BR-07: Buyer name (BT-44) is missing
Official message
[BR-07] An Invoice shall contain the Buyer name (BT-44).
[BR-07] An Invoice shall contain the Buyer name (BT-44).
[BR-07] An Invoice shall contain the Buyer name (BT-44).
- Severity
- Error The invoice is invalid and may be rejected by the recipient.
- Applies to
- EN 16931 (CII), EN 16931 (UBL), Factur-X / ZUGFeRD EN 16931
- Affected fields
- BT-44
What does this mean?
Every invoice must contain the buyer name (BT-44), the full name of the invoice recipient. The element is missing or contains only spaces.
Typical causes
The buyer name was not entered.
Only a contact person or department was given, but not the buyer name.
UBL: The name only appears in cac:PartyName, not in the legal name cac:PartyLegalEntity/cbc:RegistrationName.
How to fix the error
Enter the full buyer name.
CII: ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeAgreement/ram:BuyerTradeParty/ram:Name, UBL: cac:AccountingCustomerParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyLegalEntity/cbc:RegistrationName.
Generate and validate the invoice again.
In E-Rechnungsfreund
In the invoice form, section "Käufer (BG-7)" (buyer), fill in the field "Name (BT-27/44)".
Example
Wrong
<ram:BuyerTradeParty>
<ram:PostalTradeAddress>
...
</ram:PostalTradeAddress>
</ram:BuyerTradeParty>
Correct
<ram:BuyerTradeParty>
<ram:Name>Sample Inc</ram:Name>
<ram:PostalTradeAddress>
...
</ram:PostalTradeAddress>
</ram:BuyerTradeParty>
For developers: test expression per syntax
EN 16931 (CII) (CII)
Context: /rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice
normalize-space(rsm:SupplyChainTradeTransaction/ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeAgreement/ram:BuyerTradeParty/ram:Name) != ''
EN 16931 (UBL) (UBL)
Context: /ubl:Invoice | /cn:CreditNote
normalize-space(cac:AccountingCustomerParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyLegalEntity/cbc:RegistrationName) != ''
Factur-X / ZUGFeRD EN 16931 (CII)
Technical ID in the source: FX-SCH-A-000016
Context: /rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice
(rsm:SupplyChainTradeTransaction/ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeAgreement/ram:BuyerTradeParty/ram:Name!='')
Related validation rules
Last updated:
Explanation of the validation rule, not legal or tax advice.