BR-O-02 This invoice uses VAT category O (not subject to VAT), so it must not contain the seller VAT identifier (BT-31), the seller tax representative VAT identifier (BT-63) or the buyer VAT identifier (BT-48)
This invoice uses VAT category O (not subject to VAT), so it must not contain the seller VAT identifier (BT-31), the seller tax representative VAT identifier (BT-63) or the buyer VAT identifier (BT-48). Quoting a VAT number on a transaction declared outside the scope of VAT is self-contradictory, and BR-O-11/BR-O-12 further forbid mixing category O with any other category on the same document.
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-31 / BT-48- 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-O-02",
"field": [
"BT-31",
"BT-48"
],
"severity": "fatal",
"message": "This invoice uses VAT category O (not subject to VAT), so it must not contain the seller VAT identifier (BT-31), the seller tax representative VAT identifier (BT-63) or the buyer VAT identifier (BT-48). Quoting a VAT number on a transaction declared outside the scope of VAT is self-contradictory, and BR-O-11/BR-O-12 further forbid mixing category O with any other category on the same document.",
"fix": "Remove seller.vatId and buyer.vatId from an invoice that uses category O. If some lines really are within the scope of VAT, they belong on a separate invoice.",
"docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-O-02"
}The fix
Remove seller.vatId and buyer.vatId from an invoice that uses category O. If some lines really are within the scope of VAT, they belong on a separate invoice.