LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for RECMGMT-L Archives

RECMGMT-L Archives

RECMGMT-L Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave RECMGMT-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives

Subject: Re: Technological Obsolescence of Records
From: Robert Dalton <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:37:40 -0800

text/plain (56 lines)

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
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main RECMGMT-L Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager