food (zero rated) , Children's clothes (zero rated) or adult cothers (20% rated). The revenue looked at M&S's sales and calculated a pro-rata VAT rate of 13.5% iirc.

    For other retailers such as Comet, their vouchers would attract the full 20%.

    Unless the law has changed, food is unrated, not zero rated.

  • (cs) in reply to Mike
    Mike:
    2) Launch your fist into the centre of Reggie's face.
    Actually, you aim for the back of his head, *via* the centre of his face. Or you use something with more authority than a fist. I'm sure I don't need to say again that this "something" should be the GAU-8 you keep in your back pocket in case of workplace emergencies.

    Oops. Oh well, said it anyway...

  • Paradis (unregistered) in reply to MrOli

    Back in the bad old days when I had a GST number (GST is the Canadian equivalent of VAT), they used to send me a wonderful publication called "GST News". As you can imagine it was not a thrilling read, but one of the items stuck with me. It was an article on the GST to be charged on lobster, and there were about 8 different possible rates depending on whether it was bought on a native reserve, was cooked or raw, whether it was consumed on or off the premises,and whether it was being transported out of the province.

  • faoileag (unregistered) in reply to jrgrizz
    jrgrizz:
    So using the German McDonalds example, if I order my meal to go and then decide after receiving said meal that I'd rather eat it in the dining area am I breaking the law?
    Well, you are changing your tax status from "take-away-eater" to "in-restaurant-eater" and you will probably have to notify McDonalds about your changed tax status. If your visible presence in the dining area suffices your reporting duty or if you need an affidavit I cannot say.

    Anyway yours would be a minor offence and probably not incur any jail time.

    McDonalds on the other hand retrospectively would have to mark your meal as applicable for the higher VAT once they get knowledge of your changed tax status; if they fail to do so, they might actually be defrauding the IRS.

    However it might be difficult to prove that for your specific meal the wrong VAT rate has been applied - any IRS agent would need the receipt issued by McDonalds to you and that receipt would need to be linkable to the records used to calculate the compound amount of VAT payable to the IRS.

    An interesting case, but since "in dubio pro reo" I don't think it will stand up in court.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to capio
    capio:
    MrOli:
    There is only one way to calculate VAT - you find out the item's VAT rate and multiply by it... (currently) 1.2, 1.05 or 1 for 20%, 5% or 0%, respectively.

    There are two ways to calculate VAT:

    1. from the total of the bill
    2. for each article billed

    Because of the necessary roundings to full cents you will have differences between both.

    Retail items are marked with the full price with VAT already added. If something is priced at €2,50 and the VAT is 20%, then the store receives €2,08 and the VAT is €0,42. There is only one correct way to add those numbers, and it isn't to add up the base price of every item and recalculate the VAT based on the total.
  • wonkothesane (unregistered) in reply to capio

    "There are two ways to calculate VAT:

    1. from the total of the bill
    2. for each article billed "

    Except 2 is wrong... Because different items can have different rates, if I go to amazon and buy clothes for myself and my kids... two rates of VAT - kids clothes dont have VAT applied.

    So the only one of your two examples that works is option 1.

  • hartmut (unregistered) in reply to Krunt
    Krunt:
    Not to mention of course - think how many non-producing grey-suits it keeps employed? If we simplified the tax system, thousands of oh-so-important tax-monkey civil servants would no longer be required.

    Add to this that a large fraction of the parliaments (at least here in Germany) consists of Lawyers and Tax Accountants ...

  • wonkothesane (unregistered)

    I worked at a company about 8 years ago where the VAT rate was hardcoded into the apps VAT = Basket.Items.Sum(a=>a.LinePrice) * 0.175;

    because, you know, VAT is VAT.. itt doesnt change (This was true for the products that our MANY client web sites sold, but not true when the VAT rate changed to 15% then to 20% in the space of 6 months....

    Fun times!

  • 1234 (unregistered)

    Yet another story where TRWTF is that the protagonist just did something without checking with his management.

    I've dealt with many users like Reggie, when something like that happens, you run it up your own management ladder. There has to be someone who can say, "Hey, we need specs or this project is not going to happen"

    You don't just wing it. WTF?

