How do Insurers Apportion Premiums When the Risks are Unknown?

Elliot Shulver
August 6, 2019

Global insurance programmes will cover risks in multiple jurisdictions throughout the world and allocating the premium between all these jurisdictions can be a major challenge for insurers.  It gets even more complicated when the risks of that particular programme are unknown at the time of contract inception.

Bon voyage

This could be, for example, where a ship is being insured for a voyage around the world.  In this particular scenario the exact route, number of port stopovers, or length of time spent at any one port may not be known at the exact time the insurance contract is taken out.

So, how should the premium be allocated and to which jurisdictions?

Many tax regimes don’t provide guidance on how premiums should be apportioned and leave it to the insurer to use a fair and reasonable apportionment method. This needs to be justifiable and shouldn’t be used as a way of reducing tax liabilities. The UK tax authority, HMRC, provide examples of apportionment, including one relating to marine and ships’ journeys. It states that the UK portion of a worldwide marine cargo cover policy can be calculated by taking the number of intra-UK journeys divided by the number of worldwide journeys.

A challenge for insurers

The insurer will therefore need to estimate the premium allocation, which could be based on historical data for such ships or for the type of journey the ship is going to make. This will then create the tax liabilities in the corresponding jurisdictions for which taxes should be declared and settled in the appropriate tax periods. Once the ship’s journey has begun, and a more accurate level of risk can be calculated, the relevant adjustments can be made to the taxes already declared.

This in turn creates additional issues relating to under and over declarations of tax as well as the extra administrative burden in adjusting the returns. Over declaring can be a significant problem in Italy where refunds are not allowed and in jurisdictions with Stamp Duty regimes, such as Malta and Cyprus, where refunds are only allowed after a cooling off period. Not declaring enough tax can also be a problem and may leave taxpayers open to penalties or possible questions from tax authorities.

Reducing the business risk

It is important, therefore, that an insurer can justify their premium apportionment and back this up with reliable and consistent data sets. This will ensure risks are minimised especially when determining the correct amount of tax due in each jurisdiction.

The challenges an insurer faces when allocating their insurance premiums to jurisdictions that may be unknown can be complex and risky. Careful monitoring and valid historical records should help to reduce the risks involved and to ensure a compliant approach to insurance premium taxes around the world.

 

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.

Author

Elliot Shulver

Elliot Shulver is a Manager, IPT compliance for indirect tax at Sovos. He joined the company in April 2014, having spent the previous two and a half years living and working in Australia and New Zealand. He is responsible for Gambling Duties, as well as researching and managing consultancy projects and technical knowledge for IPT.
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 […]