Under the Freedom of Services (FoS), Croatia currently levies an Insurance Premium Tax (IPT), Compulsory Health Insurance Contributions (CHIC) and Fire Brigade Charge (FBC) on the premium amounts of insurance policies written by EU and EEA insurance companies.
In Croatia, IPT only applies to selected classes of business such as motor coverage, which includes the mandatory Motor Third Party Liability insurance policies. Only the latter policies are subject to CHIC. FBC is applicable only to fire premium amounts.
Read on to understand the different IPT requirements and classes of business in Croatia.
There are currently two different IPT tax rates in force for motor insurance policies in Croatia:
Motor vehicle IPT is an insured-borne tax that is required to be reported monthly and payable within 15 days following the end of the month. There is an annual Motor IPT Report obligation too, which must be submitted on 31 January following the end of the reporting year.
This contribution is payable to the Croatian Institute of Health Insurance but must be disclosed quarterly to the Croatian Tax Office. In addition, the annual return must be submitted to the Tax Office by 30 April.
Until 31 March 2023 the rate of the contribution rate was 4%. The rate was raised to 5% as of 1 April 2023.
The Act on Firefighting governs the fire brigade regime in Croatia. The FBC rate on fire insurance premiums is 5%.
The law does not include a definition for the fire premium. Sovos gained clarification on the definition of the fire premium from the Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency (HANFA), the body which supervises FBC. HANFA indicated there is no specific definition of the fire premium, but the insurance company should determine this amount on a case-by-case basis.
The declaration on the fire premium is due annually, by the end of February following the payment year. The return should be submitted to the Croatian Firefighter Association.
There is no set date in the law for the payments, but payments are said to be due at least quarterly.
5% FBC payments should be split and sent to:
If you would like to settle this tax compliantly:
Firstly: You need to know the postcode of the property. But what is the postcode of an immovable property?
Secondly: You need to match a county with a postcode. This would not be too challenging as the first two digits of the five-digit Croatian postcode reveal the county’s name if you search Croatian postcodes online.
Thirdly: You need to know your local firefighting organisation’s name and bank account number or, if these organisations have established an association, the association’s name and bank account number. That is difficult but not impossible if you know where to look.
Finally: In the annual return you need to list each payment you made in the previous year.
Following the complaint method might be time-consuming if the insurance firm has written multiple fire businesses in Croatia. Because there is no minimum contribution threshold, even EUR 0.01 cent FBC should be paid to the local firefighter’s organisation or association (i.e., 40% of FBC)
Sovos has developed a robust system to settle your Croatian fire brigade charges. We have also established a constructive relationship with the Croatian Firefighters Association and HANFA.
Please contact our representative for information, or if you would like to appoint Sovos as your IPT representative in Croatia.
Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) in Luxembourg moved to online filing from the first quarter 2021 submission. Alongside this, they also changed the authority deadline to the 15th of the month following the quarter. This change caused some upheaval as many insurance companies were already pulling data from the underwriting systems, reviewing the information (sometimes manually), and ensuring the declarations would be correct for other territories also due by the 15th.
Luxembourg wasn’t the first or last territory to move to an online platform. Germany and Ireland followed within a year of Luxembourg’s implementation. In contrast, French authorities have delayed implementing their online filing process until 2023. Additionally, more tax authorities require accounts for Direct Debit set up rather than the usual SEPA or priority payments being made with specific references.
It’s clear why tax authorities are moving to online platforms. Having a digital filing process is an easier and more efficient process for what could be thousands of declarations being submitted by various sources. Plus, online filing gives tax authorities greater visibility, meaning they have more opportunities for analysis. What puzzles us, is why so many tax authorities choose to have their deadlines on or around the 15th? This deadline only provides a short timeframe for insurance companies to close the month, pull the data and make the declarations.
Apart from these updates, Luxembourg hasn’t implemented many changes in the past, regarding IPT. The most recent that we can recall is the introduction of the Tax for Rescue Services on Motor Class 10 policies, which came into effect on 1 October 2016. As the tax rates are relatively low compared to other territories, it’s entirely plausible that we could see a future increase.
IPT is a niche tax that isn’t always at the forefront of the business radar. It wasn’t until we began to look at the actual process of filing the online declarations did we realize that the process is an adaption of what is used for VAT and other taxes or designed around domestic insurers rather than freedom of services. At least that’s what it seems for Luxembourg.
Over the past year, we have found that the online filing system has become quicker and easier to navigate, with the delays between authentication of a declaration taking seconds rather than minutes. The declaration is still similar to what was submitted on the paper form, breaking down the liabilities per class of business, entering the premiums and then an automatic application of the percentage rate.
Is this the end of territories moving to an online filing solution? Probably not. Will there be more digitization from tax authorities to bring IPT in line with most other tax reporting? We think so.
Need to understand Luxembourg’s IPT requirements? Get in touch with our experts and keep up to date with ever-changing European IPT rules by following us on LinkedIn and Twitter.
Meet the Expert is our series of blogs where we share more about the team behind our innovative software and managed services.
As a global organisation with indirect tax experts across all regions, our dedicated team are often the first to know about new regulatory changes and the latest developments on tax regimes across the world, to support you in your tax compliance.
We spoke to Russell Brown, senior IPT consulting manager, about Sovos’ IPT consultancy, supporting tax teams and his thoughts about the future of IPT.
I head up the Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) consultancy practice within Sovos. We’re responsible for providing advice, mostly to compliance clients on tax issues of different types of insurance that they write in EU and non-EU countries. We provide clarity on applicable tax rates and their compliance requirements in various countries, as well as location of risk queries.
One of my main responsibilities is to review and approve the reports written by consultants in the team. I also assist our sales team with clients interested in registering for IPT in different countries. This involves discussing the insurance the client provides and the countries involved and helping to onboard new customers. I also participate in writing regular IPT blogs and articles on a variety of subjects, and in webinars and other client events where we discuss a wide range of IPT issues around the world.
We also assist the compliance managed services team with any questions from their clients that they need help with. This can include legislative references or just confirmation of tax rates.
The short answer is we help insurers with their IPT compliance queries but that can vary from project to project.
A typical project for the consultancy team would be for a client to approach us and say, “We’re thinking of writing this type of insurance policy in 10 countries. Could you please tell us all the taxes and tax rates that apply, who bears the cost of those taxes and how they’re calculated. Could you also provide us with guidance on the compliance requirements in each country?”. This could be for EU and non-EU countries.
