Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 · rule

UBL-CR-169

Layer en16931·Checked against Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 2026.5

What does UBL-CR-169 mean? A UBL invoice should not include the AccountingSupplierParty Party PartyTaxScheme RegistrationName

Why did my invoice fail UBL-CR-169?

The invoice should not contain the element cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyTaxScheme/cbc:RegistrationName, i.e. a registration name inside the seller PartyTaxScheme. This is one of the EN 16931 "cardinality restriction" (UBL-CR) warnings: the UBL 2.1 schema allows the element, but it maps to no business term in the EN 16931 core invoice model, so a compliant core invoice must leave it out. The PartyTaxScheme group carries only the seller VAT/tax identifier (BT-31/BT-32 in cbc:CompanyID plus the tax scheme); the seller's legal name belongs in BT-27 (cac:PartyLegalEntity/cbc:RegistrationName). Receivers may ignore or reject data carried in such elements, so remove it or move the information to the supported business term.

Official rule text

A UBL invoice should not include the AccountingSupplierParty Party PartyTaxScheme RegistrationName

Common causes

The seller's company name is duplicated into cac:PartyTaxScheme/cbc:RegistrationName in addition to (or instead of) cac:PartyLegalEntity/cbc:RegistrationName (BT-27)
A mapper fills RegistrationName on every UBL party substructure that offers it
A template from a non-EN 16931 UBL profile that used PartyTaxScheme/RegistrationName was reused

How do I fix it?

<cac:PartyTaxScheme>
  <cbc:CompanyID>SI12345678</cbc:CompanyID>
  <cac:TaxScheme><cbc:ID>VAT</cbc:ID></cac:TaxScheme>
</cac:PartyTaxScheme>
<cac:PartyLegalEntity>
  <cbc:RegistrationName>Example d.o.o.</cbc:RegistrationName>
</cac:PartyLegalEntity>

Check your invoice against this rule

Paste it into the live demo, or call POST /v1/validate. See the quickstart.