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

Consulting Manager, IPT compliance for indirect taxes at Sovos. A chartered accountant with 6 years’ experience of indirect tax, including IPT, VAT and Gambling Duties, Elliot is responsible for our Consultancy practice, as well as providing regulatory updates for our global compliance solution suite.
Share this post

North America
June 6, 2024
Observations and Predictions: The Future of Tax and Compliance

When I became the CEO of Sovos one year ago, I knew that I was stepping into an innovative company in an industry primed for a seismic transformation. However, even with this knowledge in place, I must admit that the speed and scope of change over the past year has been extraordinary to witness. Here […]

EMEA IPT
July 8, 2024
Hungary Insurance Premium Tax (IPT): An Overview

Regarding calculating Insurance Premium Tax (IPT), Hungary is the only country in the EU where the regime uses the so-called sliding scale rate model.

North America ShipCompliant
July 3, 2024
The Prospects and Perils of AI in Beverage Alcohol

I recently had the privilege of speaking on a panel at the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators (NCSLA) Annual Conference, a regular meeting of regulators, attorneys and other members of the beverage alcohol industry to discuss important issues affecting our trade. Alongside Claire Mitchell, of Stoel Rives, and Erlinda Doherty, of Vinicola Consulting, and […]

North America ShipCompliant
June 27, 2024
Shifting Focus: How to Make Wine Country Interesting to Millennials

Guest blog written by Susan DeMatei, President, WineGlass Marketing WineGlass Marketing recently conducted a study to explore how Millennials and Gen X feel about wine, wine culture and wine country. The goal was to gain insight into how we can make wine, wine club and wine country appealing to these new audiences. We’ll showcase in-depth […]

North America Sales & Use Tax
June 24, 2024
Illinois to Adjust Sales Tax Nexus Rules in Light of PetMeds Threat

Illinois is poised to change their sourcing rules again, trying to find their way in a world where states apply their sales tax compliance requirements equally to both in-state and remote sellers. With this tweak, they will effectively equalize the responsibilities of remote sellers with no in-state presence, to those that have an Illinois location. […]

EMEA VAT & Fiscal Reporting
June 21, 2024
ViDA Rejected Again – Europe Misses Another Chance to Harmonize e-Invoicing

During the latest ECOFIN meeting on 21 June, Member States met to discuss if they could come to an agreement to implement the VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) proposals. At the ECOFIN meeting in May, Estonia objected to the platform rules being proposed, instead requesting to make the new deemed supplier rules optional (an […]