The European Commission’s “VAT in the Digital Age” initiative reflects on how tax authorities can use technology to fight tax fraud and, at the same time, modernise processes to the benefit of businesses.
A public consultation was launched earlier this year, in which the Commission welcomes feedback on policy options for VAT rules and processes in a digitized economic EU. In an earlier blog post, Sovos explored the aspects of a single EU VAT registration. It’s one of the main initiatives proposed by the Commission to adapt the EU VAT framework to the digital age. Another critical issue is VAT reporting obligations and e-invoicing, discussed in this blog.
The Commission sees a need for modernising VAT reporting obligations and is considering the possibility of further extending e-invoicing. The term Digital Reporting Requirements was introduced by the Commission for any obligation to report transactional data other than the obligation to submit a VAT return, i.e. reporting transaction by transaction. This means that Digital Reporting Requirements include various types of transactional reporting requirements (e.g. VAT listing, Standard Audit File/SAF-T, real-time reporting) and mandatory e-invoicing requirements.
These measures have been implemented in various fashions in different EU Member States over the past couple of years resulting in diverse rules and requirements for VAT reporting and e-invoicing across the EU. The current Commission initiative is an opportunity for the EU to obtain harmonisation in this area. Its public consultation is asking for input as to which road to take.
The public consultation contains several policy options to consider. One would be to leave things as they currently stand with no harmonisation and the continued need for Member States to request a derogation if they wanted to introduce mandatory e-invoicing. At the other end of the scale, a further option would be to introduce full harmonisation of transactional reporting for VAT for both intra-EU and all domestic transactions.
And sitting between these extremes, are several other routes. Instead of making a harmonised solution mandatory such a solution could be simply recommended and voluntary, coupled with the removal of the need to request a derogation ahead of introducing B2B e-invoicing mandates. Another way is to have taxpayers keep all transactional data and make it available on request by the authorities. And one final option could be to adopt partial harmonisation where the VAT reporting for all intra-EU supplies is aligned and mandatory but where domestically it remains optional.
While these policy options formally remain open to public consultation until 5 May here, they must now be viewed in the light of the European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2022 with recommendations to the Commission on fair and simple taxation supporting the recovery strategy.
In its resolution, the European Parliament calls upon the Commission to take actions regarding e-invoicing and reporting, to reduce the tax gap and compliance costs. Among the measures recommended are to set up a harmonised common standard for e-invoicing across the EU without delay and establish the role of e-invoicing in real-time reporting. Furthermore, the European Parliament proposes that the Commission explore the possibility of a gradual introduction of obligatory e-invoicing by 2023, where state-operated or certified systems should administrate the invoice issuance. In both cases focus should be on a significant reduction of costs of compliance, especially for SMEs.
It remains to be seen how the Commission will manage to align the European Parliament’s recommendations with their policy options and Member States where in several cases solutions have already been implemented.
Need more information? Sovos’ VAT Managed Services can help ease your business’s VAT compliance burden. Contact our team to learn more.
Making Tax Digital for VAT – Expansion
Beginning in April 2022, the requirements for Making Tax Digital (MTD) for VAT will be expanded to all VAT registered businesses. MTD for VAT has been mandatory for all companies with annual turnover above the VAT registration threshold of £85,000 since April 2019. As a result, this year’s expansion is expected to impact smaller businesses whose turnover is below the threshold but who are nonetheless registered for UK VAT.
What is MTD for VAT – A refresher
Under MTD, businesses must digitally file VAT returns using “functional compatible software” which can connect to HMRC’s API. Companies must also use software to keep digital records of specified VAT-related documents. Stored records must include “designatory data,” such as the business name and VAT number, details on sales and purchases, and summary VAT data for the period. The use of multiple pieces of software is permitted. For example, companies can use accounting software to store digital records. Additionally, “bridging software” can be used to establish the connection with HMRC’s API and to submit the VAT returns.
Since April 2021, businesses must also comply with the digital links requirement. Under this requirement, a digital link is required whenever a business uses multiple pieces of software to store and transmit its VAT records and returns under MTD requirements. A digital link occurs when a transfer or exchange of data can be made electronically between software programs, products, or applications without the need for or involvement of any manual intervention.
Hospitality reduced rate expiration
In 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the British government introduced a 5% reduced rate on specified hospitality services. This reduced rate was increased to 12.5% starting 1 October 2021. The reduced rate is currently scheduled to expire at the end of March. As a result, the following services will return to being taxed at the standard rate beginning in April:
The expiration of this reduced rate will impact businesses in both the UK and the Isle of Man.