Another common project is to look at insurance policies and confirm the type of insurance to ensure its taxed correctly or looking at location of risk for an insurance type. This will involve analysing a sample policy from the client to confirm what the insurable risk is so that the correct rules are applied on taxing it in the relevant countries.
Sovos’ IPT customers tend to deal in non-life insurance; we’re often asked to look at property policies or liability risks. Spain, France, Portugal and Belgium are the countries we’re asked most about due to their complicated IPT and parafiscal charges regimes and different rates.
We are also asked questions about non-admitted insurance. For example, if a company is writing insurance but isn’t licensed in that country, they might have questions about how the taxes are calculated, who is liable for the taxes, who should settle taxes etc. These questions tend to be from non-EEA insurers writing policies in EEA countries.
Brokers are another type of client we deal with, or as part of discussions with insurers when there are queries around who is responsible for settling taxes on premiums. We’re able to offer advice to both the insurer and the broker in these cases.
Tax teams want certainty that they’re charging the correct taxes, and that they’re compliant in settling those taxes with the relevant countries’ authorities. That’s where we come in, providing guidance as well as reporting. We’ve received feedback from clients saying the reports have been especially useful to show senior stakeholders that tax compliance is being maintained. The reports are also an important document to have on file that demonstrates that there was an issue identified and they received external advice. Having this activity on record for senior managers and both internal and external auditors is important. If a tax team is asked any questions by tax authorities, they can provide evidence.
We tend to work with tax teams in the planning stages, when an organisation wants to identify any potential tax issues ahead of time to ensure systems are updated and compliant from day one.
I have a few thoughts.
The first is about Germany’s IPT laws. When the country changed its IPT law at the end of 2020, the authority extended the scope of who could potentially be taxed for German IPT. There was some thought that other countries in Europe might try to do the same, the Dutch being a good example where current legislation does potentially allow this under certain circumstances. But because the application of Germany’s law wasn’t the most successful, there’s a feeling that other countries are unlikely to follow this path for the moment.
There is also the question whether or not IPT will be abolished in the UK and replaced with VAT. The government is in the process of starting a VAT consultation on financial services, and it’s likely that this proposal will be included in the discussions between HMT, HMRC and the insurance market including both insurers and brokers. This consultation will likely run for a couple of years, so we won’t know the results for some time, and it is possible that any decisions on this point may be delayed by the timing of the next general election.
There is also always the discussion of the digitization of IPT. There hasn’t been much movement on this recently. Ireland is in the process of digitization and France was due to follow suit but has postponed until next year. We are already helping our customers to possess the ability to file IPT online when this does become a requirement.
Need help with IPT compliance? Speak to our experts or download our e-book, Indirect Tax Rules for Insurance Across the World
With a new month comes yet another report due in the Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) sphere. Insurance companies covering risks in Greece must report their insurance policies triggered in 2021 in the form of the Greek annual report. This is due by 31 March 2022.
Let us cast our minds back, in late 2019 this report came to fruition after previously being ratified in legislation released in 2016. At the time, due to the delay in implementation, the report was backdated, and insurers faced the challenge of submitting transactional level details for the period 2016-2018 in a short space of time.
There was however a precedent for such a dramatic change. And those who experienced the change with the Spanish Consorcio de Compensacion de Seguros submission would have experienced a sense of déjà vu with this development. Similarly, some insurers may be experiencing all too familiar issues now with the change in Portuguese Stamp Duty submission.
The market initially struggled with the Greek annual report due to the level of details required. In particular, the VAT/tax registration number was often not being collected from the Insured. Furthermore, with legacy systems still in use some of the other details in the report weren’t readily available. What this meant in a lot of cases for the Insurer was the painstaking and often time consuming process of going back to the policyholder to collect such information.
What about the report itself? The Greek annual report is a transactional level declaration on excel, which requires the following details to be populated:
The standard IPT rate in Greece is currently 15% with the 20% rate reserved for risks covering fire. Where there is a multi-risk policy covering both rates, the premiums must be apportioned on a per rate basis and therefore split out into two different lines.
Thankfully exempt premiums are not required on the report which somewhat eases the burden.
But what about cases where it was simply not possible to collect this information? This was an issue we’ve seen for some of our IPT customers where incomplete reports were submitted. So far, we haven’t experienced pushback from the tax authority for the omission of certain details, but we cannot guarantee this will continue to be the case.
Preparation is key. And education is key. This annual report is here to stay so the Insurer must be prepared well in advance that such details will be required and they should aim to collect this information on an ongoing basis rather than at the last moment. In some cases, an update in software will be required as the current systems may not have the capability to capture the required data. Furthermore, all relevant parties in the data supply chain should be educated on the importance of collecting the details. We believe that more countries will implement transactional reports in the coming years, so it would be prudent to set up certain controls now, to help prepare and ease the burden later.
As the world of IPT compliance is so fragmented across territories, keeping abreast of changes in reporting requirements can be challenging. Our team of experts can guide you through the details and ensure you are on the right compliance path.
Need help with IPT requirements in Greece? Get in touch about the benefits a managed service provider can offer to ease your IPT compliance burden.
IPT in Ireland reflects the dynamic shifts in the global tax landscape. With an increasing number of tax jurisdictions adopting electronic filings, Ireland has joined this progressive movement. The Irish tax authority has announced changes to how Stamp Duty, Life Levy, Government Levy and the Compensation Fund are declared and paid from the Quarter 1 2022 submission period (i.e. 25 April 2022).
From Q1 2022, businesses will be required to file all returns via the Irish online portal and pay taxes due via direct debit.
The Irish Revenue issued notification of the filing requirement changes in December 2021. The Irish Revenue has an online service with a digital pay and file facility for Stamp Duty on insurance levies which will be available via Revenue Online Services (ROS).
Registered insurers will have an individual ROS account. By the end of February 2022, insurers will be issued new ID numbers (TRN numbers), and the 4-digit file reference number will be discontinued. Insurers will need a TRN number to register for a ROS account to file declarations online via ROS. Payments made online are required to be via direct debit instruction.
Although many authorities still rely on paper returns, online filing and payment systems are becoming more common place. In Europe alone, Spain, Finland, Portugal, Hungary, Italy and the UK are just a few who have adopted digital tax approaches.
More tax authorities are now adapting to online submissions to fill the gap for further transparency and accuracy in collecting taxes, causing increased challenges for insurers when ensuring premium tax compliance.
