BR-17 BT-59 Same name für Payee and Seller is an error since xrechnung-2.3 about validator HOT 3 CLOSED

Î think, I found the reason.
BR-17 is not a xrechnung-rule, it's a CII-rule.
Because of an error in path of that rule, the rule never checked correct.

Here's the issue:
ConnectingEurope/eInvoicing-EN16931#322

Here's the correction (Oktober 2022):
ConnectingEurope/eInvoicing-EN16931@a7cda0a

I'll close the issue here.

from validator.

Thanks for reporting!
As you said, the changed behaviour is caused by the fix of BR-17 in CII, now revealing the conflict between BR-17 check and BT-59 description. We will file an issue at CEN.
Should this be an actual use case for you (identical Payee name (BT-59) and Seller name (BT-27) in case of different Seller (BG-4) and Payee (BG-10)), please contact us at [email protected] for a possible workaround until CEN issue is solved.

from validator.

@bdewein Thanks for your reply. The description of BG-10 (Payee) says, only fill BG-10 if the payee differs from the seller.
So it's easy for me to omit the section, because in our app it's not possible to set another payee.

from validator.