Error code BR-AE-02 means: a reverse charge invoice (AE) lacks the seller’s VAT number or the buyer’s identification.
What does BR-AE-02 mean?
The validator shows this message (as worded in the official rules):
[BR-AE-02]-An Invoice that contains an Invoice line (BG-25) where the Invoiced item VAT category code (BT-151) is "Reverse charge" shall contain the Seller VAT Identifier (BT-31), the Seller Tax registration identifier (BT-32) and/or the Seller tax representative VAT identifier (BT-63) and the Buyer VAT identifier (BT-48) and/or the Buyer legal registration identifier (BT-47).With reverse charge (VAT category AE) the customer pays the VAT instead of the supplier. That is why the invoice must identify both parties: the seller’s VAT number (BT-31, PartyTaxScheme/CompanyID) and, for the buyer, the VAT number (BT-48) or the legal registration number (BT-47, PartyLegalEntity/CompanyID).
Common causes
- The customer record has no VAT number, while the line uses reverse charge.
- The export does not send the customer’s VAT number.
- The VAT code AE was chosen for a customer that is not a taxable person.
How to fix it as the sender
- Enter the customer’s VAT number and have it sent in
cac:PartyTaxScheme/cbc:CompanyID. - Check whether reverse charge really applies. A private individual can never be the one who pays the VAT.
- Also state the reason for the reverse charge in the VAT breakdown, otherwise BR-AE-10 follows.
Received an invoice with this error?
An invoice with this error is not compliant. Ask the supplier for a corrected invoice and do not change the XML yourself.
Example in the XML
❌ Wrong
<cac:AccountingCustomerParty>
<cac:Party>
...
<!-- no PartyTaxScheme with VAT number -->
<cac:PartyLegalEntity>
<cbc:RegistrationName>Klant NV</cbc:RegistrationName>
<!-- no CompanyID -->
</cac:PartyLegalEntity>
</cac:Party>
</cac:AccountingCustomerParty>
<!-- invoice line with VAT category AE (reverse charge) -->✅ Correct
<cac:AccountingCustomerParty>
<cac:Party>
...
<cac:PartyTaxScheme>
<cbc:CompanyID>BE0987654394</cbc:CompanyID>
<cac:TaxScheme><cbc:ID>VAT</cbc:ID></cac:TaxScheme>
</cac:PartyTaxScheme>
<cac:PartyLegalEntity>
<cbc:RegistrationName>Klant NV</cbc:RegistrationName>
<cbc:CompanyID schemeID="0208">0987654394</cbc:CompanyID>
</cac:PartyLegalEntity>
</cac:Party>
</cac:AccountingCustomerParty>Both snippets come from a complete test invoice that we checked with our validator: the wrong version gives exactly this message, the correct version no errors at all.
Good to know
In our test, removing only the buyer’s VAT number did not yet cause an error, because the company number (BT-47) was still there. The rule accepts either one. For Belgian reverse charge it is still best to always state the VAT number.
Check your invoice
Drop your XML into the free validator. You see right away whether this error still occurs, with a link to the explanation for every message.
Official rule
The full rule with its technical test (Schematron) is in the official Peppol documentation:
Related error codes
- BR-AE-10: The VAT breakdown with reverse charge (AE) states no reason.
- BR-S-02: The invoice charges VAT at the standard rate (category S), but the seller VAT number is missing.
Frequently asked questions about BR-AE-02
When do I use category AE?
For reverse charge, for example for construction work on real estate for a VAT-registered customer. The customer then pays the VAT.
Where is the buyer’s VAT number in the XML?
In cac:AccountingCustomerParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyTaxScheme/cbc:CompanyID, with prefix BE for a Belgian number.