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to C10B
    C10B:
    Complicated VAT - try this one...

    I sell you a basket of goods. Some good are 0% VAT, some are 10% and others are at 15%. The basket of goods, including VAT now comes to £50. So far so good? But it's discount day! And I can knock £10 off your total and you pay just £40. Question... How do you calculate how much of that £40 was VAT?

    This is real question - I know so because I know Reggie ;-)

    What's complicated about that? Is there anything that says you can't reduce the price an item (say, €0) when it is purchased along with regularly-priced items which have a lower VAT than the reduced-price item?

  • C-Derb (unregistered)

    If Tim had been treated with respect and professionalism, and then decided to implement VAT calculations based on his "gut" specification without seeking further input from other stakeholders or SMEs, then he would be TRWTF.

    However, I believe his actions were a result of spite for the douchy behavior exhibited by Reggie. Well played.

  • Koltoroc (unregistered)

    The real WTF is assuming that a financial calculation that makes sense is right.

  • Jim (unregistered) in reply to Chris Q
    Chris Q:
    I worked on an order processing system in the UK and asked the Customs and Revenue Service if we should round up or round down on VAT calculations. Their answer? "We don't care as long as you are consistant"

    In the UK VAT is currently administered by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and was previously administered by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. So it's not really surprising that the Customs and Revenue Service (whoever they are) don't care ;-P

  • Datetimes in filenames are fine. (unregistered) in reply to Jim
    Jim:
    Customs and Revenue Service (whoever they are)

    My guess is that if they exist, they are humourless bastards.

  • (cs) in reply to Your Name
    Your Name:
    "If there are "2 ways", one of them is wrong." Obviously, that's true...

    Response #1: No, at least one is wrong.

    Response #2: No, they could both produce an acceptable answer, in which case they're both right.

    Resonse #3: File Not Found (you had to be expecting that)

  • Erwin Schrödinger (unregistered) in reply to Andrew
    Andrew:
    MrOli:
    So not sure why the article is talking about 2 ways. If there are "2 ways", one of them is wrong.
    It's completely possible that both ways are wrong.
    Both ways are both right and wrong. Just don't open that box and you're fine.
  • nmclean (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    Tim should have been more diligent in his research rather than relying on a gut feeling.

    He didn't. There is a difference between relying on gut feeling and being ignorant. I think your personal knowledge of the complexities of VAT is making it difficult to see Tim's perspective and fairly judge his actions based on them. Forget that it's about VAT:

    • X must be implemented.
    • According to Tim's research, there are two forms of X implementations which give different results.

    From Tim's perspective, the only remaining question was which set of results the business wants.

    If Reggie had indicated, as you have, that there are several more factors to consider around X, then yes, deeper questioning is warranted before going ahead with a solution. But Reggie did the exact opposite of that: he claimed it was an "obvious" question and X has never needed clarification. So why should we expect Tim to then go and look for additional options? If anything, Reggie only cemented Tim's flawed perception that there were only two basic options to choose from.

    So Tim did the right thing: He chose one of the options and checked for acceptance, with the intention of switching to the other if it wasn't accepted. At that point his responsibility was fulfilled. By refusing to give feedback to that, Reggie is entirely responsible for the failure.

  • Chelloveck (unregistered) in reply to skotl
    skotl:
    Firstly, there are three effective VAT rates right now; 0%, 5% and 20%. Once you realise that then it is obvious that VAT needs to be applied to each line item, rounded, then totalled.

    How is that obvious? Seems to me that the proper thing to do would be to subtotal the items in each rate category separately and apply the appropriate VAT to each subtotal.

    Of course the real right answer is "do it however the law tells you to." And I don't trust any politician to write a law in a way that's "obvious" to anyone else. I'd be thrilled to just find that the law wasn't self-contradictory.

  • (cs) in reply to ratchet freak
    ratchet freak:
    Uhh:
    To be honest, it is a bit naive to expect that the head of finance dept will manually test VAT calculations - if Tim had instead asked Reggie to point towards some underling who'd clarify the VAT issue & test it, then it might have been a success.

    but it is outright arrogant of Reggie to not even forward Tim to an underling.

    methinks Reggie didn't know himself which VAT to use

    That was exactly my thought, also.

