# E_0273 — Check invoice for a service of price sheet B of the MSB
Check invoice for a service of price sheet B of the MSB
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Designation | Check invoice for a service of price sheet B of the MSB |
| Market role | NB |
| Regulatory determination / chapter | Processes for changing the technical equipment at locations |
| Section | 9.4.1: AD: Billing of price sheet B services of the MSB between MSB and NB |
| Check identifiers | Response: [33003](/en/schnittstellen/202604/pruefi/REMADV/PI_33003), [33004](/en/schnittstellen/202604/pruefi/REMADV/PI_33004) |
| EBD version | 4.2 |
| As at | 2026-06-23 |
## Decision tree
\nDecision tree E_0273: Rechnung einer Leistung des Preisblatts B des MSB prüfen\n\n\n\nE_0273\nRechnung einer Leistung des\nPreisblatts B des MSB prüfen\nChecking role: NB\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\n10\nErfüllt die Rechnung weitere\nAnforderungen gem. §14 Abs. 4\nUStG?\n\n\nA01\nCluster: Rejection at header level\nRechnung entspricht nicht §14 Abs. 4\nUStG\nHinweis: Die Ablehnung ist zu\nbegründen.\n\n\n20\nIst das Rechnungsdatum ≤ dem\nEingangsdatum?\n\n\nA02\nCluster: Rejection at header level\nRechnungsdatum liegt in der Zukunft\n\n\n30\nIst das Rechnungsdatum < dem\nAusführungsdatum/Leistungszeitr\naum?\n\n\nA03\nCluster: Rejection at header level\nDas Rechnungsdatum liegt vor dem\nAusführungsdatum/Leistungszeitrau\nm.\n\n\n40\nBasiert die Rechnung auf einer\nBestellung des\nRechnungsempfängers?\n\n\nA04\nCluster: Rejection at header level\nDer Rechnungsempfänger lehnt die\nZahlung ab, da die Rechnung auf\nkeiner Bestellung basiert.\n\n\n50\nLiegt vom Rechnungssteller, die in\ndieser Rechnung verwendete\nRechnungsnummer, bereits vor?\n\n\nA05\nCluster: Rejection at header level\nRechnungsnummer wurde bereits\nverwendet\n\n\n60\nIst der fällige Betrag ≥ Null?\n\n\nA06\nCluster: Rejection at header level\nBei der Abrechnung des MSB kann es\nnicht zu einer Rückerstattung\nkommen.\n\n\n70\nIst die Frist der Fälligkeit\nunterschritten? Hinweis: Fälligkeit\nunterschritten bedeutet:\nZahlungsziel ≤ 10 WT zum\nRechnungseingangsdatum\n\n\nA07\nCluster: Rejection at header level\nDas Zahlungsziel ist unterschritten.\n\n\n80\nLiegt die angegebene Version des\nPreisblatts, auf welche sich die\nRechnung der bestätigten\nBestellung bezieht, vor? Hinweis:\nDas Preisblatt B des MSB heißt in\nder PRICAT Preisblatt Technik.\n\n\nA08\nCluster: Rejection at header level\nDer Rechnungsempfänger lehnt die\nZahlung ab. Es liegt kein gültiges\nPreisblatt vor.\n\n\n90\nIst der Abrechnungszeitraum der\nRechnung bereits in einer\nvorhergehenden, akzeptierten und\nnicht stornierten Rechnung\nenthalten?\n\n\nA25\nCluster: Rejection at header level\nAbrechnungszeitraum wird doppelt\nabgerechnet.\nHinweis: Der LF nennt die\nRechnungsnummer der Rechnung, in\nder ein Teil bzw. der Zeitraum des in\ndieser Rechnung abgerechneten\nZeitraums bereits abgerechnet\nwurde.\n\n\n100\nIst ein zuvor nicht spezifizierter\nFehler im Kopfteil der Rechnung\naufgetreten?\n\n\nA90\nCluster: Rejection at header level\nSonstiger Fehler auf Kopfebene.\nHinweis: Das identifizierte Problem\nist in der Antwort zu\nbeschreiben/benennen.\nNutzungsmöglichkeit Ende:\n01.10.2027 00:00 Uhr\n\n\n300\nWurde in der Rechnungsposition\ndie Artikel-ID aus der bestätigten\nBestellung verwendet?\n\n\nA09\nCluster: Rejection at line item level\nEs wurde in der Rechnungsposition\nnicht die Artikel-ID aus der Bestellung\nverwendet.\ncontinue with step 440\n\n\n310\nWird mit der Artikel-ID eine\nLeistung abgerechnet, die der\nMSB erbracht hat, oder die angibt,\ndass er den Auftrag nicht\nerbringen konnte, da er dabei\ngescheitert ist (Artikel-ID\n9991000003030-01)?\n\n\nA10\nCluster: Rejection at line item level\nDer Rechnungsempfänger lehnt die\nZahlung ab, da die abzurechnende\nLeistung nicht vom MSB durchgeführt\nwurde.\ncontinue with step 320\n\n\n320\nEntspricht der Preis in der\nRechnungsposition dem Preis aus\nder Version des Preisblatts der\nbestätigten Bestellung?\n\n\nA11\nCluster: Rejection at line item level\nDer Preis in der Rechnungsposition\nentspricht nicht dem Preis aus dem\nPreisblatt.\ncontinue with step 330\n\n\n330\nWird für die Rechnungsposition\nder für diesen Zeitpunkt/Zeitraum\nkorrekte gültige\nUmsatzsteuersatz angegeben?\n\n\nA12\nCluster: Rejection at line item level\nDer gültige Umsatzsteuersatz für die\nRechnungsposition für diesen\nZeitpunkt/Zeitraum wurde nicht\nkorrekt angegeben.\ncontinue with step 350\n\n\n350\nLiegt der Leistungszeitraum bzw.