Get in touch with Sovos’ team of experts about the benefits a managed service provider can offer to help ease your company’s VAT compliance burden.
In November 2021, a Draft Royal Decree was published by the Chancery of the Prime Minister of Belgium, aiming to expand the scope of the existing e-invoicing mandate for certain business to government (B2G) transactions by implementing mandatory e-invoicing for all transactions with public administrations in Belgium. This obligation was already in place for suppliers of the centralised public entities of certain regions (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia). However, going forward, it will include all public entities in all Belgian regions.
More specifically, the roll-out for mandatory issuance of e-invoices by the suppliers of public institutions in Belgium will be carried out in the following phased approach:
As a result of the transposition of the Directive 2014/55/EU, all Belgian government bodies are already obliged to be able to receive and process e-invoices within public procurement. This new national legislation expands the Directive’s scope and mandates the issuance of e-invoices by all suppliers to the federal government.
These B2G developments are not the end of the story. They are just the beginning. The Belgian Minister of Finance, Vincent Van Peteghem, announced in October 2021 that the government intends to extend the existing B2G e-invoicing obligation to also cover B2B transactions. Nevertheless, official sources have not yet communicated formal information specifying details of the mandate and its following implementation. Rumour has it that a legislative proposal for the B2B e-invoicing mandate was going to be published during 2022 with the implementation process happening in 2023.
However, considering the European Parliament Resolution last week which strongly favours harmonised and mandatory e-invoicing in the EU, Belgium will likely hold its horses at least until the Commission produces a proposal for how to manage e-invoicing and reporting in the Union.
Need to ensure compliance with the latest Belgian e-invoicing requirements? Speak to our team. Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter to keep up to date with the latest regulatory news and updates.
Registering for Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) with tax authorities across Europe can be challenging and complex, particularly when multiple territories are involved. There are many elements businesses must consider when registering for IPT. What are the required supporting documents? Who can sign? Do documents need to be legalised? Is there a two-step process? These are just a few of the questions you may ask yourself during the registration process.
Based on common pain points we come across with our IPT customers, we’ve put together our five top tips to help make your IPT registration journey easier:
Your company is likely already writing business in the territories you need to register with. Therefore, it’s important the registration is completed promptly to avoid sanctions that some tax authorities may impose. We recommend signing and returning the documents as soon as possible to avoid such complications.
European tax authorities are very specific with their requirements, and depending on the EU Member State, the rules may be different. Generally, supporting documents should be dated within the last six months and clearly legible. Some tax authorities require documents to be notarised and apostilled, some accept electronic signatures and some do not. The registration process can be delayed when supporting documents are incorrect, or templates are completed incorrectly. To avoid delays in your registration submission, be sure to pay close attention to the instructions provided.
Whilst some requested information may seem intrusive and personal, there is always a reason for the request. We will never ask you to provide anything more than what the tax authorities require to complete an IPT registration. Your personal data is always treated with the strictest confidentiality, security and complies with GDPR standards.
Timelines for IPT registration in EU Member States can vary. Some tax authorities, such as Germany, confirm registration within a week of submission, whereas Greece can take 8-12 weeks. Don’t be concerned if your registration is not confirmed as fast as you had expected.
We are keen to have your registration completed as efficiently and swiftly as possible. If you have any queries, your registration representative is always here to help. We can address your questions by email or arrange a call to go over the entire process if this is preferable to you.
Sovos’ IPT Managed Services provides support from our team of experts using software that is updated in real-time. Additionally, our team of regulatory specialists monitor and interpret global IPT regulations, so you don’t have to.
Contact our team of experts to discover how your business can benefit from a complete end-to-end IPT offering, or download our e-book, IPT Compliance: A Guide for Insurers, to learn more about IPT across Europe.
On 10 March, the European Parliament (EP) adopted a Resolution to the Commission’s Action Plan on fair and simple taxation supporting the recovery strategy, which set forth 25 initiatives predominantly related to European Union Value Added Tax (EU VAT). The document includes several general considerations and recommendations to the Commission for the VAT Directive revision proposal (“VAT in the Digital Age”) for 2022.
The EP’s resolution addressed the significant challenges in the European Union (EU) VAT tax policy and placed particular attention on the simplification, modernisation and harmonisation of such rules by uniform adoption of technology tools across all Member States, including digital and e-invoicing requirements and mandates.
The updated resolution highlights a concern around the lack of sufficient support from the Council regarding the definitive VAT regime, that is, the shift from origin to destination principle, still due for implementation. In such a system, VAT will be levied at the place of destination, leaving behind the complex transitional VAT system rules.
Concerns were also raised on the complexity of the multiple tax regulations across the EU and the constraints this entails, particularly for small and medium enterprise (SME) compliance and for those vulnerable to fraud. Added to these factors are the high costs borne by businesses to conform to the multitude of legislative requirements in the different jurisdictions. The Parliament makes an urgent call for a consistent move towards a more straightforward and modern VAT system.
More specifically, the EP described the Commission’s efforts to harmonise procedural rules across the EU and encourage closer cooperation efforts among tax authorities and businesses through the EU Cooperative compliance program as of “highest importance”.
The objective of various points was to use technology as an effective means for simple and modern tax compliance. Digitization of VAT was utterly welcomed as a means for modern and simplified VAT compliance, where real-time or near real-time reporting and e-invoicing is to be utilised by Member States in a uniform and harmonised manner across EU all jurisdictions.
On the same front, recommendations were for one-time collection of data by the tax authority aligned with utmost protection and respect regarding data security legislation, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and various software to ensure maximum effectiveness of data usage and security. Adopting digitization requirements will enhance security, prevent and combat fraud and increase administrative cooperation among Member States.
The resolution also targeted the new Union business and taxation agenda, supporting the design of a new and single Union corporate tax rulebook, which should reflect the OECD Pillar 1 (reallocation of taxing rights) and Pillar 2 (minimum tax on corporate profit) negotiations.
These recommendations are to be followed by the European Commission’s submission of one or more legislative proposals by 2022/2023.
Sovos can help. Get in touch about the benefits a managed service provider can offer to ease your VAT compliance burden.
Poland has been moving towards introducing the CTC framework and the system, the Krajowy System e-Faktur (KSeF), since early 2021. As of 1 January 2022, the platform has been available for taxpayers who opt to issue structured invoices through KSeF and to benefit from the introduced incentives.
As the taxpayers have been using KSeF for a while, let’s take a closer look at what has been happening and will happen in the future regarding Poland’s CTC reform.
Initially presented as a draft act by the Ministry of Finance in November 2021, the regulation on the use of KSEF was finally adopted and published in the Official Gazette on 30 December 2021 after several reiterations.
The regulation covers mainly the categories of authorisations, methods of authentication, and information required to access the structured invoices.
According to the regulation, taxpayers using KSEF are required to authenticate using one of the following methods: Qualified Electronic Signature, Qualified Electronic Seal, Trusted Signature, or Token.
A trusted signature confirms the identity assigned to a specific Polish Identification (PESEL) number. The token method can be used to grant authorisations in the KSeF once the taxpayer has been authenticated.
The Polish tax authority has published new information on its website about KSeF features including FAQs and further documentation.
The FAQs include information regarding the scope and operational side of the system, whereas the sample XML files and the information brochure shed light on the logical structure of e-invoices and mapping requirements.
Although the tax authority continues to make every effort to clarify the many aspects of the new CTC system in Poland, we still have a long way to go regarding the full implementation of KSeF.
For instance, during the public consultation of the draft act the Ministry of Finance stated taxpayers would be able to download structured invoices via API in XML or PDF format. As of today, there is no technical information available regarding the PDF generation within the system using the API. The tax authority has published the technical documentation related to the outbound process but there is still no documentation available on the inbound side.
More importantly, a decision authorising Poland to introduce special measures derogating from Articles of the EU VAT Directive is yet to be obtained from the EU Council for roll-out of the e-invoicing mandate for all B2B transactions. The current Polish VAT Act requires the buyer’s acceptance to receive structured invoices. As the Polish authorities aim to make the KSeF mandatory in 2023 an amendment of this provision is expected once the special measures have been authorized by the EU Council.
Need to ensure compliance with the latest CTC requirements in Poland? Get in touch with our tax experts.
For more information see this overview about e-invoicing in Poland, Poland SAF-T or VAT Compliance in Poland.
Update: 11 April 2023 by Gabriel Pezzato
The trend of tax authorities pre-filling VAT returns using data gathered in continuous transaction controls (CTCs) is persisting across many countries.
CTCs see transactional data sent in real-time through e-invoices or e-reports auto-populate VAT returns and ledgers. Below is the status of the countries that either make available pre-filled returns or have projects to do so:
Disproving returns created by the tax authorities using transactional data sent by the taxpayer is a challenging task. Tax authorities assume they either have all the data they need for an assessment or the taxpayer has failed to submit it in good time.
Therefore, it is imperative to maintain complete electronic records that pre-filled VAT returns can reconcile. Possessing analytics solutions that can perform such analysis in an automated way might also help taxpayers to identify mismatches and correct errors.
For more information on the rollout of pre-filled VAT returns, contact our team of experts.
Update: 9 March 2022 by Charles Riordan
We have previously written about the growing trend of tax authorities “pre-filling” VAT Returns using data from electronic invoices – a trend that began in Latin America and has since spread to several European countries. These pre-filled returns, when accurate, can serve as a simplification measure for taxpayers, who can fulfill their reporting obligations simply by approving what has been generated for them. At the end of 2021, two European countries, Italy and Spain, introduced pre-filled VAT Returns, with Hungary and Portugal planning to introduce them in some capacity.
The landscape for pre-filled VAT Returns has changed significantly in 2022. Hungary and Portugal have both postponed their plans to introduce them. The Hungarian tax authority (NAV) has reversed its decision to introduce pre-filled returns after delaying the eVAT project for several months due to the ongoing COVID pandemic. NAV will instead focus on enhancements to its real time invoice reporting model (RTIR). Because any efforts to pre-fill VAT Returns are dependent on the state of RTIR, it would not be surprising to see NAV revive the eVAT project down the line.
Portugal, meanwhile, had planned to potentially pre-fill sections of its annual VAT Return with data from the so-called “Accounting SAF-T,” which was due to become a mandatory filing in 2022. However, following a rejection of the state budget, the Portuguese tax administration is now stating that Accounting SAF-T will become a mandatory filing from 2024.
On the other side of the ledger, 2022 has seen France introduce pre-populated data into its VAT Returns, while Greece is considering using its myDATA system to pre-fill VAT Returns for taxpayer approval.
France is a particularly interesting case, as it has no e-invoicing regime to pull data from. Instead, auto-population of data on the French VAT Return is limited to information on imports, based on electronic customs declarations. France plans to introduce mandatory B2B e-invoicing in 2024, which may end up widening the scope of pre-population. This new approach was spurred on by a transfer of responsibility from French Customs authorities to French tax authorities for collecting VAT due on imports. Notably, only the VAT due to the authorities, as settled in the VAT Return, is pre-filled; corresponding input VAT amounts must be populated by the taxpayer (likely because some taxpayers won’t be able to claim full deductions).
Greek plans to introduce pre-filled VAT Returns are more undetermined, but some reports claim that a pilot program will be introduced at some point during 2022.
It is clear that, despite delays in Hungary and Portugal, European tax authorities are demonstrating a continuing interest in utilising pre-filled VAT returns. In fact, from a tax authority perspective, pre-filled VAT returns are the natural evolution from a mandatory e-invoicing system or a real-time invoice data reporting system – the data is already at their disposal. From the taxpayer standpoint, it is therefore imperative to maintain accurate and complete electronic records that can be reconciled with pre-filled VAT Returns. This will help taxpayers to correct any errors or raise any necessary challenges to VAT assessments. A high-quality accounting software program can be a useful tool to achieve this end.
Get in touch about the benefits a managed service provider can offer to ease your VAT compliance burden
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.
Many businesses will now be involved in “cross border” transactions meaning that a business in one territory will sell and, often, deliver goods to a customer located within another territory. The existence of two or more tax territories in the transaction, and the possibility that there may be a customer in the EU and a supplier in a third country such as the UK, will inevitably lead to VAT challenges with varying degrees of complexity.
Different challenges will be faced by suppliers involved in B2B transactions compared to B2C transactions – although there will also be some common issues. This article will focus on B2B transactions.
Let’s consider a UK supplier with a contract to supply goods manufactured in the UK to customers within the EU.
The first point to recognise is that to deliver the goods to the EU customer the goods must pass through an EU customs border. And here is the first point for supply chain management.
Who will import the goods into the EU and what are the considerations?
The customer’s starting point is likely to be that they will want the supplier to import the goods and a salesperson, eager to please their customer, is likely to agree. Is this a problem for the supplier? OH YES!
