Concur Glenn.

The IRS in this country says the same thing . period.  In addition, the rule
states how you are to maintain the system. I would imagine most states have
the same rule for their state tax requirements. I can hear the tax court
laughing at the obsolescence defense from here.

Bob Dalton, CRM
Dalton Consulting

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Sanders" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Technological Obsolescence of Records


> Patrick
>
> I agree. I can't imagine any Australian court accepting a technological
> obsolescence argument, and our Tax Office (IRS) has explicitly issued a
> ruling that says if they want a record it's up to you to produce it
> promptly and legibly regardless of medium.
>
> That's why our DRM Policy states in part "All electronic documents must be
kept in a way that ensures they are
> readily available and understandable, for the duration of their specified
> retention period, regardless of changes in hardware and software over that
> time."
>
> I'm now grappling with how to do exactly that. Business need dictates what
> is migrated / converted etc, and there is usually a gap between business
> need and statutory retention period. As always, risk assessment determines
> what you deal with in advance, and what you leave in the hope you won't
> have to.
>
> Cheers
>
> Glenn
>
> Glenn Sanders
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> Australia
>
> These views are mine alone. They may or may not be those of any previous
> or present employers or clients. I don't know. If I'd asked and they'd
> agreed, I would have signed it "Bloggs and Co and Glenn". Or whatever. But
> I haven't, so I didn't.
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
>

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance