`BR-Z-04` This invoice contains a document level charge (BG-21) whose VAT category code (BT-102) is Z (Zero rated) — charges[0] — so the invoice must contain the seller VAT identifier (BT-31), the seller tax registration identifier (BT-32) and/or the seller tax representative VAT identifier (BT-63)

This invoice contains a document level charge (BG-21) whose VAT category code (BT-102) is Z (Zero rated) — charges[0] — so the invoice must contain the seller VAT identifier (BT-31), the seller tax registration identifier (BT-32) and/or the seller tax representative VAT identifier (BT-63). Zero rating is a rate inside the VAT system, not the absence of VAT. The supply is taxable, the supplier is exercising a right to apply 0%, and a document level adjustment to it is a taxable adjustment — so it has to name a registered supplier exactly as a standard-rated one does.

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-32
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-Z-04",
  "field": [
    "BT-31",
    "BT-32"
  ],
  "severity": "fatal",
  "message": "This invoice contains a document level charge (BG-21) whose VAT category code (BT-102) is Z (Zero rated) — charges[0] — so the invoice must contain the seller VAT identifier (BT-31), the seller tax registration identifier (BT-32) and/or the seller tax representative VAT identifier (BT-63). Zero rating is a rate inside the VAT system, not the absence of VAT. The supply is taxable, the supplier is exercising a right to apply 0%, and a document level adjustment to it is a taxable adjustment — so it has to name a registered supplier exactly as a standard-rated one does.",
  "fix": "Set seller.vatId, or seller.taxRegistrationId if you have no VAT identifier, or supply the taxRepresentative group. If in truth no VAT applies to the transaction at all, the category is O rather than Z, and O forbids these identifiers instead of requiring them.",
  "example": "\"seller\": { \"vatId\": \"DE123456789\" }",
  "xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:AllowanceCharge[2]/cac:TaxCategory/cbc:ID",
  "docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-Z-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": { "vatId": "DE123456789" }

The fix

Set seller.vatId, or seller.taxRegistrationId if you have no VAT identifier, or supply the taxRepresentative group. If in truth no VAT applies to the transaction at all, the category is O rather than Z, and O forbids these identifiers instead of requiring them.

All 292 rules →

Nearby: BR-Z-05 — A line uses VAT category Z (Zero rated), so the invoiced item VAT rate (BT-152) must be 0, but it is 19; BR-Z-03 — This invoice contains a document level allowance (BG-20) whose VAT category code (BT-95) is Z (Zero rated) — allowances[0] — so the invoice must contain the seller VAT identifier (BT-31), the seller tax registration identifier (BT-32) and/or the seller tax representative VAT identifier (BT-63); BR-Z-06 — The document level allowance at allowances[0] uses VAT category Z (Zero rated), so its VAT rate (BT-96) must be 0 (zero), but it is 19.

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.