A salesperson returns triumphant with an order with Incoterms of DDP (Deliver Duty Paid) – but is this a cause for celebration?
Deliver Duty Paid means that the supplier must deliver the goods to the territory of the customer from which, for VAT purposes, a local sale will be made. This will require the UK supplier to import the goods into the EU and this creates the first issue.
Under the Union Customs Code (UCC) the person presenting the goods to the customs authority (the declarant) must be established within the EU. An EU established business importing goods can be both the importer and the declarant. A business established outside the EU can be the importer but not the declarant. In this case the non-EU importer must appoint an EU established business to act as its “indirect customs agent”. This agent is jointly and severally liable for the import duties that are due and there are not too many businesses which provide such a service because of the risk. So the seller could find itself unable to satisfy a contractual obligation because it cannot find someone to act as its indirect customs agent in time to make the required delivery – or at all.
If a supplier successfully manages to overcome this hurdle then there is the issue of dealing with local VAT on the sale – must the supplier register for VAT and apply it to the sales invoice – or does the reverse charge apply? And will the customer pay the non-refundable duty costs incurred by the supplier at the border?
The takeaway here is that a contract concluded under DDP terms may be much easier for the sales team to achieve but it can create serious issues down the line. UK suppliers should seek to agree any Incoterm other than DDP wherever possible.
To reduce the possibility of delays some UK suppliers have set up warehouse facilities within the EU from which deliveries can be made. One issue which can affect both VAT and direct taxes is whether the warehouse creates a permanent or fixed establishment. For the purposes of this article we assume no – although creating a permanent establishment could avoid the need to appoint an indirect customs agent.
Once the UK supplier has successfully brought the goods into an EU warehouse it will make deliveries to customers. One big consideration here is how the import VAT is dealt with. Several Member States offer the possibility to postpone import VAT to the VAT return via a reverse charge. In such circumstances import VAT deduction is guaranteed so long as the formalities are followed and the business is able to fully recover VAT. Where goods are imported into a Member State where import VAT must be first paid and then deducted consideration as to how this will happen is important. Where there is a VAT registration in place, the VAT can normally be recovered via the VAT return. However, where the Member State of import has a reverse charge mechanism for domestic sales, a non-EU supplier will need to make 13th Directive claims to recover import VAT. One Member State where this will arise is Spain which has reciprocity rules in place so not all businesses are able to make 13th Directive claims.
Therefore if a supplier is considering utilizing an EU warehouse or making sales on a DDP basis, they should first map out all of the likely flows and then determine the VAT treatment to understand if any negative VAT issues will arise. The planning opportunities and potential pitfalls that arise from such a warehouse will be considered in a later article.
Get in touch with our tax experts to discuss your supply chain VAT requirements or download our e-book Protecting Global Supply Chains.
Unlike many other country initiatives that we have seen in the e-invoicing space recently, Australia does not seem to have any immediate plans to introduce continuous transaction controls (CTC) or government-portal involvement in their B2B invoicing.
Judging from the recent public consultation, current efforts are focused on ways to accelerate business adoption of electronic invoicing. This consultation builds on the government’s previous outreach undertaken in November 2020 on “Options for the mandatory adoption of e-invoicing by businesses”, which led to a serious government effort to enhance the value of e-invoicing for businesses and increase business awareness and adoption.
In addition to a decision to make it mandatory for all commonwealth government agencies to receive PEPPOL e-invoices from 1 July 2022, the Australian government seeks to also boost e-invoicing in the B2B space, but without the traditional mandate for businesses to invoice electronically. Instead, the proposal is to implement the Business e-Invoicing Right (BER).
Under the government’s proposal, businesses would have the right to request that their trading parties send an e-invoice over the PEPPOL network instead of paper invoices.
To make and receive these requests, businesses need to set up their systems to receive PEPPOL e-invoices. Once a business has this capability, it would be able to exercise its ‘right’ and request other companies to send them PEPPOL e-invoices.
According to the current proposal, BER would be delivered in three phases, with the first phase to include large businesses, and the later stages to include small and medium-sized businesses. The possible rollout of BER would be as follows:
The objective of the Australian BER initiative to boost the adoption of B2B e-invoicing is complemented by a proposal for several other initiatives supporting businesses in this direction. One measure would be the enabling of PEPPOL-compatible EDI networks. As EDI networks represent a barrier to broader adoption of PEPPOL e-invoicing, particularly for small businesses that interact with large businesses that use multiple EDI systems, the proposal to enable PEPPOL-compatible EDI networks could ultimately reduce costs for businesses currently interacting with multiple EDI networks. Furthermore, the government is contemplating expanding e-invoicing into Procure-to-Pay. Businesses may realise more value from adopting e-invoicing if the focus grows to embrace an efficient and standardised P2P process that includes e-invoicing.
