BR-S-05: VAT rate of invoice line with category S is not greater than zero
Official message
[BR-S-05] In an Invoice line (BG-25) where the Invoiced item VAT category code (BT-151) is "Standard rated" the Invoiced item VAT rate (BT-152) shall be greater than zero.
[BR-S-05] In an Invoice line (BG-25) where the Invoiced item VAT category code (BT-151) is "Standard rated" the Invoiced item VAT rate (BT-152) shall be greater than zero.
[BR-S-05] In an Invoice line (BG-25) where the Invoiced item VAT category code (BT-151) is "Standard rated" the Invoiced item VAT rate (BT-152) shall be greater than zero.
- 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) S (Standard rated, VAT rate above zero) the invoiced item VAT rate (BT-152) must be greater than zero. The rate is 0, negative or missing.
Typical causes
The rate was not stated.
Rate 0 was entered for the item but category S was kept; other categories are intended for rate 0, e.g. Z, E, AE, K or G.
How to fix the error
State a rate greater than zero for every invoice line of category S.
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) S enter a rate greater than zero in the field "Steuersatz % (BT-152)" (VAT rate; simple view "Einfach": field "MwSt %").
Example
Wrong
<ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement>
<ram:ApplicableTradeTax>
<ram:TypeCode>VAT</ram:TypeCode>
<ram:CategoryCode>S</ram:CategoryCode>
<ram:RateApplicablePercent>0</ram:RateApplicablePercent>
</ram:ApplicableTradeTax>
...
</ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement>
Correct
<ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement>
<ram:ApplicableTradeTax>
<ram:TypeCode>VAT</ram:TypeCode>
<ram:CategoryCode>S</ram:CategoryCode>
<ram:RateApplicablePercent>19.00</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 = 'S'][upper-case(ram:TypeCode) = 'VAT']
ram:RateApplicablePercent > 0
EN 16931 (UBL) (UBL)
Context: cac:InvoiceLine/cac:Item/cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory[normalize-space(cbc:ID) = 'S'][cac:TaxScheme/normalize-space(upper-case(cbc:ID))='VAT'] | cac:CreditNoteLine/cac:Item/cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory[normalize-space(cbc:ID) = 'S'][cac:TaxScheme/normalize-space(upper-case(cbc:ID))='VAT']
(cbc:Percent) > 0
Factur-X / ZUGFeRD EN 16931 (CII)
Technical ID in the source: FX-SCH-A-000250
Context: //rsm:SupplyChainTradeTransaction/ram:IncludedSupplyChainTradeLineItem/ram:SpecifiedLineTradeSettlement/ram:ApplicableTradeTax[ram:CategoryCode = 'S']
ram:RateApplicablePercent > 0
Related validation rules
- BR-S-01: VAT breakdown for category S is missing
- BR-S-02: Seller VAT or tax registration identifier missing for invoice line with category S
- BR-S-03: Seller VAT or tax registration identifier missing for document level allowance with category S
- BR-S-04: Seller VAT or tax registration identifier missing for document level charge with category S
- BR-S-06: VAT rate of document level allowance with category S is not greater than zero
- BR-S-07: VAT rate of document level charge with category S is not greater than zero
Frequently asked questions
Does category S also apply to reduced rates?
The rules of category S only require a rate greater than zero and provide a separate breakdown for every rate (BR-S-08), e.g. for 19% and 7%.
Last updated:
Explanation of the validation rule, not legal or tax advice.