Mark Straver (asker) Apr 27, 2009:

distribution vs. passed-on cost I'm sorry but don't you think "charges" would be a common term to be found in texts dealing with finances, even when specified in specific context? It's hardly a criterion to use in this case. Getting a 1:6 proportion for recharges I think is a good indication that it's a common word to use.
Your reference also does not specifically indicate that this deals with passing on an incurred cost (and the link won't load for me). Intra-group charges may as well be a compensation between group members for supplied internal services (which is not uncommon, hence the regular occurrence of "intra-group charges") but that would not mean the same as "doorbelasten" which is specifically passing on an incurred cost and not a generated cost (e.g. for supplied services from on subsidiary to another). In fact, if you read the quoted paragraph, this deals with benefits received by the company group, to be distributed to different associated enterprises by means of internally charged amounts, which would indicate that it is generated revenue; a different situation where you would not talk about "doorbelasten".

As it is, I'm not going to spend more time on this discussion, to me it's cl

jarry (X) Apr 27, 2009:

Recharges: 101 Google hits, 'charges' 645 hits Your reference is convincing (authentic English language site) but not enough to make me change my mind (see number of Google hits!)
See for instance: http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?locid='TXR/TR1999...

"55. Where an indirect method has to be used to calculate the benefits for individual group members from service activities, some way of allocating the total chargeable amount to the individual associated enterprises needs to be found. The basis of allocation must be practical enough to be administered yet sufficiently accurate to avoid arbitrary disparities between the benefits received and the amounts of intra-group charges."

Also the number of Google hits suggests that 'charges' is by far the more common term. I agree, however, that this is not an instance of Dunglish. Having said that, I think your objection to the word 'Dunglish' is quite misplaced. I'm sure you will get used to it and soon use it yourself. I shall of course keep the term 'intra-group charges' in my own glossary, regardless of the entry in the KOG.

Mark Straver (asker) Apr 27, 2009:

Not just in translation context. I gave that example since it's easy to check on the same site - that is not to say that internal billing isn't called "recharge" anywhere else. Would the University of Michigan's accounting services be wrong, for example?
http://www.finops.umich.edu/accounting/recharge

Since it's unlikely that is written by a Dutch person, I doubt they would use "Dunglish" as you so ungracefully call it... (many more hits in this context to be found on the web)

I guess in this context one might think that the nature of this would be implied by "intra-group", but it isn't, IMHO. If you would say "intra-group charges" it's ambiguous, as the cost may, in that case, be generated, and not just passed on, by the first unit.

I therefore think "recharge" would be the proper term to use here, and not "charge", to be completely unambiguous and reflect what is actually meant by the Dutch word. I will change the glossary entry accordingly.

jarry (X) Apr 27, 2009:

Dunglish In Dutch, the word "door" is used here because it would be ambiguous to say "groepsbelasting". This has led to many Dutch translators using the word recharge. This is unnecessary and also incorrect. Group companies don't 'recharge' other group companies. It would be nonsensical to use that word when all that happens is that they charge other group companies with costs they have incurred for them or on their behalf. Dutch teems with such Dunglish words in accounting, auditing and taxation: "off-balance" (instead of off balance sheet) "tax unity" (instead of single tax entity), etc., etc.

Mark Straver (asker) Apr 27, 2009:

recharge according to other reference material From what I found "passing on" the costs from one unit to another would be "recharging". <br>see also: http://www.proz.com/kudoz/dutch_to_english/bus_financial/240... I would definitely agree with...

As an additional note, overall, it would be charged twice, so that would be correct. An external party charges it to unit A, unit A charges it again to unit B to internally recover the cost.

Dave Calderhead Apr 27, 2009:

charge versus recharge I agree with Jarry

jarry (X) Apr 27, 2009:

@ Mark Straver In my opinion there is no question of recharging. That would mean charging twice or again. These are simply charges that a group company incurs and charges to a fellow group company. I have changed the glossary entry accordingly.