This change in Ireland is just another example in the list of tax authorities requesting additional information on a more frequent basis to increase efficiency, minimise tax gaps and boost revenue. We don’t see this trend disappearing and recommend that insurers stay abreast of the latest regulations to be prepared for more countries who will undoubtedly follow this approach. Insurers need to be aware of compliance responsibilities by keeping pace with this heightened degree of complexity, scrutiny and change. This will result in system and process changes and any digitisation will inevitably impact IT systems and budgets.
Keeping up to date with changing tax rates, different filing formats and deadlines and understanding interpretations of local rules can be challenging especially when writing across multiple territories. If you have questions about IPT in Ireland, get in touch with us and we’ll be happy to help.
Annual reporting requirements vary from country to country, making it complex for cross-border insurers to collect the data required to ensure compliance.
Italy has many unique reporting standards and is known for its bureaucracy across the international business community. Italy’s annual reporting is different due to the level of detail required. The additional reporting in Italy requires an in-depth list of policies and details including inception and expiry dates, cash received dates, policyholders’ names, addresses, fiscal codes and premium values. This makes the annual reporting a significant undertaking. Refer to this blog about IPT in Italy for an overview.
The Italian legislation and regulations require insurance companies writing business in Italy to submit annual reports with the purpose of collecting information that facilitates the tax authorities’ control of activities on taxpayers.
These reports should list all the insurance contracts in place in the relevant year with a policyholder (individual or entity) subject to Italian taxes. Policies covering Liability, Assistance and any risks written as ancillary to an underlying Liability or Assistance policy don’t need to be included in the report.
If there were no contracts in place in the previous calendar year, there is no requirement to submit a Nil report.
Claim payments made during the previous year in favour of beneficiaries (individuals or entities) who possess an Italian fiscal code must be reported to the Italian tax authorities by the end of April.
Details required in the report include:
If there are no claims to be reported for the previous year, Nil reports are not required.
As an integral part of the annual Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) return due by the end of May, insurance companies writing compulsory motor third-party liability must report the amount of IPT paid in the previous year to each of the Italian provinces. Details required include province policy number, fiscal code, vehicle plate number, premium, IPT rate and IPT.
The additional reporting in Italy requires that certain elements are present before submission. To submit the Contracts and Premiums report an insurance company needs:
Many insurance companies work with third parties, and the policy information they collate might not always include all required details. Incomplete and incorrect data prevent the successful submission of the annual reports and can lead to costly fines and reputational damage.
Navigating annual reporting alongside regular monthly and quarterly reporting can feel overwhelming. The more that can be prepared in advance, the smoother the reporting process. Understanding Italy’s specific annual reporting requirements will ensure insurers remain compliant and avoid any unnecessary delays or corrections.
Need to ensure compliance with the latest regulations in Italy? Get in touch with our tax experts for more information.
Insurance is a dynamic sector in constant flux to accommodate with insured’s needs. An increase in holidays abroad following WWII saw the need for Assistance insurance for any unforeseen events that occurred away from the insured’s home country. Council Directive 84/641/EEC regulated Assistance insurance for the first time, and a new class of insurance was created. This was in addition to the 17 previously regulated classes outlined in Directive 73/239/EEC of non-life insurance and was called Assistance (Class insurance 18).
Initially, the insured was covered by a policy that provided aid for any event travelling abroad (loss of passport, assistance with any problem in the car etc). The insurer created a range of support with call centres, supplier networks and additional services to help solve difficulties when travelling abroad.
Subsequently, following the insured’s requirements, insurance companies and travel agents created travel insurance that includes a wide range of services. These consist of several protections within different classes of business. This is where the tax complexity of travel insurance policies begins. It’s an amalgamation of coverages, and the application of the correct fiscal treatment needs to be analysed in each territory.
When weighing the correct application of tax for travel insurance, businesses must consider the following: location of risk (LoR), class of businesses and the correct tax approach.
Location of risk: Directive 2009/138/EC Article 13 must be followed in the following circumstances:
Class of business affected: As mentioned previously, one of the complexities of travel insurance is determining the classes of business affected. It’s common to see, in these policy types, multiple coverages such as medical assistance cover, loss or damage to baggage, travel delays or cancellations, loss of documents or money, personal accident, repatriation etc. Insurers must adequately identify these coverage details to ensure the compliant tax treatment is used.
Taxability: This step is crucial. The correct treatment of the policies could vary the liabilities to be paid, the different taxes and/or levies and parafiscal charges to be included in the tax calculation. This means that the tax treatment can change by country. It’s necessary to identify the tax liability or exemption based on the class of business and the geographical location.
Insurers must understand the importance of the vital details associated with travel insurance. Determining LoR, class of business affected and taxability ensures the correct amount is paid and submitted to the proper jurisdictions.
Download our IPT Compliance Guide to find out more about how to stay compliant or get in touch with our IPT experts.
Meet the Expert is our series of blogs where we share more about the team behind our innovative software and managed services.As a global organisation with indirect tax experts across all regions, our dedicated team is often the first to know about new regulatory changes and the latest developments on tax regimes worldwide to support you in your tax compliance.
We spoke to Khaled Cherif, senior client representative here at Sovos to discover more about Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) and, in particular, the complexities of France and the French overseas territories.
I joined Sovos as part of the IPT team in June 2017. My role is senior client representative and I mostly work with our French and Italian clients, which is around 54 organisations.
I am the first point of contact so my role along with the rest of the team is to provide clients with all the assistance that they require, including helping them with filing their liabilities and ensuring they are compliant with the relevant regulations.
IPT in France is quite complex as there are many parafiscal charges that can apply to insurance premiums. There are also multiple IPT rates depending on the type of risk being covered. This can range from 7% IPT rate to as high as 30%. As well as the different IPT rates there are also 10 parafiscal charges that could be due on insurance premiums and again all with varying rates.
There are also French overseas territories to be considered. There are two groups of French overseas territories, the Départements and Régions d’Outre-Mer (DROMs), and Collectivités d’Outre-Mer (COMs).
It’s important to understand the differences in IPT requirements with the French overseas territories.
DROMs (French Guyana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Reunion) are treated the same as mainland France for premium tax purposes. Premiums covering risks located in these territories should be declared in the same way, except for Guyana and Mayotte where the IPT rates applicable are reduced by half.
For COMs the local tax authority for the territory can levy taxes on insurance premiums. Most have set up their own IPT regimes, often requiring insurers to appoint a fiscal representative. In some COMs territories the tax ID issued for Mainland France can be used.
