BR-E-09

The same invoice, failing and fixed

Neither block below is hand-written, and neither is an illustration: both are cut verbatim out of corpus/cen-en16931/test/Invoice-unit-UBL/BR-E-09.xml, the vendored unit test the CEN EN 16931 project ships for this rule. The people who wrote the Schematron wrote these two documents and labelled them <error>BR-E-09</error> and <success>BR-E-09</success>. They are published here only because this engine agreed with that labelling: it reported BR-E-09 for the first document and did not report it for the second, under --profile en16931.

UBL Invoice — fails

The upstream case description: “Trigger error if the VAT category tax amount in a VAT breakdown where the VAT category code is “E” != 0 (zero).”

<Invoice
	xmlns:cac="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonAggregateComponents-2"
	xmlns:cbc="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonBasicComponents-2"
	xmlns="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Invoice-2">
	<cac:TaxTotal>
		<cac:TaxSubtotal>
			<cbc:TaxAmount>10</cbc:TaxAmount>
			<cac:TaxCategory>
				<cbc:ID>E</cbc:ID>
				<cac:TaxScheme>
					<cbc:ID>VAT</cbc:ID>
				</cac:TaxScheme>
			</cac:TaxCategory>
		</cac:TaxSubtotal>
	</cac:TaxTotal>
</Invoice>

UBL Invoice — passes

The upstream case description: “Verify that the VAT category tax amount in a VAT breakdown where the VAT category code is “E” = 0 (zero).”

<Invoice
	xmlns:cac="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonAggregateComponents-2"
	xmlns:cbc="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonBasicComponents-2"
	xmlns="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Invoice-2">
	<cac:TaxTotal>
		<cac:TaxSubtotal>
			<cbc:TaxAmount>0</cbc:TaxAmount>
			<cac:TaxCategory>
				<cbc:ID>E</cbc:ID>
				<cac:TaxScheme>
					<cbc:ID>VAT</cbc:ID>
				</cac:TaxScheme>
			</cac:TaxCategory>
		</cac:TaxSubtotal>
	</cac:TaxTotal>

</Invoice>

What the engine reports for the failing document

{
  "element": "cac:TaxTotal/cac:TaxSubtotal/cbc:TaxAmount",
  "field": "cac:TaxTotal/cac:TaxSubtotal/cbc:TaxAmount",
  "fix_hint": "Adjust the VAT breakdown at `/ubl:Invoice/cac:TaxTotal/cac:TaxSubtotal/cac:TaxCategory[normalize-space(cbc:ID) = 'E'][cac:TaxScheme/normalize-space(upper-case(cbc:ID))='VAT']` so that The VAT category tax amount (BT-117) In a VAT breakdown (BG-23) where the VAT category code (BT-118) equals \"Exempt from VAT\" shall equal 0 (zero).",
  "location": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:TaxTotal/cac:TaxSubtotal/cac:TaxCategory[normalize-space(cbc:ID) = 'E'][cac:TaxScheme/normalize-space(upper-case(cbc:ID))='VAT']",
  "message": "The VAT category tax amount (BT-117=10) in a VAT breakdown (BG-23) where the VAT category code (BT-118) is 'Exempt from VAT' shall equal 0 (zero).",
  "rule": "BR-E-09",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "terms": [
    "BG-23",
    "BT-117",
    "BT-118"
  ],
  "title": "The VAT category tax amount (BT-117) in an Exempt (E) VAT breakdown shall equal 0."
}

Rule ids reported for the failing document: BR-01 BR-02 BR-03 BR-04 BR-05 BR-06 BR-07 BR-08 BR-10 BR-16 BR-45 BR-48 BR-CL-03 BR-CO-14 BR-CO-17 BR-E-08 BR-E-09 BR-E-10. For the corrected document: BR-01 BR-02 BR-03 BR-04 BR-05 BR-06 BR-07 BR-08 BR-10 BR-16 BR-45 BR-48 BR-CL-03 BR-CO-14 BR-E-08 BR-E-10.

Read that pair of lists honestly. A unit case is not a complete invoice: the upstream suite strips the document down to the elements this rule reads, so the engine also reports every mandatory element the fragment leaves out — 17 other rule ids here. Those are noise for this page. The signal is the difference: BR-E-09 is reported for the failing document and gone for the corrected one (so are BR-CO-17, which the same edit also clears).

Reproduce it yourself: save the failing block as invoice.xml and run einvoice validate invoice.xml --profile en16931 --format json, or paste it into the browser validator, which runs this same engine locally with no upload. Then apply the edit the passing block shows and run it again.