einvoice / EN 16931 / XRechnung rule reference

BR-DE-16

So beheben Sie den Fehler

Wenn in einer Rechnung die Steuercodes S, Z, E, AE, K, G, L oder M verwendet werden, muss mindestens eines der Elemente "Seller VAT identifier" (BT-31), "Seller tax registration identifier" (BT-32) oder "SELLER TAX REPRESENTATIVE PARTY" (BG-11) übermittelt werden.

Deutsche Fassung: Amtlicher KoSIT-Text (official KoSIT assert text).

If VAT category codes S/Z/E/AE/K/G/L/M are used, one of Seller VAT identifier (BT-31), Seller tax registration identifier (BT-32) or SELLER TAX REPRESENTATIVE PARTY (BG-11) must be present.

Requires
If VAT category codes S/Z/E/AE/K/G/L/M are used, one of Seller VAT identifier (BT-31), Seller tax registration identifier (BT-32) or SELLER TAX REPRESENTATIVE PARTY (BG-11) must be present.
Business terms
BG-11 BT-31 BT-32
Syntax
Binds the UBL-2.1 Invoice / CreditNote syntax and the UN/CEFACT-CII syntax
Location (UBL-2.1 path)
cac:TaxRepresentativeParty
Fix (Deutsch)
Korrigieren Sie `cac:TaxRepresentativeParty`, sodass gilt: Wenn in einer Rechnung die Steuercodes S, Z, E, AE, K, G, L oder M verwendet werden, muss mindestens eines der Elemente "Seller VAT identifier" (BT-31), "Seller tax registration identifier" (BT-32) oder "SELLER TAX REPRESENTATIVE PARTY" (BG-11) übermittelt werden.
Fix
Correct `cac:TaxRepresentativeParty` so that If VAT category codes S/Z/E/AE/K/G/L/M are used, one of Seller VAT identifier (BT-31), Seller tax registration identifier (BT-32) or SELLER TAX REPRESENTATIVE PARTY (BG-11) must be present.
Severity
fatal
Provenance source
xrechnung-ubl
Provenance assert

Wenn in einer Rechnung die Steuercodes S, Z, E, AE, K, G, L oder M verwendet werden, muss mindestens eines der Elemente "Seller VAT identifier" (BT-31), "Seller tax registration identifier" (BT-32) oder "SELLER TAX REPRESENTATIVE PARTY" (BG-11) übermittelt werden.

The Location above is a UBL-2.1 path, and no UN/CEFACT-CII path for this rule is published here; Fix and Fix (Deutsch), verbatim from remediation_catalog.json and not reworded here; the UN/CEFACT-CII binding of this rule is differentially proven against the official KoSIT XRechnung 2.5.0 (XRechnung 3.0.2) Schematron.

Korrektur prüfen: Laden Sie die geänderte Rechnung in den Browser-Validator unter /einvoice/validate/ — er führt dieselbe Engine lokal im Browser aus, ohne Upload, und meldet BR-DE-16 nicht mehr, sobald die Korrektur greift.

Where to check the fix: paste the corrected invoice into the browser validator at /einvoice/validate/ — it runs this same engine locally in your browser, with no upload, and stops reporting BR-DE-16 once the edit lands.

The same invoice, failing and fixed

No vendored test suite ships a labelled example for this rule, so this pair was found rather than written. The engine was run over the vendored instance corpus/xrechnung-testsuite/src/test/technical-cases/cius/01.06_minimal_test_ubl.xml under --profile xrechnung, then re-run over the same file with one mechanical edit applied to one element, over and over, until the edit below changed the verdict: the text content of CompanyID was deleted, leaving the element present but empty. The page publishes it because the engine reported BR-DE-16 for the edited document and did not report it for the untouched one.

UBL Invoice — fails

The vendored file around the change, verbatim:

<cac:PartyTaxScheme>
  <cbc:CompanyID></cbc:CompanyID>
  <cac:TaxScheme>
    <cbc:ID>VAT</cbc:ID>
  </cac:TaxScheme>
</cac:PartyTaxScheme>

UBL Invoice — passes

The same lines as 01.06_minimal_test_ubl.xml actually ships them — this block is the fix for the block above:

<cac:PartyTaxScheme>
  <cbc:CompanyID>ATU123456789</cbc:CompanyID>
  <cac:TaxScheme>
    <cbc:ID>VAT</cbc:ID>
  </cac:TaxScheme>
</cac:PartyTaxScheme>

What the engine reports for the edited invoice

{
  "element": "cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyTaxScheme/cbc:CompanyID",
  "field": "cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyTaxScheme/cbc:CompanyID",
  "fix_hint": "Correct `cac:TaxRepresentativeParty` so that If VAT category codes S/Z/E/AE/K/G/L/M are used, one of Seller VAT identifier (BT-31), Seller tax registration identifier (BT-32) or SELLER TAX REPRESENTATIVE PARTY (BG-11) must be present.",
  "location": "cac:TaxRepresentativeParty",
  "message": "VAT category codes S, Z, E, AE, K, G, L or M are used, so at least one of 'Seller VAT identifier' (BT-31), 'Seller tax registration identifier' (BT-32) or 'SELLER TAX REPRESENTATIVE PARTY' (BG-11) must be transmitted.",
  "rule": "BR-DE-16",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "terms": [
    "BG-11",
    "BT-31",
    "BT-32"
  ],
  "title": "If VAT category codes S/Z/E/AE/K/G/L/M are used, one of Seller VAT identifier (BT-31), Seller tax registration identifier (BT-32) or SELLER TAX REPRESENTATIVE PARTY (BG-11) must be present."
}

Rule ids the engine reports for 01.06_minimal_test_ubl.xml untouched: BR-DE-TMP-32. After the edit, BR-DE-16 is reported that was not before.

Two honest limits. This is an edit that provokes the rule, not the only one, and it is not a claim about how real exporters break it. And it is the reverse of the fix a reader needs: the passing block is the vendored file's own content, which is what a conformant invoice looks like here.

Reproduce it yourself: take corpus/xrechnung-testsuite/src/test/technical-cases/cius/01.06_minimal_test_ubl.xml from this repository, apply the one edit named above, and run einvoice validate 01.06_minimal_test_ubl.xml --profile xrechnung --format json, or paste the file into the browser validator, which runs this same engine locally with no upload.

Everything here is free and open source — pick up whatever helps, at your own pace: