Attestwire

Rule reference

BR-O-04 This invoice contains a document level charge (BG-21) whose VAT category code (BT-102) is O (Not subject to VAT) — charges[0] — so the invoice 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 contains a document level charge (BG-21) whose VAT category code (BT-102) is O (Not subject to VAT) — charges[0] — so the invoice 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 is the one member of the family that runs backwards. "Not subject to VAT" says the transaction falls outside the scope of VAT entirely, so quoting a VAT number on it is self-contradictory: a VAT identifier is an assertion that the holder is acting as a taxable person in the very transaction the document says is not one.

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:

TeachingError
{
  "rule": "BR-O-04",
  "field": [
    "BT-31",
    "BT-48"
  ],
  "severity": "fatal",
  "message": "This invoice contains a document level charge (BG-21) whose VAT category code (BT-102) is O (Not subject to VAT) — charges[0] — so the invoice 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 is the one member of the family that runs backwards. \"Not subject to VAT\" says the transaction falls outside the scope of VAT entirely, so quoting a VAT number on it is self-contradictory: a VAT identifier is an assertion that the holder is acting as a taxable person in the very transaction the document says is not one.",
  "fix": "Remove seller.vatId, buyer.vatId and any taxRepresentative from an invoice carrying a category O allowance or charge. If the supply really is within the scope of VAT, change the entry's vatCategory instead — Z for taxed at 0%, E for exempt.",
  "example": "\"seller\": { \"taxRegistrationId\": \"18/181/08155\" }",
  "xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:AllowanceCharge[2]/cac:TaxCategory/cbc:ID",
  "docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-O-04"
}

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
"seller": { "taxRegistrationId": "18/181/08155" }

The fix

Remove seller.vatId, buyer.vatId and any taxRepresentative from an invoice carrying a category O allowance or charge. If the supply really is within the scope of VAT, change the entry's vatCategory instead — Z for taxed at 0%, E for exempt.

All 292 rules →

Nearby: BR-O-05 — A line uses VAT category O (not subject to VAT), so it must not carry an invoiced item VAT rate (BT-152) at all — not even 0; BR-O-03 — This invoice contains a document level allowance (BG-20) whose VAT category code (BT-95) is O (Not subject to VAT) — allowances[0] — so the invoice must not contain the seller VAT identifier (BT-31), the seller tax representative VAT identifier (BT-63) or the buyer VAT identifier (BT-48); BR-O-06 — The document level allowance at allowances[0] uses VAT category O (Not subject to VAT), so its VAT rate (BT-96) must not be present at all — not even as 0 — but it is 0.

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.