BR-G-02: Add the seller VAT identifier to an export invoice

The short answer

BR-G-02 fails when a line is classified G, export outside the EU, and the seller has no VAT identifier: no cbc:CompanyID in a VAT cac:PartyTaxScheme under cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party, and no tax representative carrying one. Add the seller VAT identifier.

Only the seller side is checked. The recorded export goes to a buyer in the United States with no VAT identifier, and that is accepted.

What the rule checks

Any cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory with cbc:ID of G under the VAT scheme sets the rule off. In UBL that element exists only on items, so the lines decide; a G breakdown alone does not. One finding is raised at the root.

It passes with a seller cac:PartyTaxScheme whose cac:TaxScheme/cbc:ID is VAT and which has a cbc:CompanyID, or with the same inside cac:TaxRepresentativeParty. When tried, a tax representative with name, address and a VAT identifier made the export valid without any seller VAT identifier.

Other seller identifiers do not count. The failing invoice keeps the legal registration identifier 12345678 and fails. A seller cac:PartyTaxScheme under the scheme TAX, where a non-VAT tax registration belongs, also failed when tried, whether it held GB123456789 or a local tax number; BR-S-02 would accept that registration on a Standard rated line.

An empty seller cbc:CompanyID got past this rule when tried and was reported by PEPPOL-EN16931-R008 instead.

Nothing here checks that the buyer is outside the EU. The same export with the buyer country changed to DE passed every layer when tried; whether G is right is for your tax determination.

How an integration ends up here

Possible causes, from the shape of the rule rather than from measured usage:

• The seller VAT identifier is written only when VAT is charged, and an export carries a tax amount of zero.
• The seller registration is sent under a tax scheme code other than VAT.
• The company registration number is the only seller identifier mapped. That satisfies BR-CO-26 but not this rule.
• The seller uses a tax representative, and cac:TaxRepresentativeParty goes out without its cac:PartyTaxScheme.

How to fix it

1. Take the VAT registration number of the legal entity issuing the invoice from its company settings, in full with the country prefix.
2. Emit it under cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party as cac:PartyTaxScheme with cbc:CompanyID and cac:TaxScheme/cbc:ID of VAT, between cac:PostalAddress and cac:PartyLegalEntity.
3. Where a tax representative accounts for VAT on behalf of the seller, send cac:TaxRepresentativeParty with its name, postal address and its own VAT cac:PartyTaxScheme instead.
4. If the seller has no VAT registration at all, take the question to whoever owns tax determination rather than changing the category in the mapping.

Validate your corrected invoice

Before and after

These are fragments, not complete documents. The complete synthetic documents they come from are linked below.

Fragment of the failing invoice: the seller has a legal registration identifier and no VAT identifier

<cac:AccountingSupplierParty>
  <cac:Party>
    <cbc:EndpointID schemeID="0088">7300010000001</cbc:EndpointID>
    <!-- postal address in London, GB, omitted from this fragment -->
    <cac:PartyLegalEntity>
      <cbc:RegistrationName>Example Supplier Ltd</cbc:RegistrationName>
      <cbc:CompanyID>12345678</cbc:CompanyID>
    </cac:PartyLegalEntity>
  </cac:Party>
</cac:AccountingSupplierParty>

Fragment of the corrected invoice: the seller VAT identifier under the VAT scheme

<cac:AccountingSupplierParty>
  <cac:Party>
    <cbc:EndpointID schemeID="0088">7300010000001</cbc:EndpointID>
    <!-- postal address in London, GB, omitted from this fragment -->
    <cac:PartyTaxScheme>
      <cbc:CompanyID>GB123456789</cbc:CompanyID>
      <cac:TaxScheme>
        <cbc:ID>VAT</cbc:ID>
      </cac:TaxScheme>
    </cac:PartyTaxScheme>
    <cac:PartyLegalEntity>
      <cbc:RegistrationName>Example Supplier Ltd</cbc:RegistrationName>
      <cbc:CompanyID>12345678</cbc:CompanyID>
    </cac:PartyLegalEntity>
  </cac:Party>
</cac:AccountingSupplierParty>

The corrected invoice gives the seller a cac:PartyTaxScheme with GB123456789 under the VAT scheme; the failing invoice has none. The buyer in New York has no VAT identifier in either document. The failing document reports only BR-G-02, not BR-CO-26, because the legal registration identifier still identifies the seller.

Where it applies

• Applies to UBL Invoice and CreditNote. A credit note built from the failing invoice gave the same finding when tried.
• Category G has its own reason rule, BR-G-10, which reported when the recorded export lost its VATEX-EU-G code and text. That code on a breakdown of another category is rejected by PEPPOL-EN16931-P0104.
• Removing the legal registration identifier too brought BR-CO-26 beside this rule when tried, since the seller then had no identifier of any kind.

Related rules

• BR-IC-02 asks for the buyer VAT identifier as well when the line is an intra-community supply
• BR-S-02 is the Standard rated seller check, which accepts a tax registration under any scheme
• BR-CO-26 requires some seller identifier on every document, VAT or not
• BR-CO-09 checks the country prefix of the seller VAT identifier you add
• Browse every rule in the reference
• Background: Understanding EN 16931 validation errors

Scope and source

Written for Peppol BIS Billing 3.0.21 (May 2026), EN 16931 1.3.16, as applied to UBL 2.1 Invoice and CreditNote documents. Other profiles, syntaxes and releases can define this identifier differently. Guidance version 2026-09-24.1: source checked 2026-09-24, explanation last updated 2026-09-24.

The official definition of BR-G-02 carries the normative wording and test. This page is our explanation of it, not a copy.

Guidance does not change the engine verdict. Fixing this finding does not mean the document passes every layer, and validation does not certify legal or tax compliance or transmit a document over Peppol.