einvoice / EN 16931 / XRechnung rule reference

BR-DE-TMP-32

So beheben Sie den Fehler

Eine Rechnung sollte zur Angabe des Liefer-/Leistungsdatums entweder BT-72 "Actual delivery date", BG-14 "Invoicing period" oder in jeder Rechnungsposition BG-26 "Invoice line period" enthalten.

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

An invoice should state the delivery/service date via BT-72 (Actual delivery date), BG-14 (Invoicing period) or a BG-26 (Invoice line period) on EVERY line.

Requires
an invoice should state the delivery/service date via BT-72 (Actual delivery date), BG-14 (Invoicing period) or a BG-26 (Invoice line period) on EVERY line.
Business terms
BG-14 BG-26 BT-72
Syntax
Binds the UBL-2.1 Invoice / CreditNote syntax and the UN/CEFACT-CII syntax
Location (UBL-2.1 path)
cac:Delivery/cbc:ActualDeliveryDate
Fix (Deutsch)
Korrigieren Sie `cac:Delivery/cbc:ActualDeliveryDate`, sodass gilt: Eine Rechnung sollte zur Angabe des Liefer-/Leistungsdatums entweder BT-72 "Actual delivery date", BG-14 "Invoicing period" oder in jeder Rechnungsposition BG-26 "Invoice line period" enthalten.
Fix
Correct `cac:Delivery/cbc:ActualDeliveryDate` so that an invoice should state the delivery/service date via BT-72 (Actual delivery date), BG-14 (Invoicing period) or a BG-26 (Invoice line period) on EVERY line.
Severity
information
Provenance source
xrechnung-ubl
Provenance assert

Eine Rechnung sollte zur Angabe des Liefer-/Leistungsdatums entweder BT-72 "Actual delivery date", BG-14 "Invoicing period" oder in jeder Rechnungsposition BG-26 "Invoice line period" enthalten.

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-TMP-32 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-TMP-32 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/extension/04.05a-INVOICE_uncefact.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 whole OccurrenceDateTime group was deleted, with every element inside it. The page publishes it because the engine reported BR-DE-TMP-32 for the edited document and did not report it for the untouched one.

CII Invoice (XRechnung extension) — fails

The vendored file around the change, verbatim:

<ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeDelivery>
  <ram:ActualDeliverySupplyChainEvent>
  </ram:ActualDeliverySupplyChainEvent>
</ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeDelivery>

CII Invoice (XRechnung extension) — passes

The same lines as 04.05a-INVOICE_uncefact.xml actually ships them — this block is the fix for the block above:

<ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeDelivery>
  <ram:ActualDeliverySupplyChainEvent>
    <ram:OccurrenceDateTime>
      <!-- Tag der Leistungserbringung -->
      <udt:DateTimeString format="102">20200102</udt:DateTimeString>
    </ram:OccurrenceDateTime>
  </ram:ActualDeliverySupplyChainEvent>
</ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeDelivery>

What the engine reports for the edited invoice

{
  "element": "ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeDelivery/ram:ActualDeliverySupplyChainEvent/ram:OccurrenceDateTime",
  "field": "ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeDelivery/ram:ActualDeliverySupplyChainEvent/ram:OccurrenceDateTime",
  "fix_hint": "Correct `rsm:SupplyChainTradeTransaction/ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeDelivery/ram:ActualDeliverySupplyChainEvent/ram:OccurrenceDateTime` so that an invoice should state the delivery/service date via BT-72 (Actual delivery date), BG-14 (Invoicing period) or a BG-26 (Invoice line period) on EVERY line.",
  "location": "rsm:SupplyChainTradeTransaction/ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeDelivery/ram:ActualDeliverySupplyChainEvent/ram:OccurrenceDateTime",
  "message": "The invoice should state the delivery/service date: BT-72 'Actual delivery date', BG-14 'Invoicing period', or BG-26 'Invoice line period' on every line.",
  "rule": "BR-DE-TMP-32",
  "severity": "information",
  "terms": [
    "BG-14",
    "BG-26",
    "BT-72"
  ],
  "title": "An invoice should state the delivery/service date via BT-72 (Actual delivery date), BG-14 (Invoicing period) or a BG-26 (Invoice line period) on EVERY line."
}

Rule ids the engine reports for 04.05a-INVOICE_uncefact.xml untouched: BR-CL-10 BR-CL-21. After the edit, BR-DE-TMP-32 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/business-cases/extension/04.05a-INVOICE_uncefact.xml from this repository, apply the one edit named above, and run einvoice validate 04.05a-INVOICE_uncefact.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: