Interpreting Insurance Tax Legislation

Alessia Mecozzi
July 9, 2019

Tax legislation is sometimes structured, or worded, ambiguously.  This leaves scope for a number of different interpretations for the treatment of tax on insurance policies, some leading to a lower tax liability than others.

This can often be seen when different insurance premium tax (IPT) rates apply to specific sub-classes of the same business or when the policy covers particular risks that may trigger the application of parafiscal charges – such as motor levies, fire brigade charges, and contributions on terrorism risks.  The challenge in identifying the correct tax treatment can also sometimes lie in the complexity of non-IPT related legislation governing which type of cover is to be provided.

Even across the “harmonised” member states of the European Union, IPT treatments are fragmented and diverse.  The rates in themselves vary greatly and an exemption applicable in one territory does not necessarily apply in another.  These points alone add to the complexity and challenges when interpreting local tax laws.

A further challenge concerns language.  The technicalities of both tax and insurance terminology can be a minefield for translations.  For example, the difference between insurance, warranties, guarantees and sureties can be subtle, but getting the translation wrong can be the difference between a product being taxed or not. 

In the world of IPT, where the rates and charges applied have a direct or indirect impact on the premium charged to the client, choosing one interpretation over another may affect the insurer’s competitiveness in the marketplace.  As pressures mount to protect profit margins, applying the right rates of IPT can have a significant impact on the business

Common practices have developed within the insurance industry to provide more clarity and official interpretations over grey areas concerning the application of IPT across the EU.  An insurer may decide to follow an approach that is more compliant than market practice but that could result in a greater tax liability.  As a result, the premiums in this scenario are likely to be higher than its competitors.  This will therefore have a negative impact on the business with clients moving to what may appear to be a cheaper policy.

If the market interpretation is followed, there is however a risk that the tax authorities disagree with it during an audit and consider it to be non-compliant.  In some countries, it is possible for the taxpayer to seek an official interpretation over the tax treatment of a specific transaction directly from the tax authorities.  However, in some cases, clarifications must be sought in advance of offering the insurance product and the delay in obtaining the answer could result in a loss of revenue for the insurer.  It may also be the case that the interpretation provided by the authorities is binding only for the taxpayer requesting it.  This leaves the insurer with the burden of informing the market in order to preserve its competitiveness.

The world of IPT compliance is complex and the consequences of incorrectly interpreting the legislation can be far reaching.  Local knowledge and experience are key.


Take Action

To read more about the insurance landscape and tax compliance, download Trends: Insurance Premium Tax and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter 

Sign up for Email Updates

Stay up to date with the latest tax and compliance updates that may impact your business.


Alessia Mecozzi

Alessia is a Compliance Services Manager. She leads one of the insurance premium tax Managed Services Teams and is actively involved in managing client accounts. After graduating in Business and Management in Italy, she moved to the UK and joined Sovos FiscalReps in 2013, where she qualified as an accountant in 2018. She has over five years of experience in premium taxes across all European territories and is the subject matter expert in Italian and San Marino premium taxes.
Share This Post

Sales & Use Tax United States
December 4, 2019
Economic Nexus: Enforcement is Coming

We are now more than 16 months removed from the groundbreaking Supreme Court decision of South Dakota v. Wayfair. This decision unlocked the ability for U.S. states to impose a sales tax collection and remittance responsibility on remote sellers based solely on their economic connection to that state. Within that time, virtually every state imposing […]

EMEA Tax Compliance VAT & Fiscal Reporting
December 4, 2019
Poland’s Departure from the Traditional VAT Return

In Europe, Poland seems to be the first country to move away from the traditional VAT return replacing it with a detailed Standard Audit File for Tax (SAF-T). This is basically an expansion of the SAF-T system already used in Poland since 2016. Large enterprises must start working with the expanded SAF-T system from April […]

EMEA Tax Compliance VAT & Fiscal Reporting
November 26, 2019
Hungary Expands Scope of Real-Time Reporting

Since July 2018, taxpayers in Hungary have been obliged to disclose the data of electronic invoices issued for transactions with accounted VAT exceeding HUF 100,000 (approximately €300). This data must be transmitted to the National Tax and Customs Administration of Hungary (NAV) in a structured manner once the electronic invoice has been issued.  This fiscal obligation […]

Asia Pacific E-Invoicing Compliance EMEA Tax Compliance VAT & Fiscal Reporting
November 26, 2019
Is Your Business Ready for Turkey’s Digital Tax Transformation?

The value of data is rising The value of data is becoming more precious than oil.  Technology has transformed market dynamics across all sectors and the way businesses operate. Big data has grown in importance and data-based platforms are today’s new technology giants. On one hand; Facebook, Google and other data-based platforms are collecting data […]

EMEA Tax Compliance VAT & Fiscal Reporting
November 21, 2019
Revisiting the EU VAT “2020 Quick Fixes”

Part 4 – Call-Off Stock Arrangements This is the last in a series of four blogs providing explanatory detail to the EU’s “2020 Quick Fixes” that aim to standardise certain VAT rules throughout the EU.   Part one of this series focussed on VAT Identification of the Customer, part two provided guidance on the Exemptions of […]