As many French and international organisations have subsidiaries in overseas French territories it’s important to understand how the different IPT rates and filings affect compliance. Not being based in the territory where IPT needs to be filed can make things complicated, so working with local partners or representatives can ease the burden.
Sovos has a team with global IPT expertise, meaning we can help organisations understand their IPT requirements wherever they operate, including in France and the French Overseas Territories.
Sovos has in-depth knowledge of local requirements, laws and regulations as well as local partners and representatives to assist with IPT requirements.
Need help with IPT compliance? Speak to our experts to see how Sovos can help you solve tax for good.
Identifying the Location of Risk in the case of health insurance can be a tricky subject, but it’s also crucial to get it right. A failure to do so could lead to under-declared tax liabilities in a particular territory and the potential for penalties to be applied once these deficits are identified and belatedly settled. We examine the situation from a European perspective.
The starting point in this area is the Solvency II Directive (Directive 138/2009/EC). Notably, Article 13(13) outlines the different categories of insurance risks that are used to determine risk locations. As health insurance doesn’t fall within the specific provisions for property, vehicles and travel risks, it is dealt with by the catch-all provision in Article 13(13)(d).
This Article refers to the ‘habitual residence of the policyholder’ or, where the policyholder is a legal person, ‘that policyholder’s establishment to which the contract relates’. We will consider these scenarios separately, given the distinction between individuals and legal persons.
For natural persons, the situation is generally straightforward. Based on the above, the key factor is the habitual residence of the policyholder. The permanent home of the policyholder tends to be relatively easy to confirm.
More challenging cases can arise where someone moves from one risk location to another. For example, when an individual purchases insurance in a particular country, having lived there for a significant period before moving to another country soon afterwards, the Location of Risk will be the original country. As EU legislation does not go into detail on the point, examples of no apparent habitual residence will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
In this scenario, we have to consider the ‘policyholder’s establishment to which the contract relates’ in the first instance. The establishment is treated quite broadly, as evidenced by the European Court of Justice case of Kvaerner plc v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-191/99), which pre-dates Solvency II.
Notwithstanding the above, the habitual residence of the insured should be used to identify the risk location even where the policyholder is a legal person in certain circumstances. This will occur when the insured is independently a party to an insurance contract, giving them a right to make a claim themselves rather than through the corporate policyholder.
This logic can also potentially be extended to dependents of the insured person added to the policy and who can also separately claim under the contract. They will also create a risk location, although this will often be in the same country as the insured person. Ultimately, the compliant approach will be dictated by the overall set-up of the policy.
If any insurers writing business in Europe have any questions on the location of risk rules, whether concerning health insurance or any other insurance, then Sovos is best placed to provide advice to ensure taxes are being correctly declared.
Contact us for help with complying with health insurance location of risk rules or download our Location of Risk Rules for IPT e-book for more information.
A new year has arrived, marking an excellent opportunity to continue our blog series addressing Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) compliance in different countries.
You can read other blogs in this series by visiting our Denmark, Finland, and the UK entries or by downloading Sovos’ Guide on IPT Compliance. Written by our team of IPT and regulatory specialists, this guide is packed full of insight to navigate the ever-changing regulatory landscape.
To start, IPT in Slovakia became effective on 1 January 2019, with the default IPT tax rate of 8%.
There are three tax points for IPT in Slovakia:
Insurers are not required to separately notify or request permission to use one tax point over another but an insurer must notify on the quarterly tax return which tax point they’re using. It’s important to note the choice of tax point must be used for eight consecutive calendar quarters.
Interestingly, Slovakia’s approach to tax points provides flexibility for insurers when choosing to pay tax, giving the option to pay upfront or spread out IPT payments in instalments across multiple returns.
Slovakian IPT is due on a calendar quarterly basis (e.g. January to March return declared in April). This is the same for the payment due at the end of the month. It’s worth noting that all returns are filed electronically so there are no paper returns.
An issuance of a premium is treated according to the relevant class of business and is placed in the corresponding section on the return. A renewal would be treated in the same manner.
For treatment of mid-term adjustments, in the case whereby a premium or part thereof, is increased, reduced or cancelled, there is a separate box on the return used for submission (Box 19). This is unusual in comparison to other countries, predominantly because an increase in premium results in a different treatment.
What happens with the treatment of error corrections?
A correction error can be categorised in two ways.
Mistakes can happen and typos can occur in the supply chain. Maybe there was a multi global risk covering multiple countries and apportionment was incorrectly allocated in the first instance.
In the case of a correction of an error a supplementary declaration must be submitted for the appropriate period affected.
For example, if in the first quarter EUR 1,000 was declared for a particular risk based on apportionment produced. Later down the line in Q3, on further review it should have been EUR 1,200. In this case, the additional EUR 200 cannot be submitted on the Q3 declaration. An amended return would need to be considered for Q1 and submitted separately – this is true for both increases and decreases.
Overall, negatives are allowed and the Slovakian tax authority should refund the money back to the insurer. Therefore, the credit cannot be carried over to the next reporting period. There are no limits regarding how much the insurer can regularise but a degree of caution is advised.
Whilst there’s no official guidance, it would be wise to keep any documentation as evidence if a large amount needs to be reclaimed.
Historicals need to be submitted as a supplementary return (i.e. outside the current return). The Slovakian tax authority can impose penalties between EUR 30.00 and EUR 32,000.00.
Download our IPT Compliance Guide for help navigating the changing regulatory landscape across the globe.
Update: 12 January 2024 by Edit Buliczka
The Polish Financial Ombudsman Office (Rzecznik Finansowy), like other regulatory bodies such as the Italian IVASS, requires insurance companies to submit various reports about their activities. One of these is the Claims Report.
According to the Act on the Consideration of Complaints by Financial Market Entities and on the Financial Ombudsman (Act of 5 August 2015) a report titled “Handling of complaints and the number of cases” is due within 45 days of the reporting period ending.
Subsequently, the deadline for the 2023 reporting year is 15 February 2024. This report must be submitted through the Polish Financial Ombudsman Office’s website.
The regulation determines the scope of the financial market entities, including domestic insurance companies, branch offices and foreign insurance companies.
The form and instructions for producing this report are published on the ombudsman’s website during the first week of January.
The following information should be reported:
1) Number of complaints
2) Accepted and unacknowledged claims resulting from submitted complaints
3) Information on the value of claims submitted in lawsuits and amounts awarded by final court judgments to clients during the reporting period
For in-depth information on Insurance Premium Tax, read our guide.
