BR-S-06Standard-rated allowance carries no VAT rate
Mutabiq checks Saudi ZATCA Phase 2 e-invoice XML before you submit it: pre-validation against published ZATCA requirements, not an approval by the authority. This page explains one rule, BR-S-06.
Five checks a month on the Free plan. The file is checked in memory and is never stored.
The message ZATCA prints
[BR-S-06]-In a Document level allowance (BG-20) where the Document level allowance VAT category code (BT-95) is "Standard rated" the Document level allowance VAT rate (BT-96) shall be greater than zero.
What Mutabiq reports
One entry for each way this rule can be reported.
Reported as
What kind of value was found — empty, not_15_digits and the like — never the value itself.
Standard-rated allowance carries no VAT rate
Reported asrate_missingthe rate is missing
What is wrong
The document has a cac:AllowanceCharge whose cac:TaxCategory is coded S - standard rated - under the VAT tax scheme, and that category carries no cbc:Percent element at all. EN 16931 rule BR-S-06, which ZATCA runs, requires the VAT rate on a standard-rated allowance (BT-96) to be greater than zero, and the comparison is written so that an absent element fails it exactly as a zero would: an element that is not there is an empty sequence, and an empty sequence is never greater than zero. The expression ZATCA actually runs is wider than the rule's own wording - the wording says document level allowance, but the expression matches an allowance at any depth, so one written inside an invoice line or inside a price is judged by it too.
What to check in your ERP
The rate belongs in cac:AllowanceCharge/cac:TaxCategory/cbc:Percent, beside the category code in the cbc:ID of the same block. The usual cause is an export template that writes the category code for a discount but leaves the rate to be inherited from the line the discount came from, which is a rule the XML has no way to express. Another is a discount captured in your system as a free-text adjustment rather than as a taxed allowance, so there is no rate on the record for the mapping to read. Check header discounts entered by hand as well as those produced by a pricing rule: the two often follow different mappings and only one of them is usually complete.
Standard-rated allowance's VAT rate is zero or below
Reported asrate_not_positivethe rate is zero or below
What is wrong
A cac:AllowanceCharge whose cac:TaxCategory is coded S - standard rated - under the VAT tax scheme carries a cbc:Percent that is not greater than zero. EN 16931 rule BR-S-06, which ZATCA runs, requires the rate on a standard-rated allowance (BT-96) to be strictly above zero. The two fields disagree with each other rather than with any figure elsewhere in the document: a discount that genuinely carries no VAT is not standard rated, and belongs in the zero-rated (Z), exempt (E) or out-of-scope (O) category instead.
What to check in your ERP
Decide which of the two fields is wrong before changing either. If the discount really is taxed, the rate is what is missing and it must be the rate of the supply being discounted. If the discount really is untaxed, the category code is what is wrong and the rate is right. The frequent cause is a discount record that takes category S because S is the system default for anything with no tax code of its own, while its rate stays at zero because whoever set it up marked it as not taxable. Both halves normally come from the same discount record, so check that record before the export template.
The clause that runs
Quoted from the validation-rule stylesheet ZATCA publishes, at the file and line named below. The executed guard is what the check runs; the reported test is what it prints when it fails, and the two are not always the same.
As shipped in ZATCA SDK 3.4.8: the copy quoted here is, byte for byte, the file that release ships. The date in the file name is the name ZATCA gives the file; the rules in it are those of SDK 3.4.8.
A worked example
A synthetic document from the measured test corpus that trips this rule, shown where it differs from one that passed. Mutabiq's report names the class of the value, never the value itself.