BR-Z-10

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-Z-10.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-Z-10</error> and <success>BR-Z-10</success>. They are published here only because this engine agreed with that labelling: it reported BR-Z-10 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 a VAT Breakdown with VAT Category code = "Z" does have a VAT Exemption reason code or the VAT Exemption reason text.”

<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>
			<cac:TaxCategory>
				<cbc:ID>Z</cbc:ID>
				<cbc:TaxExemptionReasonCode>10</cbc:TaxExemptionReasonCode>
				<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 a VAT Breakdown with VAT Category code = "Z" does not have a VAT Exemption reason code or the VAT Exemption reason text.”

<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>Z</cbc:ID>
				<!--	<cbc:TaxExemptionReason>Reverse charge</cbc:TaxExemptionReason>
				<cbc:TaxExemptionReasonCode>10</cbc:TaxExemptionReasonCode> -->
				<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/cac:TaxCategory/cbc:TaxExemptionReason",
  "field": "cac:TaxTotal/cac:TaxSubtotal/cac:TaxCategory/cbc:TaxExemptionReason",
  "fix_hint": "Adjust the VAT breakdown at `/ubl:Invoice/cac:TaxTotal/cac:TaxSubtotal/cac:TaxCategory[normalize-space(cbc:ID) = 'Z'][cac:TaxScheme/normalize-space(upper-case(cbc:ID))='VAT']` so that A VAT breakdown (BG-23) with VAT Category code (BT-118) \"Zero rated\" shall not have a VAT exemption reason code (BT-121) or VAT exemption reason text (BT-120).",
  "insertion_point_line": 8,
  "location": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:TaxTotal/cac:TaxSubtotal/cac:TaxCategory[normalize-space(cbc:ID) = 'Z'][cac:TaxScheme/normalize-space(upper-case(cbc:ID))='VAT']",
  "message": "A VAT breakdown (BG-23) with a Zero rated (Z) VAT category code (BT-118) shall not have a VAT exemption reason code (BT-121) or VAT exemption reason text (BT-120).",
  "rule": "BR-Z-10",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "terms": [
    "BG-23",
    "BT-118",
    "BT-120",
    "BT-121"
  ],
  "title": "A VAT breakdown (BG-23) with a Zero rated (Z) VAT category code (BT-118) shall not have a VAT exemption reason text (BT-120) or code (BT-121)."
}

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-46 BR-48 BR-CL-22 BR-CO-14 BR-CO-17 BR-Z-08 BR-Z-09 BR-Z-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-Z-08.

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 — 18 other rule ids here. Those are noise for this page. The signal is the difference: BR-Z-10 is reported for the failing document and gone for the corrected one (so are BR-46 BR-CL-22 BR-CO-17 BR-Z-09, 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.