Knowing When and How to Reclaim IPT

Elliot Shulver
June 13, 2019

This blog was last updated on June 13, 2019

An insurer may need to reclaim insurance premium tax (IPT) from a tax authority for many reasons. These include a policy cancellation or mid-term adjustment, an administrative error or issuing a no claims bonus. In each case, it’s important to be aware of the issues involved ahead of any reclaim to ensure taxes are recovered in the most efficient way.

Cancellations of insurance policies and mid-term adjustments can trigger premium refunds to policyholders, but this doesn’t necessarily result in an IPT credit. Many, if not most, insurance tax regimes will allow the an IPT refund on returned premiums, but insurers shouldn’t assume this applies to all premium tax regimes. Most taxes collected by way of a fixed fee, such as France’s Victims of Terrorism Solidarity Fund and Irish Stamp Duty, will only be refunded if the contract is fully cancelled; if the contract was on risk for any period, a refund will not be made.

Countries that charge Stamp Duty on insurance, such as Cyprus and Malta, often don’t allow refunds after a certain cooling off period on the same principle. One of the most expensive regimes where an IPT refund isn’t due on a contract cancellation is Italy, where a simple fire or liability contract incurs non-refundable insurance taxes at an effective rate of 22.25%.

Even when a jurisdiction permits a refund, the insurer will normally need to prove that any IPT recovered from the tax authorities is passed back to the policyholder. An insurer should understand the variances in reclaim methods and the ability to make a successful reclaim.

Dealing with cancellations

The most common method of dealing with cancellations is to process them through the current return, i.e. where a return premium is processed, that amount of premium is netted off against the declared received premium for the same period. This is accepted in Germany and Finland for example, although there are variances with Germany requiring the returned premiums be declared separately in the return and in Finland just the net amount is reported. It’s vital the taxpayer captures and includes cancellations in the correct reporting period as any undue delay could result in the correction of an error instead.

How to handle corrections

The correction of an error due to an overstated return may be due to several reasons, such as, an administrative error or applying an incorrect tax treatment. The process to correct these types of error, of course, varies by territory.  Some follow the same approach as cancellations – i.e. through the current return, either with prior permission from the tax authorities or within certain limits.  Some, such as the German authorities, request a resubmission of a return, whilst others require a more thorough approach, including a detailed explanation of how the error arose, measures taken to prevent future errors and, in some cases, copies of the accounting ledgers. The UK take a hybrid approach. Within specified thresholds, certain errors can be corrected through the current return, but where corrections are outside these thresholds, a voluntary disclosure letter is required explaining the reason for the error and the corrective measures taken.

Constant error corrections run the risk of the taxpayer becoming an audit target for a tax authority. This could have consequences for IPT but also much wider tax implications.

An insurer may offer a no claims bonus to policyholders either at the end of the policy period, or an upfront discount on the renewal premium.  Again, the treatment for this type of premium refund varies by territory. In Germany, an IPT refund isn’t possible where the risk is fully subscribed. This means that offering a policyholder a refund on a contract due to no or low claims being made wouldn’t qualify for an IPT credit no claims bonus. This contrasts with the Netherlands, where a credit for IPT would generally be permitted, as they consider a no claims bonus as a refund of premium to the policyholder.

It’s important for insurers to be aware that when returning a premium to a policyholder, it doesn’t automatically mean the tax authority will refund the IPT paid. It can be beneficial for the insurer to understand the reclaim rules in the territories in which they operate to ensure efficient tax recovery and to maintain ongoing compliance.

 

Take Action

To read more about the insurance landscape, 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 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 […]