BR-Z-09Zero-rated VAT breakdown states no VAT amount
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-Z-09.
[BR-CO-17]-VAT category tax amount (BT-117) = VAT category taxable amount (BT-116) x (VAT category rate (BT-119) / 100), rounded to two decimals.
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.
Zero-rated VAT breakdown states no VAT amount
Reported astax_amount_missingthe VAT amount is missing
What is wrong
A cac:TaxSubtotal directly under the invoice's own cac:TaxTotal is coded Z - zero-rated - under the VAT tax scheme and carries no cbc:TaxAmount. EN 16931 rule BR-Z-09, which ZATCA runs, requires the VAT category tax amount (BT-117) of a zero-rated breakdown to be zero, and it tests that by comparing the element's value against nought. An absent element is an empty sequence and the comparison is false, so the amount has to be written out as zero and cannot be left implied.
What to check in your ERP
Write cbc:TaxAmount with a value of zero in every zero-rated breakdown, formatted to two decimals like every other amount in the document and carrying the same currencyID attribute. The usual cause is an export that suppresses amount elements whose value is nought, either to keep the file small or because the field is null in the tax summary rather than zero. Both are worth fixing at the template, since the same suppression will affect the exempt and out-of-scope breakdowns as well.
Zero-rated VAT breakdown states a VAT amount that is not zero
Reported astax_amount_not_zerothe VAT amount is not zero
What is wrong
A cac:TaxSubtotal directly under the invoice's own cac:TaxTotal is coded Z - zero-rated - under the VAT tax scheme and its cbc:TaxAmount is not zero. EN 16931 rule BR-Z-09, which ZATCA runs, requires a zero-rated breakdown to carry no VAT at all. Expect other notes alongside this one: the document totals stop reconciling the moment a breakdown's VAT amount moves, so BR-CO-14, BR-CO-15 and BR-CO-17 commonly appear with it, and the breakdown is the defect they are all reporting.
What to check in your ERP
Either the amount belongs to a different category or the category letter is wrong. The frequent cause is a breakdown grouped by tax code where several codes were mapped to the letter Z, one of which is actually taxed, so a taxed group has been folded into the zero-rated one. Another is the document VAT total copied into each breakdown block instead of the per-category figure. Check the per-category tax summary your engine produces and confirm the zero-rated group really carries no tax there.
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.