2 Commits (272cfe45e89be3c0bab4cf262fc97b38d9b8032a)
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
9da1358802 |
Stop charging VAT to the customers who owe us none
A verified EU business outside Austria gets reverse charge — rate 0, no VAT line, the note on the invoice — and was still charged 214,80 € for a 179,00 € package, because one Stripe Price carried the domestic gross for everybody. There is no VAT line on their document to reclaim, so it was a flat 20 % surcharge on exactly the customers who read their invoices, and the document then stated the whole 214,80 € as net at 0 %, so they self-accounted their own VAT on a base a fifth too large. A Stripe Price can ask who is buying after all: there are two per sellable thing now, the domestic gross and the bare net, both live on one Product, and the checkout picks by TaxTreatment. The rule is Austria B2B 20 %, other EU B2B without VAT — a domestic business still pays the gross, reclaims it as input tax, and the price on the website is still the price charged for them. - stripe:sync-catalogue mints and archives both halves of every pair, per plan and per module; `reverse_charge` on stripe_plan_prices/stripe_addon_prices says which is which, and joining it on subscriptions.stripe_price_id says which one a running contract is billed on. A rate change moves the gross Price and leaves the net one alone, because the net owes nothing to the rate. - A status that changes after the sale converges: a verification (or a lapse) makes stripe:reprice-subscriptions move the contract onto the other Price with PRORATE_NONE, because the term is already paid for. The module items follow the same way. - Downstream follows: the invoice total equals what was taken, the proof register expects the figure this customer is actually charged (so a correct reverse-charge sale is no longer flagged as a mismatch, and an overcharged one is), the setup fee obeys the same rule, and the booking page quotes what it will charge. - StripeClient gained activatePrice(). Archived Prices were brought back in our own table and left inactive at Stripe, so a rate that moved and moved back pointed the catalogue at a Price no checkout could be opened for. An unverified number is still charged the gross — an unchecked string must never be a discount — and where the net Price is missing the checkout refuses rather than reaching for the domestic one. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|
|
|
f02e86769b |
Charge the price the website shows, and hand a withdrawal back in full
tests / pest (push) Failing after 9m21s
Details
tests / assets (push) Successful in 21s
Details
tests / release (push) Has been skipped
Details
Stripe was charging the catalogue's NET figure while the document added the domestic rate on top: a customer quoted 214,80 paid 179,00 and was then invoiced for VAT nobody had collected. Under para 11(12) UStG that VAT is owed to the tax office whether or not it ever arrived, so every document issued created a liability against revenue that did not contain it. The Stripe Price now carries the GROSS figure. price_cents stays net - it is frozen onto every contract and PlanChange prorates against it, so redefining it would corrupt every pro-rata sum ever computed. Only the amount at the till moved, and it is formed by the one call TaxTreatment already answers for the price sheet and for the invoice, so displayed, charged and invoiced cannot drift apart. Stripe's automatic_tax is deliberately not used. TaxTreatment is the single tax authority here, and a second rate computed by Stripe would take 19 % from a German consumer while our document said 20 %. A Stripe Price cannot be edited, so a changed figure means a new Price and the old one archived - which stops it being SOLD and leaves every subscription already on it billing the old amount for ever. stripe:reprice-subscriptions is the second half, and a command of its own because it touches live money. A withdrawing consumer is refunded in full, as the owner decided. That is more generous than FAGG para 16 requires, and it makes the express-request consent the statute hinges on irrelevant - so the gate is gone rather than left looking load-bearing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |