---
id: ADR-ACC-TRX-013
title: Commerce Tax Ownership With a Staff-Billing Gap
product_area: accounting
module: transactions
revision: 1
status: proposed
design_intent: confirmed
source_sha:
  services-accounting: f47cb263875bbc0c5640fba7dae6785ec32695f8
  react-console: baf6dae382d6f41dce976c7f848667ccc37e076f
decision: >-
  The recorded ownership decision assigns order tax determination to Commerce
  and financial retention to Accounting, while the source of tax for staff
  billing without an order remains unresolved.
constrains:
  - DOM-ACC-TRX-001
  - WF-ACC-TRX-001
  - WF-ACC-TRX-003
  - SVC-ACC-TRX-transactions
  - RESP-ACC
origin: >-
  Andrew’s R-1 and C-10 (2026-10-22 realignment), with the staff-billing source
  open as OQ-ACC-TRX-001:
  services-accounting:docs/architecture/accounting-2.0/02-decisions.md#2.13 The
  2026-10-22 realignment (Andrew, final)
alternatives:
  - option: Retain one Accounting tax engine for all billing.
    why_not: >-
      The recorded realignment assigns shared determination to Commerce rather
      than parallel product engines.
  - option: Use current rates when reducing earlier billed tax.
    why_not: >-
      The correction must remain explainable from the determination used for
      that billing.
consequences:
  - >-
    The pinned service still determines tax at issue and supplies Commerce
    quotes; these are current implementation departures rather than approval of
    the future boundary.
  - >-
    Reductions apportion original billed tax, while added charges receive their
    own tax calculation.
supersedes: []
evidence:
  - >-
    services-accounting at f47cb263:
    docs/architecture/accounting-2.0/02-decisions.md, 05-lifecycles.md,
    06-integrity-model.md.
---
# Commerce Tax Ownership With a Staff-Billing Gap

## Context

Tax responsibility changed while the first implementation remained in Accounting. The design must distinguish the confirmed target ownership from the unanswered staff-billing path.

## Decision

The structured decision records the governing boundary and its observed limits. Its origin distinguishes Andrew’s rulings from reversible implementation choices and proposed publication policy.

## Alternatives Considered

The listed alternatives explain the competing responsibility or recovery approaches and why the recorded direction differs. They are explanatory comparisons, without evidence of a separate approval discussion for each alternative.

## Consequences

The consequence rows identify implementation obligations, current departures and gaps requiring further verification. Artifact status remains proposed until Andrew approves it.