  • (cs) in reply to 1234
    1234:
    Yet another story where TRWTF is that the protagonist just did something without checking with his management.

    I've dealt with many users like Reggie, when something like that happens, you run it up your own management ladder. There has to be someone who can say, "Hey, we need specs or this project is not going to happen"

    You don't just wing it. WTF?

    It sounds like he tried to check and was rebuffed.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to 1234
    1234:
    Yet another story where TRWTF is that the protagonist just did something without checking with his management.

    I've dealt with many users like Reggie, when something like that happens, you run it up your own management ladder. There has to be someone who can say, "Hey, we need specs or this project is not going to happen"

    You don't just wing it. WTF?

    To be fair to Tim, once the criminally immoderate language suggesting his imminent dismissal has poisoned the air, it is unreasonable to expect Tim to make the correct decision under any circumstances. There is often a point reached in the life of a person where they feel that whatever professional decision they make, someone is going to tell you it's wrong. If you're continually being overruled by a male who's more alpha than you are, you tend to lose your real effectiveness.

    Reggie's behaviour is completely and utterly inexcusable and he deserves criminal charges to be made against him. Won't happen of course because he's the big chest-beating alpha baboon.

  • WC (unregistered)

    I still don't see the right answer:

    Tell your boss that you are unable to continue the project because you don't have enough information.

    No competent manager is going to let a programmer make tax decisions. They're far too important to be made by anyone that doesn't have financial education.

  • MWF (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    Krunt:
    The odd situation you describe in the US is due to them having different tax rates in different states, and I believe you can reclaim some taxes that you've paid while purchasing good outside of your home state.
    The same applies in the EU. Each country is (partially) free to set its own VAT rate, so they do not all have the same rate. VAT has to be charged at the rate applicable in the customer's country, a state of affairs that generally affects only international mail order or e-commerce businesses. If the customer is e.g. a tourist from a country outside the EU buying souvenirs for immediate export to that non-EU country, the vendor will either not charge the VAT or more often provide a suitable receipt so that the tourist can reclaim the VAT when he leaves the EU.

    It's not just different between states in the US, though. Sales tax can vary by locality - i.e., different cities can have different rates. (Also, some US states don't have sales tax at all.)

    This would create a problem for local circular advertisements and the like. Since they normally cover multiple locations within some geographical area, the prices would either have to not be given at all (which defeats the entire purpose) or the actual item prices would have to vary among all of the stores, such that the final price - including the variable sales tax - would be the same. Neither situation is particularly desirable for any of the businesses involved; nor would issuing advertisements per-store, as this would be a greatly increased cost over issuing a single regional one.

    Also note that in some US states, the previously aforementioned example of take-out food in Germany also applies; here, the price you see on the menu is the take-out price (since it doesn't include tax), while tax is added to that price for dine-in.

  • Shill (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    Especially on VAT. (VAT isn't a thing I've ever heard of US states having. It isn't the same as sales tax - the only thing they have in common is that they are taxes charged the purchase of goods or services by consumers. Oh, and that both of them are forms of double taxation, in that you are taxed when you spend money that you have already paid taxes on.)

    Double taxation, if only. When I receive dividends from my stocks, the dividends are paid from the corporation's profits, which the company paid income taxes on. I then must pay income taxes on the dividends. Double taxation! Then, when I need to buy a new bottle of polish for Raul to use on my yacht (he always uses too much, doesn't he realize yacht polish doesn't grow on trees?) I pay sales tax (or VAT if I am at my villa in the south of France). Triple taxation! (I just realized that yacht polish does grow on trees because they make it out of virgin growth rain forest timber, but I digress.) That goes into the profits for the yacht polish company and is taxed (quadruple), and then issued back to me as dividends (because once I saw how Raul used the yacht polish I had to buy stock) and taxed again (quintuple)! Finally I use the dividends on an ivory back scratcher for a good friend of mine (who desperately needed one after being defrauded by an ungrateful employee) and pay VAT on that (when buying ivory back scratchers, everyone knows you have to go to Bulgaria) resulting in sextuple taxation!

    Just in case this little farce is too opaque for you, money does not become tax-free once it is taxed once. In fact, money itself is never taxed, transactions are taxed. However many transactions it takes for a dollar or euro to get to you (from whichever point you wish to deem as the origin) there will be as many taxes applied.

  • Anachronda (unregistered) in reply to Pastebreath
    Pastebreath:
    If Tim was too insignificant and Reggie too important, how come there was nobody inbetween that could take responsibility for this?

    Because the company went through a bout of "rightsizing" a few management teams ago.

  • Developer Dude (unregistered) in reply to ratchet freak
    ratchet freak:
    methinks Reggie didn't know himself which VAT to use

    Exactly, methinks Reggie doth protest too much - i.e., it is fairly obvious that Reggie didn't know the answer and covered up his own incompetence by saying Tim was incompetent instead of referring Tim to someone who would know the answer.

    Personally, when I can't get the answer to something this important from one person, I don't just guess, I try to get the answer from another person. If I couldn't get someone to give me the answer, then I would go work on something else until someone could.

    Moreover, at this point of my career, if someone treated me like Reggie did Tim, I would tell them where they could stuff their sentiments and then I would tell my real boss (not the "customer") this person said to me.

  • johann (unregistered) in reply to moz
    moz:
    chernobyl:
    The specifications should say which calculation should be used.
    Failing that, and assuming that there was no easy way for Tim could get advice from a company lawyer, Tim should try to find out what their existing sales channels use so he had a slightly better explanation for his choice than the one in the article.

    In other words, Tim should repeat the same error made by the last person who asked (or didn't ask) Reggae about VAT.

    Regulatory decisions should be made by competent regulatory officials, not by programmers. Programming decisions should be made by competent programmers.

    Reggae obviously was not a team player, and was more interested in playing mind games than in doing his f'ing job.

  • Your Manager (unregistered)

    How very British this is

  • Lazy Ubersoldat (unregistered) in reply to hartmut
    hartmut:
    Also in Germany: a non-profit/charity sells stuff like T-Shirts

    If the stuff is related to the purpose of the organization reduced VAT applies, if it is just promotional full rate may apply.

    Get this wrong and you may loose your non-profit tax status even when using the full VAT rate where the reduced could have applied.

    Yes, you can be punished for having payed the tax authorities too much in that case ...

    Uh! Uh! I have one more from VAT crazy Germany.

    In hotels, VAT is different for breakfast and for the room itself. It's also different for room service.

  • (cs)

    This is when Tim's manager, Mike, gets involved. Tim: Mike, I am not sure what to do with this part of the spec. Do you know what the VAT calculations are? Mike: Hmm, let me look into it and I will get back to you. Keep working on the other stuff in the meantime. [ Mike looks things up on his computer, but without success. ] Mike: [ Picks up his phone and calls the Finance Department ] Good afternoon. This is Mike Robbins in Software Development. I would like to take with Reggie. ... Well, if he is in a meeting, could I talk with somebody else who knows the VAT calculations? ... Thank you. ... Good afternoon Tanya. I am Mike Robbins, the manager for Software Development. We have a software specification that says that we need to apply VAT, but it does not give us the calculation to do so. Could you help me out? ... I believe that the spec was written by Reggie. ... Yes, I would normally talk with Reggie about it, but he appears to be in a meeting. ... I see. Could you transfer me to Reggie's voice mail? Thank you. ... Reggie, this is Mike Robbins, manager for Software Development. One of the points of the specification is vague and we need some clarification, specifically, the calculations for the VAT. How is it supposed to be calculated? To what products does it apply? Any other pertinent details? The more details, generally the better. I hope to hear from you shortly.

    To: Reggie (Finance) From: Mike Robbins Subject: Item 9 on software spec.

    Yesterday, I left you a voice-mail about the specification you gave. We need the applicable VAT calculations in order to incorporate them into the program. Generally the more details, the better. Without these calculations, we will be unable to proceed with this section of the software.