Update: 16 October 2023 by Edit Buliczka
Withholding tax (“WHT”) is an income tax, not an insurance premium tax, and is governed by the Polish Corporate Income Tax Law (CIT Law). However, in the case of foreign insurers that are operating business in Poland on a Freedom of Services (FoS) basis, it could be an important element of the taxable base calculation for the Financial Ombudsman Charge (“FOC”).
In this blog, we will explain why the judgement of the Polish Administrative Supreme Court on the application of withholding tax is relevant from the perspective of IPT and FOC.
The Financial Ombudsman confirmed to Sovos that FOC is owed on the full premium amount as stated in the policy documents, with no deductions. This implies that even if the foreign insurer receives a reduced premium after deducting WHT, FOC will still be due on the whole amount of the premium.
The WHT was applied to insurance services because the Polish Tax Office considered insurance contracts to be “performance of a similar nature” to a guarantee under CIT Article 21(1)(2a) and so wanted to deduct WHT from the premium amount paid to a foreign insurer.
The Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław in its decision on 24 August 2023 concluded that a contract whose content corresponds to the essentialia negotii (“essential elements”) of an insurance contract is not a “performance of a similar nature”. Therefore, Polish policyholders are not obliged to withhold income tax at source on insurance premium income.
This decision also determines that payments made by the Polish policyholder for intermediate insurance services, generally referred to as brokerage services, do not constitute payment for “performance of a similar nature.” As a result, the policyholder company is not required to deduct withholding tax on brokerage fees.
Looking for further information on the decision? Our Insurance Premium Tax specialists can help.
Update: 12 June 2023 by Edit Buliczka
The first annual FOC return is complete, and the first payment for the newly imposed Polish Financial Ombudsman Charge (FOC) has been made. The Ombudsman Office implemented the new charge in 2023, with an effective date of 1 January 2023. The first settlement was due on 31 March 2023.
Sovos obtained knowledge during the settlement process on how to proceed with the settlement of this new charge and what the transitional procedures are for transitioning from IOC to FOC. In this blog update, we summarise what we learnt during this process.
Speak with our Insurance Premium Tax experts to learn more or read more about Insurance Premium Tax in our guide.
Update: 14 March 2023 by Edit Buliczka
Although Poland still lacks an Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) system, there are various other taxes and fees in the country. The Insurance Ombudsman Charge (IOC) implemented in 2014 is one of the most well-known parafiscal charges. As of January 2023, the Financial Ombudsman Charge (FOC) replaces the Insurer Ombudsman Charge regulation.
There are differences and similarities between the new Financial Ombudsman Charge (FOC) and the previous Insurer Ombudsman Charge (IOC). We have also noticed some anomalies which we will discuss.
Both IOC and FOC are parafiscal charges that should be paid to the Ombudsman Office. Payment is still in PLN with a payment threshold of PLN 16.00.
As in the case of IOC, the FOC is declared online and with NIL report submission requirement.
Similarly to the IOC, the FOC is applicable to Domestic (DOM insurers) and foreign insurers writing business in Poland on a freedom of services (FOS) basis (FOS insurers). FOC rates for DOM and FOS insurers are different as was the case with the IOC regime.
The tax point date is the same for the IOC and the FOC and it is the date when the cash is received.
Sovos contacted the Ombudsman office to clarify some questions raised around anomalies with the Financial Ombudsman Charge. We have received responses so please get in touch if you would like to learn more.
Do you still have questions about the new ombudsman charge? Speak with our IPT experts.
Update 15 December 2021 by Kateryna Binkowska
Currently, Poland doesn’t have an IPT. Instead, there is a parafiscal tax called Insurance Ombudsman Contribution (IOC). It is currently charged at a rate of 0.02% and was effective from 1 January 2020 for all insurance companies operating under Freedom of Services (FOS) in Poland.
IOC applies to all 18 classes of non-life insurance. It is applicable to all insurance companies either selling insurance in Poland or collecting premiums from Polish persons. Prior to its origination date of 1 February 2014, it only applied to domestic insurers or foreign insurers with Polish branches.
The basis for IOC is the premium that must be paid to the insurer to obtain the insurance cover.
Reporting for IOC can be tricky because of the different name and numbering system for quarterly declarations. For Example: Quarter I (Quarter 1) of the current year covers October, November and December of the previous year. The quarterly submission is due 90 days from the reporting period. In this example, Q1’s declaration must be filed by 31 March of the current year.
All the payments made throughout the year are considered prepayments or advance payments. For instance, the liabilities that arose in Q1 2021 are declared in the Q2 2021 tax period as an advanced payment for Q2 2021.
The Annual Report is due by 30 June of the following year. This report is submitted to the Insurance Ombudsman summarising the actual premiums received in the previous year (i.e., for 2020, a report is submitted by 30 June 2021 summarising the total amount of premiums received by the insurer in 2020).
The Insurance Ombudsman then determines its funding requirements, and an adjustment is made based on the difference between the insurer’s share of the market percentage multiplied by the funding requirements and the previously made payments for the reporting year.
The Ombudsman’s adjustment may result in the tax authorities requiring additional funds or providing a refund. Either result is communicated by the authorities through Annual Settlement Letters that usually arrive by the end of October.
Insurers are obligated to keep records of insurance contracts and the documents required for tax declaration for five years from the contract’s expiry date.
If the taxpayer doesn’t declare and remit the tax in accordance with the regulations, the relevant authority may demand delayed interest and require an assessment of the tax. In such cases, the court can award a penalty fee and/or imprisonment of the company’s management for up to three years, as per the fiscal penalty code from 10 September 1999.
For any insurance company operating under FOS in Poland, understanding the details of the Insurance Ombudsman Contribution and the reporting requirements are key to ensuring compliance.
Need help to ensure your business stays compliant with current and upcoming changes to IOC? Contact the Sovos team today. For more information see this overview about e-invoicing in Poland, Poland SAF-T or VAT Compliance in Poland.
In Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) compliance, the Aviation Hull and Aviation Liability policy is defined under Annex 1, Classes of Non-Life Insurance, as described in DIRECTIVE 138/2009/EC (SOLVENCY II DIRECTIVE).
But there are variations and identifying which class the policy is covering can be a challenge.
This article will cover what insurers need to know about Aviation Hull and Aviation Liability policy and what IPT rate to apply.
Aviation can fall under Class 5, Class 11 or General Liability.
