Rule reference

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

Line 1 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. "Outside the scope of VAT" means the transaction has no rate, which is a different statement from "the rate is zero".

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-152
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-05",
  "field": "BT-152",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "message": "Line 1 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. \"Outside the scope of VAT\" means the transaction has no rate, which is a different statement from \"the rate is zero\".",
  "fix": "Remove vatRate from this line. If the supply is inside the scope of VAT but taxed at 0%, use category Z instead.",
  "example": "\"vatCategory\": \"O\"",
  "xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine[1]/cac:Item/cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory/cbc:Percent",
  "docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-O-05"
}

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
"vatCategory": "O"

The fix

Remove vatRate from this line. If the supply is inside the scope of VAT but taxed at 0%, use category Z instead.

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