    To: Mike Robbins From: Reggie (Finance GOD) Subject: Clear incompetence!

    What is with you people?! The VAT calculations are clearly laid out in IRS-1994-06416 Section 33A - 34D as well as CADF-2007-0233 Paragraphs 21-27. Just refer to those government documents to get all the information you need. I thought we had programmers here who knew how to do their jobs. Clearly, you have been promoted to your greatest level of incompetence. Now get your act together and get the job done or start looking for a new employer who can tolerate your level of ineptitude.

    Development Ticket: 142582 Project: 96 Topic: Item 9 clarification. By: Mike Robbins Note: Customer did not give clear direction (see attached email and seemingly contradictory legal documents). I asked Tim to tell me his approach. It sounded reasonable to me, so I told him to go ahead.

    Same end-result, but with a longer documentation trail.

  • (cs)

    I don't understand why Reggie didn't find a shiv unexpectedly poking him in the back of the neck gently but firmly, before hearing the whispered words:

    "Don't turn around. Simply pay attention. We are the people who keep your world revolving. We have the skills to bring you crashing down. Fuck with us and we gain the motivation to ruin you... Or we shiv you in the back of the neck while you think you're safe in your office."

    There's no way HR wood ever believe that happened.

  • Stephen (unregistered)
    Of the two options for calculating VAT, his gut said one of them made more sense, so he went and implemented that.
    Well, there's the real mistake. Tax codes never make sense. That should have been a clue that the implementation was wrong.
  • (cs) in reply to Chelloveck
    Chelloveck:
    skotl:
    Firstly, there are three effective VAT rates right now; 0%, 5% and 20%. Once you realise that then it is obvious that VAT needs to be applied to each line item, rounded, then totalled.

    How is that obvious? Seems to me that the proper thing to do would be to subtotal the items in each rate category separately and apply the appropriate VAT to each subtotal.

    Of course the real right answer is "do it however the law tells you to." And I don't trust any politician to write a law in a way that's "obvious" to anyone else. I'd be thrilled to just find that the law wasn't self-contradictory.

    And the law, according to the link I posted, states that you apply VAT to each line item and tally them up. What it doesn't say, but is implicit, is that the rounding errors will get progressively worse. Your solution, of course, is the sensible one. That's why it's also the wrong one.

  • (cs)

    All of this just confirms the saying:

    Nothing in this world is definite except Death and Taxes.

    Of course this says nothing about how the taxes are calculated, which is what this is all about.

    For simplification one can use the following:

    Tax calculations:

    How much did you make: ___________

    Now send it all in! You're welcome. (Government tax department).

  • (cs) in reply to Geoff
    Geoff:
    Steve The Cynic:
    Tim has to bear *some* responsibility for this, unfortunately.

    Sure, the finance guy should have given more guidance, but since that guidance wasn't given, Tim should have been more diligent in his research rather than relying on a gut feeling.

    No Tim is a developer with his own competencies, responsibilities and deadlines. Its most certainly NOT his job to understand legal requirements about what VAT calculation to use when only to be able to correctly implement the business rules he has been told to. Someone from legal or finance needs to understand what VAT calculations rules need to be applied. Tim needs to then understand those identified rules well enough to correctly implement them in software.

    As a developer Tim should not be effectively authoring the spec.

    This is problem with the spec and the stake holder is being unhelpful. What Tim needs to do is take his E-mail directly to his manager or director; and explain the situation. Its that persons job to then march back over to Finance and explain to them they can either find someone to help or consider their project on indefinite hold.

    YES!!! Tim's responsibility is to produce software that works as specified. He cannot determine whether the software works as specified if there is no specification. He should require the business unit to provide concrete rules to implement; and concrete examples (test cases) that can be used to validate the implementation.

    Failure to do so, and to "make up" whatever he wants, will expose the company to legal action (including fines, and maybe even jail time for executives for fraud).

    There must be someone in the company Tim can go to. If no one else, the buck stops at the CEO. The CEO should be told in no uncertain terms what is being done, and why, and then asked how to proceed. I'll bet it would be about 10 seconds before everyone is called into the CEO's office to explain what's going on.

