BR-CO-03: Tax point date and tax point date code both given

StandardEN 16931-1 (European e-invoicing semantic model)SeverityError: the invoice is rejectedSyntaxUBL, CIIBusiness terms

BT-7 Value added tax point date
BT-8 Value added tax point date code

Applies toEvery EN 16931 invoice: XRechnung, ZUGFeRD 2.x / Factur-X (profiles EN 16931, EXTENDED, XRECHNUNG), Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, and national CIUS such as the Dutch NLCIUS or the Italian/Spanish profiles.

Official rule text

[BR-CO-03] Value added tax point date (BT-7) and Value added tax point date code (BT-8) are mutually exclusive.

Why this error occurs

The value added tax point date (BT-7) and the tax point date code (BT-8) are mutually exclusive: give either the concrete date or the code that says which date applies, never both. In UBL BT-7 is cbc:TaxPointDate and BT-8 is cac:InvoicePeriod/cbc:DescriptionCode; in CII BT-7 is ram:TaxPointDate and BT-8 is ram:DueDateTypeCode within ram:ApplicableTradeTax. The clash typically comes from an ERP mapping that always fills the date and additionally hard-codes a description code.

How to fix it

Decide which one you need and remove the other. If the tax point is a specific day, keep cbc:TaxPointDate / ram:TaxPointDate (format YYYY-MM-DD in UBL, format 102 YYYYMMDD in CII) and drop the code. If you want to say "the tax point is the invoice date / delivery date / payment date", keep only the code from UNTDID 2005: 3 (invoice document issue date), 35 (delivery date), 432 (paid to date). Most invoices need neither; when the delivery date equals the tax point, cac:Delivery/cbc:ActualDeliveryDate (BT-72) is usually sufficient.

Example (valid)

<cac:InvoicePeriod>
  <cbc:DescriptionCode>35</cbc:DescriptionCode>
</cac:InvoicePeriod>

What the validator checks

Checked element (context):

UBL

/ubl:Invoice | /cn:CreditNote

Test (XPath):

(exists(cbc:TaxPointDate) and not(cac:InvoicePeriod/cbc:DescriptionCode)) or (not(cbc:TaxPointDate) and exists(cac:InvoicePeriod/cbc:DescriptionCode)) or (not(cbc:TaxPointDate) and not(cac:InvoicePeriod/cbc:DescriptionCode))

CII

//ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement/ram:ApplicableTradeTax

Test (XPath):

((//ram:TaxPointDate) and not(//ram:DueDateTypeCode)) or (not (//ram:TaxPointDate) and (//ram:DueDateTypeCode)) or (not (//ram:TaxPointDate) and not (//ram:DueDateTypeCode))

Check your invoice

Drop your XML or PDF on the validator and every failed rule is linked to its page here. Free, no account, the file is not stored.

Check your invoice →

Same check via API:

curl -F file=@invoice.xml https://einvoicechecker.com/v1/validate

Related rules

BR-CO-04 Invoice line without VAT category code (BT-151)
BR-CO-05 Document level allowance reason code and Document level allowance reason shall…
BR-CO-06 Document level charge reason code and Document level charge reason shall indicate the…
BR-CO-07 Invoice line allowance reason code and Invoice line allowance reason shall indicate…
BR-CO-08 Invoice line charge reason code and Invoice line charge reason shall indicate the same…
BR-CO-09 VAT identifier has no valid country prefix
BR-CO-10 Sum of line net amounts (BT-106) does not match the lines
BR-CO-11 Sum of document level allowances (BT-107) is wrong

Frequently asked questions

What does BR-CO-03 mean?

BR-CO-03 is a en 16931 core rule: Value added tax point date (BT-7) and Value added tax point date code (BT-8) are mutually exclusive.

Will my invoice be rejected because of BR-CO-03?

Yes. BR-CO-03 is flagged "fatal"; validators (KoSIT, Peppol access points, the German ZRE/OZG-RE portals) reject the invoice until it is fixed.

Which formats does BR-CO-03 apply to?

Every EN 16931 invoice: XRechnung, ZUGFeRD 2.x / Factur-X (profiles EN 16931, EXTENDED, XRECHNUNG), Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, and national CIUS such as the Dutch NLCIUS or the Italian/Spanish profiles. Syntax: UBL and CII.

Source: EN 16931-1:2017 schematron (CEN TC434, via Peppol BIS 3.0.20). Catalogue generated from the official schematron on 2026-10-14.