{
  "id": "BR-CO-24",
  "country": "EU",
  "syntax": "ubl",
  "group": "document",
  "severity": "fatal",
  "severity_note": "fatal, from the Flag column of the Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 UBL rules index retrieved 2026-10-18.",
  "spec": "Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, May 2026 release, EN 16931 model bound to UBL",
  "statement": "Each Invoice line charge (BG-28) shall contain an Invoice line charge reason (BT-144) or an Invoice line charge reason code (BT-145), or both.",
  "statement_lang": "en",
  "context": "//cac:InvoiceLine/cac:AllowanceCharge[cbc:ChargeIndicator = true()] | //cac:CreditNoteLine/cac:AllowanceCharge[cbc:ChargeIndicator = true()]",
  "test": "exists(cbc:AllowanceChargeReason) or exists(cbc:AllowanceChargeReasonCode)",
  "meaning": "Each Invoice line charge (BG-28) must contain an Invoice line charge reason (BT-144) or an Invoice line charge reason code (BT-145), or both. The statement says \"shall contain\", not \"shall have\", and it ends with a period. It names BG-28, BT-144, and BT-145. The published context and the published test are the same strings as BR-44. The statement is not. The context starts with // and writes ChargeIndicator = true() with spaces around =.",
  "fix": "On each invoice line charge, send an Invoice line charge reason (BT-144), an Invoice line charge reason code (BT-145), or both.",
  "example_fail": "An invoice line charge has neither a reason nor a reason code.",
  "example_pass": "An invoice line charge has a reason and no reason code.",
  "example_note": "Illustration of the condition in the official statement. Not an example published by the source.",
  "source_url": "https://docs.peppol.eu/poacc/billing/3.0/rules/ubl-tc434/BR-CO-24/",
  "source_retrieved": "2026-10-18",
  "last_verified": "2026-10-18"
}