Skip to content

BR-E-05: VAT rate of invoice line with category E is not 0

Official message

[BR-E-05] In an Invoice line (BG-25) where the Invoiced item VAT category code (BT-151) is "Exempt from VAT", the Invoiced item VAT rate (BT-152) shall be 0 (zero).

EN 16931 (CII) · Error · Message language: English · Version: xrechnung-3.0.2-validator-configuration-2026-08-31

[BR-E-05] In an Invoice line (BG-25) where the Invoiced item VAT category code (BT-151) is "Exempt from VAT", the Invoiced item VAT rate (BT-152) shall be 0 (zero).

EN 16931 (UBL) · Error · Message language: English · Version: xrechnung-3.0.2-validator-configuration-2026-08-31

[BR-E-05] In an Invoice line (BG-25) where the Invoiced item VAT category code (BT-151) is "Exempt from VAT", the Invoiced item VAT rate (BT-152) shall be 0 (zero).

Factur-X / ZUGFeRD EN 16931 · Error · Message language: English · Version: Factur-X 1.08 / ZUGFeRD 2.4
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-25, BT-151, BT-152

What does this mean?

For an invoice line (BG-25) with VAT category (BT-151) E (Exempt from VAT) the invoiced item VAT rate (BT-152) must be 0 (zero). The rate has another value or is missing.

Typical causes

Category E was selected but the previous rate (e.g. 19) was kept.
The rate is missing; it must be stated as 0.

How to fix the error

State rate 0 for every invoice line of category E.
If the rate does not match the category, correct the category and adjust the VAT breakdown (BG-23).
CII: ram:IncludedSupplyChainTradeLineItem/ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement/ram:ApplicableTradeTax/ram:RateApplicablePercent, UBL: cac:InvoiceLine/cac:Item/cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory/cbc:Percent (credit note: cac:CreditNoteLine).

In E-Rechnungsfreund

In the invoice form, section "Rechnungspositionen (BG-25)" (invoice lines, "Experte" view), for every line with "Steuerkategorie (BT-151)" (VAT category) E enter 0 in the field "Steuersatz % (BT-152)" (VAT rate).

Example

Wrong

<ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement>
  <ram:ApplicableTradeTax>
    <ram:TypeCode>VAT</ram:TypeCode>
    <ram:CategoryCode>E</ram:CategoryCode>
    <ram:RateApplicablePercent>19.00</ram:RateApplicablePercent>
  </ram:ApplicableTradeTax>
  ...
</ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement>

Correct

<ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement>
  <ram:ApplicableTradeTax>
    <ram:TypeCode>VAT</ram:TypeCode>
    <ram:CategoryCode>E</ram:CategoryCode>
    <ram:RateApplicablePercent>0</ram:RateApplicablePercent>
  </ram:ApplicableTradeTax>
  ...
</ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement>
For developers: test expression per syntax

EN 16931 (CII) (CII)

Context: //rsm:SupplyChainTradeTransaction/ram:IncludedSupplyChainTradeLineItem/ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement/ram:ApplicableTradeTax[ram:CategoryCode = 'E'][upper-case(ram:TypeCode) = 'VAT']

ram:RateApplicablePercent = 0

EN 16931 (UBL) (UBL)

Context: cac:InvoiceLine/cac:Item/cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory[normalize-space(cbc:ID) = 'E'][cac:TaxScheme/normalize-space(upper-case(cbc:ID))='VAT'] | cac:CreditNoteLine/cac:Item/cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory[normalize-space(cbc:ID) = 'E'][cac:TaxScheme/normalize-space(upper-case(cbc:ID))='VAT']

(xs:decimal(cbc:Percent) = 0)

Factur-X / ZUGFeRD EN 16931 (CII)

Technical ID in the source: FX-SCH-A-000238

Context: //rsm:SupplyChainTradeTransaction/ram:IncludedSupplyChainTradeLineItem/ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement/ram:ApplicableTradeTax[ram:CategoryCode = 'E']

ram:RateApplicablePercent = 0

Related validation rules

  • BR-E-01: Not exactly one VAT breakdown for category E
  • BR-E-02: Seller VAT or tax registration identifier missing for invoice line with category E
  • BR-E-03: Seller VAT or tax registration identifier missing for document level allowance with category E
  • BR-E-04: Seller VAT or tax registration identifier missing for document level charge with category E
  • BR-E-06: VAT rate of document level allowance with category E is not 0
  • BR-E-07: VAT rate of document level charge with category E is not 0

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