Attestwire

Rule reference

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)

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). Category O is a statement about the whole document, not about one figure on it: the transaction falls outside the scope of VAT altogether, so an adjustment carrying any other category would place taxable value on a document that has just declared there is none.

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-95
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-13",
  "field": "BT-95",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "message": "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). Category O is a statement about the whole document, not about one figure on it: the transaction falls outside the scope of VAT altogether, so an adjustment carrying any other category would place taxable value on a document that has just declared there is none.",
  "fix": "Change the vatCategory on those allowances entries to \"O\", or move the in-scope part of the invoice — lines and adjustments together — onto a separate document. BR-O-11 and BR-O-12 close the same route at breakdown and line level, so there is no arrangement of the four rules that lets category O share a document.",
  "example": "\"allowances\": [{ \"amount\": 25.00, \"vatCategory\": \"O\", \"reason\": \"Goodwill deduction\" }]",
  "xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:AllowanceCharge[1]/cac:TaxCategory/cbc:ID",
  "docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-O-13"
}

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
"allowances": [{ "amount": 25.00, "vatCategory": "O", "reason": "Goodwill deduction" }]

The fix

Change the vatCategory on those allowances entries to "O", or move the in-scope part of the invoice — lines and adjustments together — onto a separate document. BR-O-11 and BR-O-12 close the same route at breakdown and line level, so there is no arrangement of the four rules that lets category O share a document.

All 292 rules →

Nearby: 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); 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-S-01 — The VAT breakdown must carry a group for this category, for Standard rated.

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.