BT-9Payment due dateBT-20Payment termsBT-115Amount due for payment
Official rule text
[BR-CO-25] In case the Amount due for payment (BT-115) is positive, either the Payment due date (BT-9) or the Payment terms (BT-20) shall be present.
Why this error occurs
If the amount due for payment (BT-115) is greater than zero, the invoice must state either a payment due date (BT-9) or payment terms (BT-20), so the buyer knows when to pay. In UBL the rule looks for cbc:DueDate or cac:PaymentTerms/cbc:Note on an Invoice with positive cac:LegalMonetaryTotal/cbc:PayableAmount; in CII for ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms/ram:DueDateDateTime or ram:Description when ram:DuePayableAmount is positive. It is typically triggered by software that prints the terms on the PDF but does not export them, or only exports them for certain customer groups.
How to fix it
Add cbc:DueDate (YYYY-MM-DD) directly after cbc:DocumentCurrencyCode-related header fields in UBL (it sits after cbc:IssueDate and before cbc:InvoiceTypeCode), and/or cac:PaymentTerms/cbc:Note with the textual terms. In CII add ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms with ram:DueDateDateTime/udt:DateTimeString format="102" and/or ram:Description inside ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement. Prefer giving both: the date is machine-readable, the text carries conditions such as cash discount. Credit notes and fully prepaid invoices (BT-115 = 0) do not need either.
Example (valid)
<cbc:IssueDate>2026-10-14</cbc:IssueDate>
<cbc:DueDate>2026-11-13</cbc:DueDate>
...
<cac:PaymentTerms>
<cbc:Note>Payable within 30 days without deduction.</cbc:Note>
</cac:PaymentTerms>
What the validator checks
Checked element (context):
UBL
/ubl:Invoice/cac:LegalMonetaryTotal/cbc:PayableAmountTest (XPath):
((. > 0) and (exists(//cbc:DueDate) or exists(//cac:PaymentTerms/cbc:Note))) or (. <= 0)CII
/rsm:CrossIndustryInvoiceTest (XPath):
(number(//ram:DuePayableAmount) > 0 and ((//ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms/ram:DueDateDateTime) or (//ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms/ram:Description))) or not(number(//ram:DuePayableAmount)>0)
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.
Same check via API:
curl -F file=@invoice.xml https://einvoicechecker.com/v1/validateRelated rules
BR-CO-16Amount due for payment (BT-115) does not add upBR-15An Invoice shall have the Amount due for paymentBR-DEC-18The allowed maximum number of decimals for the Amount due for payment is 2BR-CO-03Tax point date and tax point date code both givenBR-CO-04Invoice line without VAT category code (BT-151)BR-CO-05Document level allowance reason code and Document level allowance reason shall…BR-CO-06Document level charge reason code and Document level charge reason shall indicate the…BR-CO-07Invoice line allowance reason code and Invoice line allowance reason shall indicate…
Frequently asked questions
What does BR-CO-25 mean?
BR-CO-25 is a en 16931 core rule: In case the Amount due for payment (BT-115) is positive, either the Payment due date (BT-9) or the Payment terms (BT-20) shall be present.
Will my invoice be rejected because of BR-CO-25?
Yes. BR-CO-25 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-25 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.