\ndas Ausführungsdatum der\nRechnungsposition innerhalb des\nangegebenen Leistungszeitraums\nder Kopfebene?\n\n\nA13\nCluster: Rejection at line item level\nDer Leistungszeitraum bzw. das\nAusführungsdatum der\nRechnungsposition ist nicht identisch\nmit dem Leistungszeitraum aus dem\nKopfteil.\ncontinue with step 360\n\n\n360\nExistiert in dieser Rechnung eine\nweitere Rechnungsposition mit\nidentischer Artikel-ID und\nidentischem oder\nüberschneidendem\nLeistungszeitraum bzw.\nidentischem Ausführungsdatum?\n\n\nA14\nCluster: Rejection at line item level\nEs existiert in dieser Rechnung eine\nweitere Rechnungsposition mit\nidentischer Artikel-ID und\nidentischem oder überschneidendem\nLeistungszeitraum bzw. identischem\nAusführungsdatum.\ncontinue with step 370\n\n\n370\nWurde die Artikel-ID bereits in\neiner vorherigen nicht stornierten\nRechnung für den identischen\nLeistungszeitraum bzw.\nidentischem Ausführungsdatum\nbereits abgerechnet?\n\n\nA15\nCluster: Rejection at line item level\nDie Artikel-ID wurde bereits in einer\nvorherigen nicht stornierten\nRechnung für den identischen\nLeistungszeitraum bzw. identischem\nAusführungsdatum bereits\nabgerechnet.\nHinweis: Rechnungsnummer ist\nanzugeben\ncontinue with step 420\n\n\n420\nLiegt ein Rechenfehler in der\nRechnungsposition vor?\n\n\nA20\nCluster: Rejection at line item level\nRechenfehler liegt vor\ncontinue with step 430\n\n\n430\nIst in der Rechnungsposition ein\nzuvor nicht spezifizierter Fehler\naufgetreten?\n\n\nA99\nCluster: Rejection at line item level\nSonstiger Fehler auf Positionsebene.\nHinweis: Das identifizierte Problem\nist in der Antwort zu\nbeschreiben/benennen.\nNutzungsmöglichkeit Ende:\n01.10.2027 00:00 Uhr\ncontinue with step 440\n\n\n440\nSind noch weitere\nRechnungspositionen zu prüfen?\n\n\n450\nIst in mindestens einer\nRechnungspositionen ein Fehler\naufgetreten?\n\nHinweis: Alle erkannten\nAntwortcodes aus der\nPositionsebene sind für jeden\nfehlerhaft identifizierten Positionsteil\nunter Angabe der Positionsnummer\nzu übermitteln.\n\n\n500\nFehlen noch Positionen, die über\ndas bestätigte Angebot vereinbart\nsind und somit in der Rechnung\nerwartet werden?\n\n\nA21\nCluster: Rejection at summary level\nErwartete Position nicht vorhanden\nHinweis: Die nicht enthaltenen\nPositionen aus dem Angebot sind\nunter Angabe der Positionsnummer\naus dem bestätigten Angebot zu\nnennen.\n\n\n510\nEntspricht für den genannten\nSteuersatz die\nBesteuerungsgrundlage der\nSummen der Einzelpositionen\ndieser Rechnung mit diesem\nSteuersatz?\n\n\nA22\nCluster: Rejection at summary level\nGenannte Besteuerungsgrundlage\npasst nicht zu der Summe der\nEinzelpositionen des Steuersatzes.\nHinweis: Es ist der Steuersatz (aus\nDE5278) und die Steuerkategorie\n(aus DE5305) des SG52 TAX zu\nnennen.\ncontinue with step 520\n\n\n520\nEntspricht für diesen Steuersatz\ndie Angabe des Steuerbetrages\nder Summe aller\nRechnungspositionen (Netto)\ndieser Rechnung, denen dieser\nSteuersatz zugeordnet ist,\nmultipliziert mit diesem\nSteuersatz?\n\n\nA23\nCluster: Rejection at summary level\nSumme aller Rechnungspositionen\n(Netto) dieser Rechnung, denen\ndieser Steuersatz zugeordnet ist,\nmultipliziert mit diesem Steuersatz\nentspricht nicht der Angabe des\nSteuerbetrages für diesen\nSteuersatz.\nHinweis: Es ist der Steuersatz (aus\nDE5278) und die Steuerkategorie\n(aus DE5305) des SG52 TAX zu\nnennen.\ncontinue with step 530\n\n\n530\nSind noch weitere Steuersätze zu\nprüfen?\n\n\n540\nEntspricht der Rechnungsbetrag\nder Summe aller\nRechnungspositionen\n(Besteuerungsgrundlage) zzgl.\ndem jeweiligen Steuerbetrag?\n\n\nA24\nCluster: Rejection at summary level\nRechnungsbetrag\n(Besteuerungsgrundlage inklusive\nSteuerbetrag) der Summe ist nicht\nkorrekt.\ncontinue with step 550\n\n\n550\nIst ein zuvor nicht spezifizierter\nFehler im Summenteil\naufgetreten?\n\n\nA96\nCluster: Rejection at summary level\nSonstiges\nHinweis: Das identifizierte Problem\nist in der Antwort zu\nbeschreiben/benennen.\nNutzungsmöglichkeit Ende:\n01.10.2027 00:00 Uhr\ncontinue with step 560\n\n\n560\nIst mindestens ein Fehler in der\nSummenebene aufgetreten?\n\nCluster: Rejection at summary level\nHinweis: Alle erkannten\nAntwortcodes aus der Summenebene\nsind zu übermitteln.\n\nCluster: Consent\nZahlung der Rechnung avisieren und\nim Zahlungslauf berücksichtigen.\n"} kapitel={"Prozesse zur Änderung der Technik an Lokationen · 9.4.1: AD: Abrechnung Leistungen des Preisblatts B des MSB zwischen MSB und NB"} name={"Rechnung einer Leistung des Preisblatts B des MSB prüfen"}>