Finally, integrating e-invoicing with payments is another proposed means to boost e-invoicing. This would allow businesses to efficiently receive invoices from suppliers directly into their accounting software and then pay those invoices through their payment systems.
How efficient the proposed measures will be in accelerating adoption of e-invoicing, and whether the Australian government will feel it was the right decision not to introduce a proper e-invoicing mandate, as is becoming more and more common globally, remains to be seen.
Need help staying up to date with the latest VAT and compliance updates in Australia that may impact your business? Get in touch with Sovos’ team of experts today.
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.
During the last decade, the Vietnamese government has been developing a feasible solution to reduce VAT fraud in the country by adopting an e-invoice requirement for companies carrying out economic activities in Vietnam. Finally, on 1 July 2022, a mandatory e-invoicing requirement is scheduled to enter into force nationwide.
Despite the postponement of the original starting date for the mandatory nationwide e-invoicing obligation, which was first intended to enter into force in July 2020, the Vietnamese government quickly established a new deadline.
Later that year, in October 2020, the new timeline was communicated through Decree 123, delaying the e-invoicing mandate until 1 July 2022. This new deadline is also in line with the implementation dates for the rules concerning the e-invoicing system envisaged in the Law on Tax Administration.
Vietnam’s General Taxation Department (GTD) announced its plan to work first with the local tax administrations of six provinces and cities: Ho Chi Minh City Hanoi, Binh Dinh, Quang Ninh, Hai Phong and Phu Tho to start implementing technical solutions for the new e-invoice requirements and the construction of an information technology system that allows the connection, data transmission, reception, and storage of data. According to the GTD’s action plan, by March 2022, these six cities and provinces should be ready for the e-invoice system’s activation.
The GTD announced that, from April 2022, the new e-invoicing system will continue to be deployed in the remaining provinces and cities.
Finally, under this local implementation plan, by July 2022, all cities and provinces in Vietnam must deploy the e-invoicing system based on the rules established in Decree 123 and the Circular that provides guidance and clarification to certain aspects of the new e-invoicing system.
Taxable persons operating in Vietnam will be required to issue e-invoices for their transactions from 1 July 2022 and must be ready to comply with the new legal framework. Enterprises, economic organisations, other organisations, business households and individuals must register with the local tax administration to start using e-invoices according to the rules established in the mentioned Decree 123.
Vietnam is finally moving forward to adopt mandatory e-invoicing. However, there is plenty of work related to the necessary technical documentation and local implementation of the new e-invoicing system. We will continue to monitor the latest developments to determine whether the GTD can meet all the requirements in time for the mandatory e-invoicing roll-out.
Need help staying up to date with the latest VAT and compliance updates that may impact your business? Get in touch with our team of experts today.
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.
On 30 January 2022, the Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority (ZATCA) published an announcement on its official web page concerning penalties for violations of VAT rules, and it is currently only available in Arabic. As part of the announcement, the previous fines have been amended, ushering in a more cooperative and educational approach for penalizing taxpayers for their non-compliance with VAT rules than previously.
If ZATCA officials detect a violation during a field visit, the taxpayer will first be given a warning about the violation without any penalty. The ZATCA aims to raise awareness instead of penalizing taxpayers for their first violation. Taxpayers will be granted three months to comply and make necessary changes in their processes.
If non-compliance continues after the first inspection, the taxpayer will be fined 1.000 Riyals, roughly 267 USD. The penalty charge will gradually increase if the taxpayer fails to comply with the rules and doesn’t make necessary changes within three months after the notice.
The fine for each additional repetition time will be as follows: 5.000 Riyals for the third time, 10.000 Riyals for the fourth time and 40.000 Riyals for the fifth time. If the same violation is repeated 12 months after its discovery, it is considered a new violation, and the process will begin with a warning without a fine.
According to the announcement, the violations of e-invoicing rules will be penalized per the new procedure described above. The instances that require a notice/fine are slightly different than the initial violations described previously and highlighted as follows:
The ZATCA states that the new approach ensures proportionality between the violation and the penalty imposed on taxpayers while giving taxpayers a chance to comply within a specific time frame. Considering that the introduction of both VAT and mandatory e-invoicing is fairly recent in the country, there are certain aspects that are unclear for taxpayers. This approach will educate businesses and is expected to be welcomed by stakeholders.
Download the 13th annual Sovos’ Trends report to find out more about what we believe the future holds. Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter for the most up-to-date regulatory news.
Towards the end of 2021, the tax authority in Turkey published a draft communique that expands the scope of e-documents in Turkey. After minor revisions, the draft communique was enacted and published in the Official Gazette on 22 January 2022.
Let’s take a closer look at the changes in the scope of Turkish e-documents.
Taxpayers meeting these thresholds and criteria must start using the e-fatura application from the start of the year’s seventh month following the relevant accounting period.
In terms of accommodation service providers, if they provide services as of the publication date of this communique, they must start using the e-fatura application from 1 July 2022.
For any business activities that start after the publication date of the communique e-fatura must be used from the beginning of the fourth month following the month in which their business activities began.
Taxpayers not in scope of e-arşiv invoices have been obliged to issue e-arşiv invoices if the total amount of the invoices to be issued exceeds TRY 30.000 including taxes (in terms of invoices issued to non-registered taxpayers, the total amount including taxes exceeds TRY 5.000) from 1 January 2020.
With the amended communique, the Turkish Revenue Administration (TRA) lowered the total amount of the invoice threshold to TRY 5.000, and thus more taxpayers will be required to use the e-arsiv application. The new e-arsiv invoice threshold applies from 1 March 2022.
Another change introduced by the communique was the expansion of the scope of e-delivery notes. The gross sales turnover threshold for mandatory e-delivery notes has been revised to TRY 10 million, effective from the 2021 accounting period. In addition, taxpayers who manufacture, import or export iron and steel (GTIP 72) and iron or steel goods (GTIP 73) are required to use the e-delivery note application. E-fatura application registration is not applicable to those taxpayers.
Get in touch with our team of tax experts to find out how Sovos’ tax compliance software can help meet your e-fatura and e-document requirements in Turkey.
With the most significant VAT gap in the EU (34.9% in 2019), Romania has been moving towards introducing a continuous transaction control (CTC) regime to improve and strengthen VAT collection while combating tax evasion.
The main features of this new e-invoicing system, e-Factura, have been described in an earlier blog post. Today, we’ll take a closer look at the roll-out for B2B transactions and the definition of high-fiscal risk products, as well as the new e-transport system that was introduced through the Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) no. 130/2021, published in the Official Gazette on 18 December.
For more information about e-invoicing in Romania in general refer to this overview or VAT Compliance in Romania.
According to GEO no. 120/2021 (the legislative act introducing the legal framework of e-Factura), the supplier and the recipient must both be registered with the e-Factura system. The recently published GEO no. 130/2021 establishes an exception for high fiscal risk products and ensures that taxpayers will use the e-Factura system regardless of whether the recipients are registered.
In line with the GEO no. 130/2021, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration has issued an order to clarify which products are considered high fiscal risk products.
The five product categories are as follows:
High fiscal risk products are defined based on the nature of the products, marketing method, traceability of potential tax evasion and degree of taxation in those sectors. Detailed explanations, as well as product codes, can be found in the Annex of GEO no. 130/2021.
The enforcement timeline of this requirement means that businesses that supply these types of products must be ready to comply with the new Romanian e-Factura system as follows:
Another reform that shows the intention of the Romanian authorities to combat tax fraud and evasion is the introduction of an e-transport system.
Taxpayers will be required to declare the movement of goods from one location to another in advance. Once declared, the system will issue a unique number written on the transport documents. Authorities will then verify the declaration on the transport routes.
Moreover, it is stated in the justification letter that the e-transport system will interconnect with the Ministry of Finance’s current systems, Romanian e-invoice, and traffic control, much like similar initiatives in other countries, such as India, Turkey and Brazil.
The introduction of the e-transport system is still pending as the Ministry of Finance has not yet issued the order regarding the application procedure of the system. According to GEO 130/2021, the Ministry of Finance had 30 days to do so after GEO 130/2021 was published in the Official Gazette. However, the deadline expired on the 17 January, and no announcement has been made yet. Therefore, the details of the system are still unknown.
Need to ensure compliance with the latest Romanian regulatory requirements? Speak to our team. Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter to keep up-to-date with the latest regulatory news and updates.
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.