There are five different variations of an Aviation policy, either taken out individually or in combination. Although the descriptions vary, the most referred to are:
Class 5 Aviation policies are focused on the hull and physical aspect of the aircraft, whereas Class 11 Aviation Liability mainly covers the public and passengers or damage to property owned by third parties.
Defining between Aviation Liability Class 5 and 11 can be a headache. As aviation policies can include a combination of liabilities, it can be difficult to know the correct classification to apply.
Some tax authorities have recognised this and applied similar rates for both, but there are exceptions.
For example, in Hungary Class 5 is considered CASCO , which stands for Casualty and Collision (automobile insurance). So, it has a higher IPT rate of 15% whereas IPT for Class 11 on Aviation Liability is 10%.
There are also parafiscal taxes to consider. These mainly come into effect when the policy includes a fire element. But as always there are exceptions – in Greece both classes are exempt from IPT, but TEAEAPAE (or Pension Fund) can be due on Class 5 Aviation when cover includes the maintenance of the aircraft.
Once the correct class of insurance has been applied to the policy, an additional reference to an AVN clause is made.
AVN clauses are additional to the main risk and more specific than some of the other coverages, which are also included in aviation contracts. There are over 214 AVN clauses and most fall under Class 13 General Liability.
The last piece of the puzzle is how to report a policy document that could have up to three different classes.
The territory could have apportionment rules, meaning an insurer could benefit from some of those exemptions. Some insurers choose to take the prudent approach and apply the highest rate from the three classes to avoid noncompliance or penalties.
For most insurers, classification of an aviation policy is only the beginning of the journey. There are other considerations such as location of risk rules outside of Europe, which can mean double taxation, or exemptions depending on the use of the aircraft.
To ease the burden on compliance, many insurers work with a managed service provider with IPT expertise.
Get in touch with Sovos about the benefits a managed service provider can offer.
A tax authority audit can come in various forms, whether it be directly to the insurer itself or indirectly through a policyholder or broker.
It can be targeted, for example, where an insurer has been specifically identified to be investigated due to a discrepancy on a tax return, or it can be indiscriminate in its nature as part of a wider exercise being carried out by an authority.
Whatever form the audit takes, the key to responding is in the preparation beforehand.
First and foremost, insurers should ensure they are retaining copies of evidence that can be used to justify the tax amounts declared and settled. This may include the insurance contracts themselves, the invoices issued to policyholders and a record of their data that comprises the declarations that have been made.
It’s worth noting that in Italy there is a formal requirement to maintain IPT books which detail each of the premiums received during each annual period. Although this is not necessarily a specific requirement in other countries, applying this approach to all premiums received will put an insurer in a strong position if an audit is carried out.
Further documentation demonstrating compliance is also useful. If external advice has been sought, e.g., to determine the appropriate class of business for a policy and the consequent tax application, then retaining a record of this advice is advised in case this is required later.
There may be cases where a tax authority’s advice has specifically been sought and such correspondence will inevitably hold considerable weight if tax treatment is queried during a subsequent audit. Documentation of any processes in place to ensure compliance is also valuable.
As statutory limitation periods vary across jurisdictions, evidence should be kept as long as is practicable (subject to relevant data protection laws where applicable) so that it can be produced if an audit takes place.
In the digital age, this practice should hopefully not seem overly burdensome. It’s worth referring to the penalty regimes in place in some countries to put the potential repercussions of an unsatisfactory audit into context.
The UK is an example of where a behaviour-based approach to determining penalties is used, with the highest level of penalties reserved for cases of deliberate and concealed undeclared tax where the authority itself has prompted the declaration.
Lower penalties (or indeed no penalties at all) will be levied where reasonable care is taken, and reasonable care will be far more likely to be considered to have been taken where records are kept in the ways described.
Audits can happen at any time so it’s important insurers have taken the necessary steps to ensure information and data to demonstrate compliance is available to the tax authority when requested.
Ensuring the accurate and timely submission of tax returns is likely to reduce the possibility of a targeted audit. The IPT managed services team at Sovos has a huge amount of experience with tax filings in the UK and across Europe and has assisted many insurers with unexpected audits.
Get in touch with Sovos today about the benefits a managed service provider can offer to ease the burden of IPT compliance.
Insurance Premium Tax in Germany is complex. From IPT rates to law changes, this quick guide will help you navigate the challenges of IPT in Germany. For an overview about IPT in general, read our Insurance Premium Tax guide.
Last update: 24.01.2023
Based on IPT declarations made for the year 2022:
Below €1,000.00 – annually
Between €1,000.00 and €6,000.00 – quarterly
Above €6,000.00 – monthly
Based on FBC declarations made for the year 2022:
Below €400 – annually
Between €400 and €2,400.00 – Quarterly
Above €2,400.00 – monthly
Last update: 07.12.2022
Different IPT rates are applicable in Germany, depending on the type of insured risk provided to the policyholder. Sovos’ IPT Managed Services ensures your company complies with the latest Insurance Premium Tax requirements in Germany.
Yes. Life and sickness policies are exempt from German IPT.
German IPT is a charge to the policyholder in addition to the premium. The taxable premium is the total amount paid by the policyholder to obtain the cover. The Insurance Tax Act specifically includes charges and other ancillary costs within the scope of the definition.
The main challenges in Germany regarding IPT relate to two areas:
Insurance Tax Act reforms in Germany, effective from 10 December 2020, have continued to cause some uncertainty in the insurance market.
The main area of concern relates to the location of risk for Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) purposes. The reform can impact a policy taken out with either an EEA or non-EEA insurer where the policyholder is established in Germany, i.e., a German enterprise, permanent establishment, or corresponding institution, or an individual habitually resident in Germany, where the policy covers non-EEA risks.
These changes affect all classes of business and are irrespective of the physical location of any insured risk.
If a policy for the German policyholder includes non-EEA countries, then German IPT is due on the premium allocated to Germany and to premiums allocated to non-EEA countries. This could be in addition to any applicable premium taxes due in non-EEA countries.
Therefore, double taxation is a possibility. However, if the policy includes other EEA countries, then German IPT cannot be charged on premiums allocated in these EEA countries.
If a policy for the German policyholder includes both other EEA and non-EEA countries, then German IPT is due on the premium allocated to Germany and to 100% of the premiums allocated to all the other countries. This could be in addition to any applicable premium taxes due in all these countries. Therefore, again, double taxation is a possibility.
