Attestwire

Rule reference

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)

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). This is BR-O-11's counterpart at line level; together they make category O all-or-nothing for the 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-151
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-12",
  "field": "BT-151",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "message": "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). This is BR-O-11's counterpart at line level; together they make category O all-or-nothing for the document.",
  "fix": "Move the non-O lines to a separate invoice, or correct their vatCategory if \"O\" was the intended treatment for them too. Note that an invoice using category O must also carry no VAT identifiers at all (BR-O-02).",
  "example": "\"vatCategory\": \"O\"",
  "xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/cac:Item/cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory/cbc:ID",
  "docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-O-12"
}

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

Move the non-O lines to a separate invoice, or correct their vatCategory if "O" was the intended treatment for them too. Note that an invoice using category O must also carry no VAT identifiers at all (BR-O-02).

All 292 rules →

Nearby: 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); 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"; BR-O-14 — This invoice produces a VAT breakdown group (BG-23) with the VAT category code (BT-118) "Not subject to VAT", so no document level charge (BG-21) may carry a charge VAT category code (BT-102) other than "O" — but one does: charges[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.