BR-44 The invoice line charge at lines[0].charges[0], on line 1 (id "1"), states neither a reason (BT-144) nor a reason code (BT-145)
The invoice line charge at lines[0].charges[0], on line 1 (id "1"), states neither a reason (BT-144) nor a reason code (BT-145). Every BG-28 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-144 / BT-145- Severity
fatal
What the library returns
The exact object in result.errors when this rule fires.
Generated by running @attestwire/en16931, not transcribed:
{
"rule": "BR-44",
"field": [
"BT-144",
"BT-145"
],
"severity": "fatal",
"message": "The invoice line charge at lines[0].charges[0], on line 1 (id \"1\"), states neither a reason (BT-144) nor a reason code (BT-145). Every BG-28 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].charges[0].reason to a short description, or lines[0].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\": 12.50, \"reason\": \"Handling\", \"reasonCode\": \"SH\" }]",
"xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine[1]/cac:AllowanceCharge[2]/cbc:AllowanceChargeReason",
"docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-44"
}
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
"charges": [{ "amount": 12.50, "reason": "Handling", "reasonCode": "SH" }]The fix
Set lines[0].charges[0].reason to a short description, or lines[0].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.