The law reforms did not specifically clarify at the time what a ‘permanent establishment’ or ‘corresponding institution’ was that would bring a non-EEA risk within the scope of German IPT. The primary concern related to global policies such as liability and miscellaneous financial loss risks that are not considered ‘special risks’ (i.e., don’t relate to fixed property, vehicles and travel). These types of global programmes for German policyholders, in particular financial institutions, are common in the insurance market.
Guidance from the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) published confirmed that a non-EEA branch of a German policyholder would be deemed to constitute a permanent establishment. But it was silent on whether the same applied to a non-EEA subsidiary. Also included in this guidance were several scenarios to aid insurers and brokers with taxing policies correctly, but unfortunately there wasn’t one for this subsidiary scenario.
The BMF issued a new version of their general leaflet on insurance tax and fire protection tax for EU/EEA insurers. This included a flowchart showing the changes in taxability of policies as a result of IPT law reforms, but the non-EEA subsidiary question was not specifically answered here.
The German Insurance Association (GDV) issued a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document to help insurers understand the reforms in several areas, including answering some questions around the treatment of non-EEA subsidiaries.
Whilst the answers appeared to provide hope that these subsidiaries did not constitute a permanent establishment, there was a caveat at the beginning of the FAQs document. It said it was non-binding, and that every insurer could interpret and apply the statutory provisions (and the associated BMF letter from 4 March 2021) at their discretion.
This meant if insurers decided not to tax non-EEA subsidiaries based solely on this guidance, they could be subject to tax assessments later, where German IPT has not been charged.
The BMF subsequently resolved this matter. They published a further decree confirming that for policies taken out by a German policyholder with an EEA insurer not relating to ‘special risks’, any premium apportioned to a non-EEA subsidiary is not subject to German IPT. This is because the Fiscal Code of Germany does not consider a subsidiary to be within their definition of a permanent establishment for tax purposes.
Need to ensure compliance with the latest IPT regulations? A managed service provider can help. Get in touch with our tax experts today.
For anyone relatively new or unfamiliar with insurance premium tax (IPT), an understanding of each of the core components is key to ensuring compliance. They also sit in a logical sequence of five distinct areas.
1.Location of risk rules
This essentially is having a clear understanding of where the risk lies to determine in which jurisdiction the premium taxes should be declared. The rules can be complex and vary across different territories but having a clear process will help.
You’ll need to determine:
Next, check which rules apply. The EU’s four rules determine the correct jurisdiction depending on the nature of the risk:
Download our recent location of risk rules webinar to learn about the rules in more detail.
2.Class of business
A class of business is basically the category the risk falls under. Within the EU there are 18 classes of non-life business, ranging from accident and motor to miscellaneous financial loss and general liability.
The EU provides brief descriptions of each of these classes as well as some specific examples. The information is used by local tax authorities as guidance when implementing their own tax legislation.
Local rules vary so it’s important to understand your insurance policies to ensure the correct and relevant class of business is applied. Some policies may include more than one class of business which will affect the proportions of the premium that relate to each business class.
Our blog, Three Key Steps to Apply IPT on New Lines of Business is a useful resource.
3.Calculating taxes
Having determined the location of risk and the correct class of business the next step is to determine the taxes that apply and need settling.
Tax rates across the EU are fragmented and there are even more variations when you look at the varying tax rates within a jurisdiction. For example, in Spain you have an IPT rate applied at 6% yet you might also have some extraordinary risks surcharges calculated at 0.0003%.
Also consider who must carry the cost of these taxes. Is it the insured or the insurer? In most cases it’s the insurer’s responsibility, however it can fall to the policyholder.
Key to being able to determine which taxes and what rate to apply is having access to reliable software.
Register for our upcoming ‘Back to basics’ webinar, to learn more about how to calculate taxes.
4.Declaration and payment
Here again the rules vary country by country around the frequency for declaring and settling liabilities. They can be monthly, quarterly, bi-annually and annually. Failure to declare within the deadline will result in penalties and/or interest so knowing the deadlines for each return and when payment must be made are crucial.
Some tax authorities have strict rules and are quick to enforce them. Others are more lenient dealing with penalties on a case by case basis, and some (such as the UK) take a behaviour led approach where full disclosure and cooperation could lead to a far reduced penalty.
5.Additional reporting – will IPT follow where VAT leads?
Tax authorities across the world are taking a more granular approach to tax reporting to prevent fraud and reduce the tax gap. With VAT mandates in place across Latin America and more recently spreading into Europe and Asia, the VAT gap is reducing. So as governments transition to digital tax compliance wanting more data and faster, you can expect IPT will in time follow. The Spanish authorities, for example, have already started on this journey with the introduction last year of new digital reporting requirements for Extraordinary Risk Surcharges.
To stay ahead of the curve, the more prepared you are today the easier it will be to face the challenges that lie ahead as the pace of change in digitising tax compliance increases.
Keep up to date with ever changing rules by subscribing to our blogs and following us on LinkedIn and Twitter. We also host regular webinars with our in-house specialists who are on hand to help.
Meet the Expert is our series of blogs where we share more about the team behind our innovative software and managed services.
As a global organisation with indirect tax experts across all regions, our dedicated team are often the first to know about new regulatory changes, ensuring you stay compliant.
We spoke to Wendy Gilby, technical product manager at Sovos, to find out more about her role developing Sovos’ Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) software to help customers meet the demands of a constantly changing regulatory environment.
Prior to joining Sovos I worked at an investment bank in London, working my way up from trainee programmer to programmer, analyst, business analyst, systems analyst, project manager, global production support manager and eventually vice president.
Due to personal circumstances, I started working part time and was even briefly a rowing coach before heading back to university to complete a Computing and IT degree.
I was looking for another role in IT and originally worked for FiscalReps (now part of Sovos) on a short-term contract in 2016 or 2017. This is the product that we now know as Sovos IPT which needed testing to ensure it was fit for purpose.
After completing the project, I came back on a six month contract, which became a full-time permanent position and I’m still here today!
My role is to work out how to implement any modifications to the Sovos IPT system. We agree with the wider Sovos IPT team what new functionality or changes they want and work closely with the development team to convert the ideas into the solutions that our customers use.
I’ve recently been looking at the Sovos VAT solution to try and see the synergies between VAT and IPT in terms of user set up, user roles, uploading data, and initial validation on the files that we get from clients to improve the overall user experience for our IPT solutions.
We’re always trying to make the whole process of filing taxes more efficient, and a lot smoother for customers, whichever country they file their taxes in.
We’ve spent a lot of time refining the IPT Portal to make the process of filing and reporting IPT easier but also more compliant. We’re trying to eliminate as many of the manual steps involved in filing taxes as possible to reduce errors.
