In Focus: Easing the Pain of Negatives for Insurers

Edit Buliczka
May 14, 2020

This blog was last updated on May 14, 2020

Anyone involved in insurance premium tax (IPT) compliance will be only too aware of negatives.  Sadly, they almost always cause a headache and not only for financial reasons but also from a tax compliance perspective as well.

What are negatives?

Negatives for IPT purposes mean negative policy lines in documentation created to support the premium and tax figures given in an IPT return. Negatives can occur in such documentation for one of two main reasons:  mid-term adjustments, or simply because of an error.

Mid-term adjustments

Mid-term adjustments reflect any adjustments or changes made to the details in the original policy documentation. This could, for example, be the policy duration, the risks covered, or the number of the insureds under the contract as these can all be changed while a policy is running. A policy can also be cancelled before reaching its expiry date. It’s worth remembering however that not all mid-term adjustments lead to negative consequences, i.e. resulting in a negative policy line in the supporting documentation.

Errors

While mid-term adjustments are directly linked to a change made to the original policy documentation, errors are not. Errors are generally a result of incorrectly implementing or applying regulations; a lack of up-to-date knowledge of the rules; misinterpreting local rules; incorrect settings or formulas; IT system issues; operational mistakes or simply because of human error.

How to treat negatives

As with other aspects of IPT compliance across Europe, the approach to how to deal with negative lines is fragmented and as a result the compliance treatment varies country by country. Sometimes the legislation is not explicit about how to treat negatives, other times some tax authorities provide specific and helpful guidelines. In some territories, the treatment of negatives for IPT and for surcharges (various levies connecting to insurance businesses) are different. The interpretations of the local tax offices within a country may also vary and can periodically change adding to the complexity and challenges for insurers when complying.  

As an example, the different approaches and treatments adopted by Italy, Luxembourg and Germany are illustrated below.

Italy: While correcting an error may be allowed to be offset against the current liabilities when calculating the monthly liabilities, it’s not allowed to be used to offset a negative amount resulting from an error in previous reporting periods. Negatives due to cancellation or mid-term adjustments – even when the premium is paid back to the policyholders – are not allowed in Italy. Negative premium and tax amounts in the annual IPT return are also not permitted.

Luxembourg: Up to a certain threshold, both mid-term adjustments and the correction of errors can be included in the current period’s return in Luxembourg, and a negative quarterly return is also allowed.

Germany: The correction of errors is permitted but a corrective return must be submitted for the period in which the mistake was made. Mid-term adjustments can be included in the current return even if it turns the total premium and tax figure into a negative. However, an explanatory letter must be submitted alongside the return.

Whilst negatives can be a headache for many tax teams in the course of their IPT compliance, this needn’t be the case.  Resources and software can help to alleviate, or even remove, negatives caused by errors.  Using constantly updated insurance tax rates and regulations, software to reduce human error, and having access to a team of specialists experienced in complying and interpreting fragmented European regulations can help relieve the pain. 

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

Edit Buliczka

Edit is a senior regulatory counsel. She joined Sovos in January 2016 and has extensive IPT knowledge and experience. Her role ensures the IPT teams and systems at Sovos are always updated with legislative changes. She is a Hungarian registered tax expert and chartered accountant and has worked for companies in Hungary including Deloitte and KPMG and as an indirect tax manager she worked for AIG in Budapest. She graduated with an economist degree from Budapest Business School, faculty of finance and accountancy and also she has a postgraduate diploma from ELTE Legal University in Budapest.
Share this post

North America Unclaimed Property
February 10, 2025
Delaware Announces 2025 VDA Invitation Dates

This blog was last updated on February 10, 2025 Mark your calendars – April 11, 2025 and August 15, 2025 are this year’s anticipated release dates for the Delaware’s Secretary of State (SOS) VDA program invitations. In the event that an organization receives an invitation to participate in the Voluntary Disclosure Agreement (VDA) program  , […]

North America Sales & Use Tax
February 6, 2025
The Tariff and Sales Tax Mishmash – Untying the Mess

This blog was last updated on February 6, 2025 Talk of tariffs dominates the current news cycle with some commentators suggesting that tariffs will spell disaster for our economy while others say the exact opposite. We’ve seen the stock market sometimes fluctuate as tariffs are announced but later suspended, leaving us to wonder whether an […]

retailer dtc wine shipping
North America ShipCompliant
February 6, 2025
Retailer DtC Wine Shipping: The Time Has Come

This blog was last updated on February 6, 2025 By Tom Wark, Executive Director, National Association of Wine Retailers We are often reminded by the media and those in the wine industry—as well as by wine enthusiasts—that the three-tier system of alcohol distribution in most states hinders consumer access to the expansive number of wines […]

Montana 1099-DA
North America Tax Information Reporting
February 5, 2025
State Filing Alert: Montana’s New 1099-DA Requirements for Crypto Brokers

This blog was last updated on February 5, 2025 Reporting digital asset transactions on Form 1099-DA just got a little more complicated. For 2025 transactions, crypto brokers that file Form 1099-DA with the IRS will be required to file the 1099-DA with the State of Montana. This makes Montana the first state to introduce a […]

North America ShipCompliant
January 23, 2025
DtC Wine Shipping in 2024: A Year-in-Review

This blog was last updated on January 28, 2025 The direct-to-consumer (DtC) wine shipping channel faced a storm of challenges in 2024, navigating some of the toughest market conditions in over a decade. As inflation tightened wallets and consumer behaviors shifted, the industry recorded its steepest declines in shipment volume and value since the inception […]