Skip to content

BR-DE-31: Debited account (BT-91) is missing for direct debit

Official message

[BR-DE-31] Wenn "DIRECT DEBIT" BG-19 vorhanden ist, dann muss "Debited account identifier" BT-91 übermittelt werden.

XRechnung (CII) · Error · Message language: German · Version: xrechnung-3.0.2-validator-configuration-2026-08-31

[BR-DE-31] Wenn "DIRECT DEBIT" BG-19 vorhanden ist, dann muss "Debited account identifier" BT-91 übermittelt werden.

XRechnung (UBL) · Error · Message language: German · Version: xrechnung-3.0.2-validator-configuration-2026-08-31
Severity
Error The invoice is invalid and may be rejected by the recipient.
Applies to
XRechnung (CII), XRechnung (UBL)
Affected fields
BG-19, BT-91

What does this mean?

If the invoice contains direct debit information (BG-19), the debited account identifier (BT-91) must be provided. It is missing.

Typical causes

Mandate reference (BT-89) or creditor identifier (BT-90) are given, but not the IBAN of the buyer's account.
The creditor identifier was entered although payment is not made by direct debit at all; in CII it already counts as direct debit information.

How to fix the error

For direct debit, enter the IBAN of the account to be debited from the buyer's SEPA mandate.
CII: ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans/ram:PayerPartyDebtorFinancialAccount/ram:IBANID, UBL: cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate/cac:PayerFinancialAccount/cbc:ID.
If payment is not made by direct debit, remove the mandate reference and the creditor identifier.
Generate and validate the invoice again.

In E-Rechnungsfreund

In the invoice form ("Experte" view), section "Zahlungsmittel (BG-16)" (payment means), fill in the field "Lastschrift-Konto (BT-91)" of the payment means with code 59.
If payment is not made by direct debit, clear the fields "Mandatsreferenz SEPA (BT-89)" and "Gläubiger-ID SEPA (BT-90)" in section "Zahlungsinformationen / SEPA" (payment information).

Example

Wrong

<ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>
  <ram:CreditorReferenceID>DE98ZZZ09999999999</ram:CreditorReferenceID>
  ...
  <ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans>
    <ram:TypeCode>59</ram:TypeCode>
  </ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans>
  ...
</ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>

Correct

<ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>
  <ram:CreditorReferenceID>DE98ZZZ09999999999</ram:CreditorReferenceID>
  ...
  <ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans>
    <ram:TypeCode>59</ram:TypeCode>
    <ram:PayerPartyDebtorFinancialAccount>
      <ram:IBANID>DE02120300000000202051</ram:IBANID>
    </ram:PayerPartyDebtorFinancialAccount>
  </ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans>
  ...
</ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>
For developers: test expression per syntax

XRechnung (CII) (CII)

Context: /rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice

(($BT-89-path or $BT-90-path) and $BT-91-path) or $BG-19-not-existing

XRechnung (UBL) (UBL)

Context: /ubl:Invoice | /cn:CreditNote

not(cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate) or (cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate/cac:PayerFinancialAccount/cbc:ID)

Related validation rules

  • BR-DE-1: Payment instructions (BG-16) are missing
  • BR-DE-10: Deliver to city (BT-77) is missing
  • BR-DE-11: Deliver to post code (BT-78) is missing
  • BR-DE-14: VAT category rate (BT-119) is missing in the VAT breakdown
  • BR-DE-15: Buyer reference (BT-10) is missing
  • BR-DE-16: Seller VAT ID, tax number or tax representative is missing

Last updated:
Explanation of the validation rule, not legal or tax advice.