BUG: Validation error when using direct debit

[wurst-hans]

Using current version, I get an error when validating a ZUGFeRD XRechnung that uses payment type 59 (Direct Debit) and contains a financial institution. XML snippet:

<ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans>
  <ram:TypeCode>59</ram:TypeCode>
  <ram:Information>SEPA Lastschrift/Bankeinzug</ram:Information>
  <ram:PayerPartyDebtorFinancialAccount>
    <ram:IBANID>DE1234567890</ram:IBANID>
  </ram:PayerPartyDebtorFinancialAccount>
  <ram:PayerSpecifiedDebtorFinancialInstitution>
    <ram:BICID>DEUTDEMMXXX</ram:BICID>
  </ram:PayerSpecifiedDebtorFinancialInstitution>
</ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans>

Current KoSIT validator does not throw any warning or error, but mustangproject rejects the XML with the following error:

schema validation fails:org.xml.sax.SAXParseException; lineNumber: 717; columnNumber: 55; cvccomplex-type.2.4.a: Invalid content was found starting with element
'{"urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:ReusableAggregateBusinessInformationEntity:100":PayerSpecifiedDebtorFinancialInstitution}'. One of
'{"urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:ReusableAggregateBusinessInformationEntity:100":PayeePartyCreditorFinancialAccount,
"urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:ReusableAggregateBusinessInformationEntity:100":PayeeSpecifiedCreditorFinancialInstitution}' is expected.

When using payment type code 59 there shouldn't be any PayeePartyCreditorFinancial* field, but PayerSpecifiedDebtorFinancial*. When removing the financial institution from the XML, the validation doesn't fail. This seems to be a serious error.

[wurst-hans]

I'm not a Java programmer, but first thing I've noticed, that there is no separate schema file (XSD) for profile XRechnung. Second thing: looking at schema for EN1691, the PayerSpecifiedDebtorFinancialInstitution is missing there, although it's defined in DIN CEN/TS 16931-3-3 (and at least in XRechnung too).

[CommanderRaiker]

I’ve also encountered issues with this part. As strange as it may sound, I believe the order plays a role at some point, and unfortunately, the error messages are not always informative enough.

I think this should work for you:

<ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>
  <ram:CreditorReferenceID>DE0000111122223333</ram:CreditorReferenceID>
  <ram:PaymentReference>INVOICE_9999999</ram:PaymentReference>
  <ram:InvoiceCurrencyCode>EUR</ram:InvoiceCurrencyCode>
  <ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans>
    <ram:TypeCode>59</ram:TypeCode>
    <ram:Information>SEPA direct debit</ram:Information>
    <ram:PayerPartyDebtorFinancialAccount>
      <ram:IBANID>DE1111111222222333333</ram:IBANID>
    </ram:PayerPartyDebtorFinancialAccount>
  </ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementPaymentMeans>
  <ram:ApplicableTradeTax>
  ...
  </ram:ApplicableTradeTax>
  <ram:SpecifiedTradeAllowanceCharge>
  ...
  </ram:SpecifiedTradeAllowanceCharge>
  <ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms>
  ...
  </ram:SpecifiedTradePaymentTerms>
  <ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementHeaderMonetarySummation>
  ...
  </ram:SpecifiedTradeSettlementHeaderMonetarySummation>
</ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeSettlement>

[jstaerk]

Hello,
could someone please provide a way to reproduce the error, e.g. java source code that creates invalid XML?
thanks!
kind regards
Jochen

[CommanderRaiker]

Hello, could someone please provide a way to reproduce the error, e.g. java source code that creates invalid XML? thanks! kind regards Jochen

As far as I know, the payment type code BT-81 "59" only requires the following information and may not accept any additional details:

• BT-91 Debited account identifier / IBAN
• BT-89 Mandate reference identifier / Mandatsreferenz
• BT-90 Bank assigned creditor identifier / Gläubiger ID
• (BT-20) optionally Payment terms / Zahlungsbedingungen

So, I don't see an error here and have never used PayerSpecifiedDebtorFinancialInstitution. I provided an example for using payment type 59 and hope that wurst-hans was able to resolve his issue.

greetings
Raik

[wurst-hans]

I'm not producing any e-invoice using your tool, so I have no test code in Java for you. But I validate ZUGFeRD invoices only using Mustangproject.
When there is a ZUGFeRD profile "XRechnung", I expect that any valid XRechnung can be contained within a ZUGFeRD PDF. And a valid XRechnung allows using a PayerSpecifiedDebtorFinancialInstitution when the payment type is 59. At least, KoSIT doesn't throw any error on this, but your validator does.
I assume, that this is an error, because your tool doesn't use a dedicated XSD for XRechnung.