What it means
The official wording calls this a note subject code, but the element it checks is the business process identifier (BT-23) in the document context of the CII file. This rule exists only in the CII rule set, and it raises the warning whenever the identifier is used.
Why it matters
Nothing is rejected. A plain NLCIUS invoice does not need the identifier. A network can still require it, and Peppol does.
How to fix it
If you send the invoice over Peppol, keep the identifier and ignore the warning. Otherwise, remove the business process setting from your invoicing software or the export profile. It is worth fixing only if you want a file without warnings.
The rule as published
The use of an invoice note subject code (/*/rsm:ExchangedDocumentContext/ram:BusinessProcessSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter/ram:ID) is not recommended, unless desired by a particular network (such as PEPPOL) Where this rule applies
| Rule set | Version |
|---|---|
| NLCIUS (CII) | 1.0.3.13 |
Check your file
Drop your e-invoice to see whether BR-NL-23 still fails, and which other rules do.
Related rules
- BR-NL-24 The date of the preceding invoice is not recommended
- BR-NL-25 Dutch sellers should give a VAT number, not another tax number
- BR-NL-26 The seller's additional legal information is not recommended
- BR-NL-29 Leave out the payment means text, the code is enough
- BR-NL-30 Leave out the bank account name
- BR-NL-31 Leave out the bank identifier on SEPA payments