Attestwire

Rule reference

BR-38 The document level charge at charges[0] states neither a reason (BT-104) nor a reason code (BT-105); both are empty

The document level charge at charges[0] states neither a reason (BT-104) nor a reason code (BT-105); both are empty. Every BG-21 group must carry at least one of them, because an unexplained addition to an invoice total is the single most disputed thing on a commercial document — the buyer's accounts-payable clerk has to decide whether to approve it, and "+missing" on its own gives them nothing to decide on.

This rule is implemented and its error payload below is real, but the long-form write-up — normative text, worked example, divergence note — is not written yet. Everything the library knows about this rule is on this page. Ask and we will prioritise it.

Business term
BT-104 / BT-105
Severity
fatal

What the library returns

The exact object in result.errors when this rule fires. Generated by running @attestwire/en16931, not transcribed:

TeachingError
{
  "rule": "BR-38",
  "field": [
    "BT-104",
    "BT-105"
  ],
  "severity": "fatal",
  "message": "The document level charge at charges[0] states neither a reason (BT-104) nor a reason code (BT-105); both are empty. Every BG-21 group must carry at least one of them, because an unexplained addition to an invoice total is the single most disputed thing on a commercial document — the buyer's accounts-payable clerk has to decide whether to approve it, and \"+missing\" on its own gives them nothing to decide on.",
  "fix": "Set charges[0].reason to a short description in the invoice language, or charges[0].reasonCode to a UNCL 7161 code, or both. Under XRechnung, prefer the free text: the mandated visualisation renders the code verbatim, so a buyer looking at the rendered invoice sees the bare code and not what it means.",
  "example": "\"charges\": [{ \"amount\": 25.00, \"vatCategory\": \"S\", \"vatRate\": 19, \"reason\": \"Freight service\", \"reasonCode\": \"FC\" }]",
  "xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:AllowanceCharge[1]/cbc:AllowanceChargeReason",
  "docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-38"
}

xpath locates the element in the generated UBL document, which is where a KoSIT or Peppol validator will report the same problem.

A passing value

the shape this field expects
"charges": [{ "amount": 25.00, "vatCategory": "S", "vatRate": 19, "reason": "Freight service", "reasonCode": "FC" }]

The fix

Set charges[0].reason to a short description in the invoice language, or charges[0].reasonCode to a UNCL 7161 code, or both. Under XRechnung, prefer the free text: the mandated visualisation renders the code verbatim, so a buyer looking at the rendered invoice sees the bare code and not what it means.

All 292 rules →

Nearby: BR-41 — The invoice line allowance at lines[0].allowances[0], on line 1 (id "1"), has no usable amount (BT-136): you supplied missing; BR-37 — The document level charge at charges[0] has no VAT category code (BT-102): you supplied missing; BR-42 — The invoice line allowance at lines[0].allowances[0], on line 1 (id "1"), states neither a reason (BT-139) nor a reason code (BT-140).

Check this rule against your invoice via the hosted API → https://api.attestwire.com/docs

Arrived from a stack trace? The docsUrl on every error links straight here. Something wrong on this page — tell us.