| Step | Check | Result | Code | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Does the invoice meet further requirements pursuant to §14 Abs. 4 UStG? | no | A01 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Invoice does not comply with §14 Abs. 4 UStG Note: The rejection must be substantiated. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 20 | — |
| 20 | Is the invoice date ≤ the receipt date? | no | A02 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Invoice date is in the future |
| — | — | yes | → Step 30 | — |
| 30 | Is the invoice date < the execution date/service period? | yes | A03 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The invoice date is before the execution date/service period. |
| — | — | no | → Step 40 | — |
| 40 | Is the invoice based on an order placement by the invoice recipient? | no | A04 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The invoice recipient refuses payment because the invoice is not based on any order placement. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 50 | — |
| 50 | Does the invoice number used in this invoice already exist from the invoice issuer? | yes | A05 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Invoice number has already been used |
| — | — | no | → Step 60 | — |
| 60 | Is the amount due ≥ zero? | no | A06 | Cluster: Rejection at header level No refund can arise in the billing of the MSB. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 70 | — |
| 70 | Is the due date deadline undercut? Note: undercut due date means: payment term ≤ 10 WT from the invoice receipt date | yes | A07 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The payment term has been undercut. |
| — | — | no | → Step 80 | — |
| 80 | Is the specified version of the price sheet to which the invoice of the confirmed order placement relates available? Note: Price sheet B of MSB is called price sheet technology in PRICAT. | no | A08 | Cluster: Rejection at header level The invoice recipient refuses payment. There is no valid price sheet. |
| — | — | yes | → step 90 | — |
| 90 | Is the billing period of the invoice already contained in a previous, accepted and not cancelled invoice? | yes | A25 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Billing period is billed twice. Note: The LF states the invoice number of the invoice in which part of, or all of, the period billed in this invoice has already been billed. |
| — | — | no | → Step 100 | — |
| 100 | Has a previously unspecified error occurred in the header section of the invoice? | yes | A90 | Cluster: Rejection at header level Other error at header level. Note: The identified problem must be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.10.2027 00:00 |
| — | — | no | → Step 300 | — |
| from 300 | *Starting with the first line item, the following checks are performed for each line item. If the first error occurs in a line item, the further checks are to be performed as well, as far as this is still possible. All errors found in the detail section are to be reported, naming the respective line item.* | — | — | — |
| 300 | Was the article ID from the confirmed order placement used in the invoice line item? | no | A09 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The article ID from the order placement was not used in the invoice line item. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 310 | — |
| 310 | Does the article ID bill a service that the MSB has performed, or one that indicates that it could not carry out the order because it failed in doing so (article ID 9991000003030-01)? | no | A10 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The invoice recipient refuses payment because the service to be billed was not performed by the MSB. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 320 | — |
| 320 | Does the price in the invoice line item match the price from the version of the price sheet of the confirmed order placement? | no | A11 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The price in the invoice line item does not correspond to the price from the price sheet. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 330 | — |
| 330 | Is the correct VAT rate valid for this point in time/time period stated for the invoice line item? | no | A12 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The valid VAT rate for the invoice line item for this point in time/time period was not stated correctly. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 350 | — |
