Error codes

BR-DE-30: Creditor identifier (BT-90) missing on a direct debit

Severity: fatal · Syntax: CII, UBL

Official message

Wenn "DIRECT DEBIT" BG-19 vorhanden ist, dann muss "Bank assigned creditor identifier" BT-90 übermittelt werden.

What this means

If DIRECT DEBIT (BG-19) is present, bank assigned creditor identifier (BT-90) must be transmitted. The UBL assertion requires, when a PaymentMandate exists, a PartyIdentification with schemeID SEPA on the seller or the payee.

Typical cause

The mandate is present, but the SEPA creditor identifier is missing or uses another schemeID.

How to fix it

Set the creditor identifier with schemeID SEPA.

UBL

<cac:PartyIdentification>
  <cbc:ID schemeID="SEPA">DE98ZZZ09999999999</cbc:ID>
</cac:PartyIdentification>

CII

<ram:ProprietaryID schemeID="SEPA">DE98ZZZ09999999999</ram:ProprietaryID>

Business term

BG-19, BT-90

Related rules

• BR-DE-26
• BR-DE-27
• BR-DE-28
• BR-DE-31
• BR-DE-CVD-01

Context and assertion

UBL /ubl:Invoice | /cn:CreditNote

CII /rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice

UBL

not(cac:PaymentMeans/cac:PaymentMandate) or (cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyIdentification/cbc:ID[@schemeID='SEPA'] | cac:PayeeParty/cac:PartyIdentification/cbc:ID[@schemeID='SEPA'])

CII

(($BT-89-path or $BT-91-path) and $BT-90-path) or $BG-19-not-existing

Questions

What does BR-DE-30 actually check?

If DIRECT DEBIT (BG-19) is present, bank assigned creditor identifier (BT-90) must be transmitted. The UBL assertion requires, when a PaymentMandate exists, a PartyIdentification with schemeID SEPA on the seller or the payee.

How do I fix BR-DE-30?

Set the creditor identifier with schemeID SEPA.

If BR-DE-30 passes, is the invoice legally compliant?

No. This page helps you read this one Schematron assertion. A pass is not a statement about tax law, portal acceptance, or bank overlays.