Rule reference

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)

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). Every BG-27 group must carry at least one. A line level adjustment is harder to query than a document level one, because it disappears into the line net amount: the buyer sees a line total that does not equal quantity x price and has no way to find out why unless you say.

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-139 / BT-140
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-42",
  "field": [
    "BT-139",
    "BT-140"
  ],
  "severity": "fatal",
  "message": "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). Every BG-27 group must carry at least one. A line level adjustment is harder to query than a document level one, because it disappears into the line net amount: the buyer sees a line total that does not equal quantity x price and has no way to find out why unless you say.",
  "fix": "Set lines[0].allowances[0].reason to a short description, or lines[0].allowances[0].reasonCode to a UNCL 5189 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": "\"allowances\": [{ \"amount\": 12.50, \"reason\": \"Special agreement\", \"reasonCode\": \"100\" }]",
  "xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine[1]/cac:AllowanceCharge[1]/cbc:AllowanceChargeReason",
  "docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-42"
}

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
"allowances": [{ "amount": 12.50, "reason": "Special agreement", "reasonCode": "100" }]

The fix

Set lines[0].allowances[0].reason to a short description, or lines[0].allowances[0].reasonCode to a UNCL 5189 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.

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