| 350 | Is the service period or the execution date of the invoice line item within the specified service period at header level? | no | A13 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The service period or the execution date of the invoice line item is not identical to the service period from the header section. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 360 | — |
| 360 | Does another invoice line item with an identical article ID and an identical or overlapping service period or an identical execution date exist in this invoice? | yes | A14 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level This invoice contains a further invoice line item with an identical article ID and an identical or overlapping service period or identical execution date. |
| — | — | no | → Step 370 | — |
| 370 | Has the article ID already been billed in a previous, non-cancelled invoice for the identical service period or identical execution date? | yes | A15 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level The article ID has already been billed in a previous, non-cancelled invoice for the identical service period or identical execution date. Note: the invoice number must be stated |
| — | — | no | → Step 420 | — |
| 420 | Is there a calculation error in the invoice line item? | yes | A20 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level There is a calculation error |
| — | — | no | → Step 430 | — |
| 430 | Has a previously unspecified error occurred in the invoice line item? | yes | A99 | Cluster: Rejection at line item level Other error at line item level. Note: The identified problem must be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.10.2027 00:00 |
| — | — | no | → Step 440 | — |
| 440 | Are there further invoice line items to be checked? | yes | → Step 300 | — |
| — | — | no | → Step 450 | — |
| 450 | Has an error occurred in at least one invoice line item? | yes | End | Note: All response codes detected at line item level must be transmitted for each detail section identified as faulty, stating the line item number. |
| — | — | no | → Step 500 | The check of the EBD is continued in the summary section. |
| from 500 | *The following check takes place at the summary level of the EBD, although it is a summary check of the line item level: since no line item number can be given when the line item number from the confirmed offer is missing, the REMADV structure for transmitting errors at summary level must be used to transmit the error.* | — | — | — |
| 500 | Are line items still missing that are agreed via the confirmed quotation and are therefore expected in the invoice? | yes | A21 | Cluster: Rejection at summary level Expected line item not present Note: The line items from the quotation that are not contained must be named, stating the line item number from the confirmed quotation. |
| — | — | no | → Step 510 | — |
| from 510 | *Starting with check step 510, the following checks are performed for each summary line. If the first error occurs in a summary line, the further checks are to be performed as well, as far as this is still possible. All errors found in the summary section are transmitted to the MSB as the result with the corresponding rejection codes. The following checks are to be performed for each combination of tax rate and tax category.* | — | — | — |
| 510 | For the stated tax rate, does the taxable amount match the sums of the individual line items of this invoice with this tax rate? | no | A22 | Cluster: Rejection at summary level The taxable amount named does not match the sum of the individual line items of the tax rate. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX must be named. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 520 | — |
| 520 | For this tax rate, does the stated tax amount match the sum of all invoice line items (net) of this invoice to which this tax rate is assigned, multiplied by this tax rate? | no | A23 | Cluster: Rejection at summary level The sum of all invoice line items (net) of this invoice to which this tax rate is assigned, multiplied by this tax rate, does not correspond to the tax amount stated for this tax rate. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX must be named. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 530 | — |
| 530 | Are there further tax rates to be checked? | yes | → Step 510 | — |
| — | — | no | → Step 540 | — |
| 540 | Does the invoice amount match the sum of all invoice line items (taxable amount) plus the respective tax amount? | no | A24 | Cluster: Rejection at summary level The invoice amount (taxable amount including tax amount) of the total is not correct. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 550 | — |
