attestwireAttestwire › Rule reference › BR-CO-19
BR-CO-19 An invoicing period must give a start date, an end date or a VAT point code
noun · EN 16931 · fatal · BG-14
For a sample invoice, the library reports: The invoice carries an invoicing period (BG-14) with neither a start date (BT-73), an end date (BT-74) nor a tax point date code (BT-8).
- Business term
BG-14- Severity
fatal
The fix
Set invoicingPeriod.startDate, invoicingPeriod.endDate, or both, as ISO dates. Remove the invoicingPeriod object entirely if the supply is a one-off with a delivery date (BT-72) rather than a period.
A passing value
"invoicingPeriod": { "startDate": "2026-07-01", "endDate": "2026-07-31" }What the library returns
The full error returned by @attestwire/en16931. It includes the rule ID,
affected field and suggested correction. Developers can use this object in their application:
{
"rule": "BR-CO-19",
"field": "BG-14",
"severity": "fatal",
"message": "The invoice carries an invoicing period (BG-14) with neither a start date (BT-73), an end date (BT-74) nor a tax point date code (BT-8). An empty period asserts that the supply relates to a timeframe and then declines to say which — and the timeframe is what a periodic invoice is *for*: it is how the buyer accrues the cost to the right month and how both sides detect a gap or an overlap between consecutive invoices. Note that a period carrying only the description code is legal in the UBL binding, because BT-8 has nowhere else to live; a period carrying nothing at all is not.",
"fix": "Set invoicingPeriod.startDate, invoicingPeriod.endDate, or both, as ISO dates. Remove the invoicingPeriod object entirely if the supply is a one-off with a delivery date (BT-72) rather than a period.",
"example": "\"invoicingPeriod\": { \"startDate\": \"2026-07-01\", \"endDate\": \"2026-07-31\" }",
"xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:InvoicePeriod",
"docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-CO-19"
}
xpath is always a UBL path. On a CII invoice, look for the
matching CII field instead.