  • (cs) in reply to Krunt
    Krunt:
    skotl:
    One other point re VAT inclusive or exclusive pricelists; in the UK, consumer pricelists *must* show the VAT-inclusive price (unlike the odd situation in the US where you need to calculate your own sales tax). Commercial price lists can show either/or as long as they may it clear which prices they are showing.

    The odd situation you describe in the US is due to them having different tax rates in different states,

    Not only states, but counties, cities, school districts, library districts, flood control districts, etc. can stick their 0.1%, or whatever, in the sales tax pie. However, the real reason price lists show the pre-tax price is that more people will buy a widget priced at $9.99 than one priced at $10.94.
    Krunt:
    and I believe you can reclaim some taxes that you've paid while purchasing good outside of your home state.
    If this is true, it is very much not publicized by any taxing authority. What is somewhat well known, but very rarely enforced, is that if you buy something in another state, you owe sales tax on it in your home state. If you buy something online or mail-order from an out-of-state seller, you are required to report the purchase to your own state's tax agency (at least in the states I've lived in). Of course, nobody actually does this, and it is beyond the ability of the tax agencies to enforce, except in the case of visible big-ticket items like cars and motor homes.

  • Brondahl (unregistered)

    Forgive me if I'm being naive, but how exactly do you get multtiple ways to calculate VAT?

    If the value of the VAT is different(10% vs. 15%, or whatever) that's not a difference in the calculation, it's just someone setting/updating a configured value?

    If it's a question of which items incur VAT, then surely that's again a configuration on a per-item (or per category) basis, and again is a data issue?

    Perhaps this is a US/UK thing? (I'm in the UK?) but I really don't see how there can be options for applying the VAT?

    Obviously the manager's approach is wrong, but from where I'm sitting the broad theme "How can you possibly get 'applying VAT' wrong" seems valid? Again apologies if I've missed something obvious?

  • Ozz (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    I don't understand why Reggie didn't find a shiv unexpectedly poking him in the back of the neck gently but firmly, before hearing the whispered words:

    "Don't turn around. Simply pay attention. We are the people who keep your world revolving. We have the skills to bring you crashing down. Fuck with us and we gain the motivation to ruin you... Or we shiv you in the back of the neck while you think you're safe in your office."

    There's no way HR wood ever believe that happened.

    Cool idea. Unfortunately I am a (legal) immigrant and have a rather distinctive accent, making it hard to stay anonymous once I open my mouth.

  • swschrad (unregistered)

    is why Reggie got promoted from auxiliary crank in the first place. but we all know why... a fourth was needed for golf.

  • Sigivald (unregistered) in reply to Uhh
    Uhh:
    To be honest, it is a bit naive to expect that the head of finance dept will manually test VAT calculations - if Tim had instead asked Reggie to point towards some underling who'd clarify the VAT issue & test it, then it might have been a success.

    In itself, yes.

    But the department head is also "primary customer contact for the e-commerce site", and should have the brains to know when to say "yes, this is important and I'll have my staff clarify the hideously-important-and-fiddly-legal-details with you", not "if you were competent you'd just know!".

    I've written tax calculation code, and no sane manager would OK anything Reggie said, and no sane programmer would accept it without - as our man did - getting the sucker demanding it to accept full responsibility and documenting his asking for the necessary clarifications and getting shot down.

    (Any sort of legal compliance or accounting is hideously easy to get wrong, especially in the Weird Edge Cases. This is why serious people do exactly the opposite of what Reggie did.)

  • Sigivald (unregistered) in reply to Sigivald

    ... and your BBCode parser is so broken that it breaks if you capitalize "User"?

    BBCode is crap. Seriously. Stop it.

  • (cs) in reply to Mog_X
    Mog_X:
    In the UK there is a chain of stores that sells tiles who decided to apply VAT per tile (and round the result of each one) rather than on the full box of tiles (rounding on that figure).

    It saved them many tens of thousands of pounds until HMRC had a look at their books.....

    So finally an explanation for that Darth Dell WTF: "I packaged up your screws. Pray i don't screw up your packages!"

Leave a comment on “User Rejection Testing”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article