BR-CO-03
Value added tax point date (BT-7) and Value added tax point date code (BT-8) are mutually exclusive.
What does this rule mean?
The VAT point date (BT-7) and the VAT point date code (BT-8) are both present.
Both describe the same tax point in two ways — they are mutually exclusive.
- BT-7
- Value added tax point date
- BT-8
- VAT point date code
Official rule message (standard)
Value added tax point date (BT-7) and Value added tax point date code (BT-8) are mutually exclusive.
Where the rule applies
Syntax: CII · UBL
The same rule, expressed twice: UBL and CII name the same fields with different paths. Running a CII file against the UBL rules is why you get errors that mean nothing.
UBL
/ubl:Invoice | /cn:CreditNote
CII
//ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement/ram:ApplicableTradeTax
Technical test
The rule passes when this Schematron expression holds true:
((//ram:TaxPointDate) and not(//ram:DueDateTypeCode)) or (not (//ram:TaxPointDate) and (//ram:DueDateTypeCode)) or (not (//ram:TaxPointDate) and not (//ram:DueDateTypeCode))How to fix it
Touches amounts, VAT or IBAN. We never change these automatically — correct them in your source data.
Provide either the date (BT-7) or the code (BT-8), not both.
Correct the affected entry in your XML, then re-check the invoice. Validation runs locally in your browser — your file never leaves your machine.
Check an e-invoice here
Drop an XML or ZUGFeRD PDF file here. Validation runs locally in your browser against EN 16931 — your file never leaves your machine.