Sovos is a blend of technology and human expertise so we work closely with the compliance team who ensure reporting is accurate and compliant across all the tax authorities our customers file IPT in.
Our aim is to automate and integrate as much of the filing process as possible from data submission to receiving funds and submitting to the tax authorities to ensure we don’t miss any tax return dates and avoid late fees.
This probably ties into the work we’re doing on the IPT Portal. We’re trying to make everything more transparent so customers can see everything in one place including the status of their tax returns.
We’ve also introduced APIs as well, so customers can send us a file straight from their system, it’s a lot less hassle for them. We’re always focused on making it easier for customers to send us their data and providing as many options as possible to do this.
I think the biggest impact has been the IPT Portal. When I started, much of the reporting processes were still paper based which meant a lot of sifting through paper tax return documents for the compliance team ahead of filing.
So having the IPT portal with all the documents that used to be printed out in one place, where clients can view everything online, has been the biggest change and one that our customers and our compliance team value, especially over the past year when companies have had to adapt to working remotely and not having as easy access to resources in the office.
I think it’s the move towards a more connected reporting processes, joining all these disparate elements of tax returns to make the IPT reporting and filing process even easier and far less error-prone. As certain elements still require some manual input there’s still opportunities for mistakes so eliminating this concern altogether and making it a simple process from initial upload to submission to the tax authorities is really exciting.
Automated returns are becoming more prevalent and we’re in the process of working on these for Germany, France and Hungary so when I say future it’s actually already happening which is very exciting.
Get in touch about the benefits a managed service provider can offer to ease your IPT compliance burden.
The introduction of the new Portuguese Stamp Duty system has arguably been one of the most extensive changes within IPT reporting in 2021 even though the latest reporting system wasn’t accompanied by any changes to the tax rate structure.
The new reporting requirements were initially scheduled to start with January 2020 returns. However this was postponed until April 2020 and once again until January 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition to the information currently requested, mandatory information required for successful submission of the returns now includes:
Our reporting systems have evolved to help customers meet these new requirements.
For example, our technical department have built a formula that confirms a valid ID to ease data validation and reporting. Consequently, a sense check was built within our systems to determine whether an ID is valid.
With the recent change in the treatment of negative Stamp Duty lines, we’ve also changed our calculations to account for two contrasting methods of treating negatives within our systems.
Previously, both the Portuguese Stamp Duty and parafiscal authorities held identical requirements for the submission of negative lines. However, the introduction of the more complex Stamp Duty reporting system called for amendments to the initial declaration of the policy.
Understandably, this new requirement is a more judicious approach towards tax reporting and will likely be introduced within more tax systems in the future.
As with any new reporting system, changes within your monthly procedures are necessary. Our IPT compliance processes and software are updated as and when regulatory changes occur providing peace of mind for our customers.
And with each new reporting system, we learn more and more about how tax authorities around the world are trying to enter the digital age with more streamlined practices, knowledge and insight to increase efficiency and close the tax gap.
Contact our experts for help with your Portugal Stamp Duty reporting requirements.
As our webinar explored in depth, location of risk rules are complex and constantly evolving.
The Sovos compliance team covered many topics on the session, such as sources for identification of the location of risk and location of risk vs location of the policyholder.
Despite this deep dive, there were plenty of questions that we didn’t have time to answer. As was the case with our IPT Changes in Europe 2021: Your Questions Answered blog, we’ve provided answers to these questions in this blog.
Is there a case for a General Liability policy where the activity is held in Spain and the policyholder is in France?
Where the coverage doesn’t relate to property, vehicles or travel risks then it will be dealt with by the “catch-all” provision in article (13)(13)(d). As a result, assuming that the policyholder is a legal person in this scenario, it will be the policyholder’s establishment that determines the contract. Based on the limited information provided with this question, it seems that the policyholder’s only establishment here is in France, in which case the location of risk would be in France.
If you have a risk located in EU with a local EU policy, can the premium be paid by the entity of the company in UK?
The entity within a policyholder’s group that pays the premium to the insurer doesn’t have a bearing on the location of risk for IPT purposes.
Do the location of risk rules in the UK still follow those used in the EU following Brexit, and could a UK-based policyholder declare the tax instead of the insurer?
The location of risk rules haven’t changed in the UK following Brexit and, as such, the rules remain the same as is seen in Solvency II with each of the different four categories of risk.
For declarations made by UK-based policyholders, although there are provisions in the UK legislation allowing for the tax authority to pursue policyholders in certain circumstances, these are intended as a last resort when they’ve been unable to recover IPT from an insurer and there are no relevant agreements between the UK and the insurer’s country of establishment that enable the issue to be resolved.
The general rule remains therefore that the insurer should declare the tax, assuming they’re still authorised in the territory.
Could there be double taxation caused by the new approach in Germany towards group contracts?
Based on the natural interpretation of the new German legislation and, specifically, the Ordinance for its implementation, we see there is the potential for double taxation.
In particular, if there is the potential for double taxation within the EU then this would make it considerably more controversial. We could see this in the case of a policyholder based in a Member State other than Germany and an insured person based in Germany.
Double taxation across EU Member States would be inconsistent with EU law. As mentioned, we’ll closely monitor developments to see how group contracts are treated in practice and whether the position in the new legislation is challenged at EU level in the future.
I understand the German authorities may be issuing further guidance on whether non-EEA subsidiaries of a German policyholder do create an establishment for IPT purposes if a policy written by an EEA insurer covers them alongside the German policyholder, as the amended law from December last year only mentions that non-EEA branches would be caught in the net and subject to double taxation. Up to now, the guidance seems to have been that the answer is yes, but that the Ministry of Finance may be rethinking this. Have you heard anything on this point?
We’re continuing to monitor developments in this area. Most recently, the issue is considered in the guidance issued by the Ministry of Finance on 4 March 2021, as mentioned in our webinar. As is always the case, we’ll ensure that our customers are informed of any updates as they happen.
If vehicles in Malta only include motor vehicles, how do you determine the location of risk for ships and aeroplanes?
This would be another example of when article 13(13)(d) can be used. As a result, it would be either the policyholder’s establishment to which the contract relates (assuming it’s being insured by a legal person) or the habitual residence of the policyholder (if it’s being insured by an individual). This could be the same country as where it’s registered but it may not be.
Still have questions about IPT? Watch our recent webinar, IPT regulation changes in Europe.