Skip to content
Change language: English

Warning

UBL-CR-203: The buyer should not have an additional account ID

In short

Warning: worth checking.

UBL-CR-203 means the buyer's section of your UBL file contains an AdditionalAccountID, an extra account identifier that EN 16931 does not use. This is a warning. Remove cbc:AdditionalAccountID from cac:AccountingCustomerParty.

On this page

What it means

The rule warns if the buyer block (cac:AccountingCustomerParty) in a UBL invoice or credit note contains cbc:AdditionalAccountID. In UBL this is a further account identifier for the buyer, next to the other identifiers. EN 16931 has no business term for this separate account field.

Why it matters

EN 16931 does not use this additional account field. Its presence triggers the warning, even without a value.

How to fix it

Delete cbc:AdditionalAccountID directly under cac:AccountingCustomerParty. If the number identifies the buyer, put it in the buyer identifier (BT-46), at cac:AccountingCustomerParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyIdentification/cbc:ID. If your invoicing software adds the excluded element, ask its supplier to correct the export. Export again and recheck the file.

Once the file is corrected, check it again for free: Validate an invoice against EN 16931

Or fix the invoice in a form and download the corrected file, for 1 credit: Fix a rejected e-invoice

The rule as published

A UBL invoice should not include the AccountingCustomerParty AdditionalAccountID

Where this rule applies

Rule set Version
EN 16931 (UBL) 1.3.17
EN 16931 (UBL credit note) 1.3.17
XRechnung 3.0 (UBL) 3.0.2
XRechnung 3.0 (UBL credit note) 3.0.2
Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 (invoice) 2026.5
Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 (credit note) 2026.5
SI-UBL 2.0 / NLCIUS (invoice) 2.0.3.13
SI-UBL 2.0 / NLCIUS (credit note) 2.0.3.13
France CTC (UBL invoice) 1.4.0-04
France CTC (UBL credit note) 1.4.0-04
CIUS-RO UBL Invoice 1.0.9 1.0.9
CIUS-RO UBL Credit Note 1.0.9 1.0.9
Rule text from phive-rules 4.6.4.

Check your file

Drop your e-invoice to see whether UBL-CR-203 still fails, and which other rules do.

Updated 6 November 2026