einvoice / EN 16931 / XRechnung rule reference

BR-DE-31

So beheben Sie den Fehler

Wenn "DIRECT DEBIT" BG-19 vorhanden ist, dann muss "Debited account identifier" BT-91 übermittelt werden.

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

DIRECT DEBIT (BG-19) requires the Debited account identifier (BT-91).

Requires
DIRECT DEBIT (BG-19) requires the Debited account identifier (BT-91).
Business terms
BG-19 BT-91
Syntax
Binds the UBL-2.1 Invoice / CreditNote syntax and the UN/CEFACT-CII syntax
Location (UBL-2.1 path)
cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate
Fix (Deutsch)
Korrigieren Sie `cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate`, sodass gilt: Wenn "DIRECT DEBIT" BG-19 vorhanden ist, dann muss "Debited account identifier" BT-91 übermittelt werden.
Fix
Correct `cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate` so that DIRECT DEBIT (BG-19) requires the Debited account identifier (BT-91).
Severity
fatal
Provenance source
xrechnung-ubl
Provenance assert

Wenn "DIRECT DEBIT" BG-19 vorhanden ist, dann muss "Debited account identifier" BT-91 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-31 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-31 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/business-cases/standard/03.01a-INVOICE_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 ID element was deleted. The page publishes it because the engine reported BR-DE-31 for the edited document and did not report it for the untouched one.

UBL Invoice — fails

The vendored file around the change, verbatim:

<cac:PaymentMeans>
  <cbc:PaymentMeansCode>59</cbc:PaymentMeansCode>
    <cac:PaymentMandate>
    <cbc:ID>[Mandate reference identifier]</cbc:ID>
        <cac:PayerFinancialAccount>
    </cac:PayerFinancialAccount>
  </cac:PaymentMandate>
</cac:PaymentMeans>

UBL Invoice — passes

The same lines as 03.01a-INVOICE_ubl.xml actually ships them — this block is the fix for the block above:

<cac:PaymentMeans>
  <cbc:PaymentMeansCode>59</cbc:PaymentMeansCode>
    <cac:PaymentMandate>
    <cbc:ID>[Mandate reference identifier]</cbc:ID>
        <cac:PayerFinancialAccount>
      <cbc:ID>DE79000000001234567890</cbc:ID>
    </cac:PayerFinancialAccount>
  </cac:PaymentMandate>
</cac:PaymentMeans>

What the engine reports for the edited invoice

{
  "element": "cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate/cac:PayerFinancialAccount/cbc:ID",
  "field": "cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate/cac:PayerFinancialAccount/cbc:ID",
  "fix_hint": "Correct `cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate` so that DIRECT DEBIT (BG-19) requires the Debited account identifier (BT-91).",
  "insertion_point_line": 90,
  "location": "cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate",
  "message": "DIRECT DEBIT (BG-19) is present, so 'Debited account identifier' (BT-91) must be transmitted.",
  "rule": "BR-DE-31",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "terms": [
    "BG-19",
    "BT-91"
  ],
  "title": "DIRECT DEBIT (BG-19) requires the Debited account identifier (BT-91)."
}

Rule ids the engine reports for 03.01a-INVOICE_ubl.xml untouched: none. After the edit, BR-DE-20 BR-DE-31 are reported that were not before — one mechanical edit can break more than one rule at a time, and BR-DE-20 is the neighbour this one takes with it.

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/business-cases/standard/03.01a-INVOICE_ubl.xml from this repository, apply the one edit named above, and run einvoice validate 03.01a-INVOICE_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: