BR-CO-19: Invoicing period (BG-14) without start and end date
Official message
[BR-CO-19] If Invoicing period (BG-14) is used, the Invoicing period start date (BT-73) or the Invoicing period end date (BT-74) shall be filled, or both.
[BR-CO-19] If Invoicing period (BG-14) is used, the Invoicing period start date (BT-73) or the Invoicing period end date (BT-74) shall be filled, or both.
[BR-CO-19] If Invoicing period (BG-14) is used, the Invoicing period start date (BT-73) or the Invoicing period end date (BT-74) shall be filled, or both.
- 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
- BG-14, BT-73, BT-74
What does this mean?
If the invoicing period (BG-14) is used, its start date (BT-73) or end date (BT-74) shall be filled, or both. The period in the invoice has neither. In UBL the value added tax point date code (BT-8) in cac:InvoicePeriod is sufficient as an alternative.
Typical causes
The period element was created empty, e.g. because the generating system always writes it.
The dates are stated elsewhere, e.g. only in a note.
How to fix the error
State the start date (BT-73) and/or end date (BT-74) of the period, or omit the period entirely if there is none.
CII: ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement/ram:BillingSpecifiedPeriod with ram:StartDateTime or ram:EndDateTime, UBL: cac:InvoicePeriod with cbc:StartDate or cbc:EndDate.
Generate and validate the invoice again.
In E-Rechnungsfreund
In the invoice form, expert view ("Experte"), section "Datum & Zeiträume" (dates and periods), fill in the fields "Abrechnungszeitraum Start (BT-73)" and/or "Abrechnungszeitraum Ende (BT-74)" (billing period start/end). If both are empty, no period is written to the XML. Then validate the invoice again.
Example
Wrong
<ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>
...
<ram:BillingSpecifiedPeriod/>
...
</ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>
Correct
<ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>
...
<ram:BillingSpecifiedPeriod>
<ram:StartDateTime><udt:DateTimeString format="102">20261001</udt:DateTimeString></ram:StartDateTime>
<ram:EndDateTime><udt:DateTimeString format="102">20261031</udt:DateTimeString></ram:EndDateTime>
</ram:BillingSpecifiedPeriod>
...
</ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>
For developers: test expression per syntax
EN 16931 (CII) (CII)
Context: //ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement/ram:BillingSpecifiedPeriod
(ram:StartDateTime) or (ram:EndDateTime)
EN 16931 (UBL) (UBL)
Context: cac:InvoicePeriod
exists(cbc:StartDate) or exists(cbc:EndDate) or (exists(cbc:DescriptionCode) and not(exists(cbc:StartDate)) and not(exists(cbc:EndDate)))
Factur-X / ZUGFeRD EN 16931 (CII)
Technical ID in the source: FX-SCH-A-000060
Context: //ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement/ram:BillingSpecifiedPeriod
(ram:StartDateTime) or (ram:EndDateTime)
Related validation rules
- BR-CO-03: Value added tax point date (BT-7) and tax point date code (BT-8) are mutually exclusive
- BR-CO-04: Invoiced item VAT category code (BT-151) is missing
- BR-CO-05: Document level allowance reason code (BT-98) and allowance reason (BT-97) must indicate the same type
- BR-CO-06: Document level charge reason code (BT-105) and charge reason (BT-104) must indicate the same type
- BR-CO-07: Invoice line allowance reason code (BT-140) and allowance reason (BT-139) must indicate the same type
- BR-CO-08: Invoice line charge reason code (BT-145) and charge reason (BT-144) must indicate the same type
Last updated:
Explanation of the validation rule, not legal or tax advice.