| 550 | Has a previously unspecified error occurred in the summary section? | yes | A96 | Cluster: Rejection at summary level Other Note: The identified problem must be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.10.2027 00:00 |
| — | — | no | → Step 560 | — |
| 560 | Has at least one error occurred in the summary level? | yes | End | Cluster: Rejection at summary level Note: All response codes identified at summary level must be transmitted. |
| — | — | no | End | Cluster: Consent Announce payment of the invoice and take it into account in the payment run. |
## Result codes
| Result code | Cluster | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| `A01` | Rejection at header level | Invoice does not comply with §14 Abs. 4 UStG Note: The rejection must be justified. |
| `A02` | Rejection at header level | Invoice date is in the future |
| `A03` | Rejection at header level | The invoice date is before the execution date/service period. |
| `A04` | Rejection at header level | The invoice recipient refuses payment because the invoice is not based on any order placement. |
| `A05` | Rejection at header level | Invoice number has already been used |
| `A06` | Rejection at header level | The billing of the MSB cannot result in a refund. |
| `A07` | Rejection at header level | The payment term is undercut. |
| `A08` | Rejection at header level | The invoice recipient refuses payment. There is no valid price sheet. |
| `A25` | Rejection at header level | Billing period is billed twice. Note: The LF states the invoice number of the invoice in which a part or the whole of the time period billed in this invoice has already been billed. |
| `A90` | Rejection at header level | Other error at header level. Note: The identified problem is to be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.10.2027 00:00 |
| `A09` | Rejection at line item level | The article ID from the order placement was not used in the invoice line item. |
| `A10` | Rejection at line item level | The invoice recipient refuses payment because the service to be billed was not carried out by the MSB. |
| `A11` | Rejection at line item level | The price in the invoice line item does not match the price from the price sheet. |
| `A12` | Rejection at line item level | The valid VAT rate for the invoice line item for this point in time/time period was not specified correctly. |
| `A13` | Rejection at line item level | The service period or the execution date of the invoice line item is not identical to the service period from the header section. |
| `A14` | Rejection at line item level | This invoice contains a further invoice line item with an identical article ID and an identical or overlapping service period or an identical execution date. |
| `A15` | Rejection at line item level | The article ID has already been billed in a previous, non-cancelled invoice for the identical service period or identical execution date. Note: The invoice number is to be specified |
| `A20` | Rejection at line item level | There is a calculation error |
| `A99` | Rejection at line item level | Other error at line item level. Note: The identified problem is to be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.10.2027 00:00 |
| `A21` | Rejection at summary level | Expected line item not present Note: The line items from the quotation that are not included must be stated, giving the line item number from the confirmed quotation. |
| `A22` | Rejection at summary level | Stated taxable amount does not match the sum of the individual items of the tax rate. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX must be stated. |
| `A23` | Rejection at summary level | The total of all invoice line items (net) of this invoice to which this tax rate is assigned, multiplied by this tax rate, does not match the stated tax amount for this tax rate. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX are to be stated. |
| `A24` | Rejection at summary level | Invoice amount (taxable amount including tax amount) of the total is not correct. |
| `A96` | Rejection at summary level | Other Note: The identified problem is to be described/named in the response. End of usability: 01.10.2027 00:00 |
*Role of the numbers: »response« are the check identifiers that list this tree in the ebd_code column of the check identifier table (knowledge-collection · FV 202604); »checked« is the difference set to it from the return path of the process steps.*
:::note{title="Not checked against a process"}
**No** consistency check was carried out for this decision tree — no generated BPMN found. Whether the MACO APP implements this tree completely is therefore not evidenced here.
:::