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.