Attestwire

Rule reference

BR-O-11 This invoice contains a VAT breakdown group (BG-23) with the VAT category code (BT-118) "Not subject to VAT", so it must not contain any other VAT breakdown group — but your lines, document level allowances and document level charges also produce "S"

This invoice contains a VAT breakdown group (BG-23) with the VAT category code (BT-118) "Not subject to VAT", so it must not contain any other VAT breakdown group — but your lines, document level allowances and document level charges also produce "S". "Not subject to VAT" is a statement about the whole document: the transaction falls outside the scope of VAT altogether, which cannot be true of the invoice and false of one figure on it.

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-118
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-11",
  "field": "BT-118",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "message": "This invoice contains a VAT breakdown group (BG-23) with the VAT category code (BT-118) \"Not subject to VAT\", so it must not contain any other VAT breakdown group — but your lines, document level allowances and document level charges also produce \"S\". \"Not subject to VAT\" is a statement about the whole document: the transaction falls outside the scope of VAT altogether, which cannot be true of the invoice and false of one figure on it.",
  "fix": "Split the document. Put everything in category O on its own invoice, and the S lines, allowances and charges on another. There is no way to express a mixed document here, and none is intended: BR-O-11, BR-O-12, BR-O-13 and BR-O-14 close every route to it.",
  "example": "\"lines\": [{ \"id\": \"1\", \"description\": \"Statutory levy\", \"quantity\": 1, \"unitCode\": \"C62\", \"unitPrice\": 100, \"vatCategory\": \"O\" }]",
  "xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:TaxTotal/cac:TaxSubtotal/cac:TaxCategory/cbc:ID",
  "docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-O-11"
}

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
"lines": [{ "id": "1", "description": "Statutory levy", "quantity": 1, "unitCode": "C62", "unitPrice": 100, "vatCategory": "O" }]

The fix

Split the document. Put everything in category O on its own invoice, and the S lines, allowances and charges on another. There is no way to express a mixed document here, and none is intended: BR-O-11, BR-O-12, BR-O-13 and BR-O-14 close every route to it.

All 292 rules →

Nearby: BR-O-12 — This invoice contains a VAT breakdown group (BG-23) with the VAT category code (BT-118) "Not subject to VAT", so no invoice line may carry an invoiced item VAT category code (BT-151) other than "O" — but one line does: line 2 (S); BR-O-10 — The VAT breakdown for category O (Not subject to VAT) must have a VAT exemption reason code (BT-121) meaning "Not subject to VAT", or the VAT exemption reason text (BT-120) "Not subject to VAT" (or the equivalent standard text in another language); BR-O-13 — This invoice produces a VAT breakdown group (BG-23) with the VAT category code (BT-118) "Not subject to VAT", so no document level allowance (BG-20) may carry a allowance VAT category code (BT-95) other than "O" — but one does: allowances[0] (S).

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.