,

Determining Location of Risk: Health Insurance

James Brown
February 4, 2022

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.

Legal background

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.

Where the policyholder is an individual

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.

Where the policyholder is a legal person

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.

Take Action

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.

Sign up for Email Updates

Stay up to date with the latest tax and compliance updates that may impact your business.

Author

James Brown

James Brown is a Consultant at Sovos. His academic background is in Law having studied the subject at undergraduate level, and he has since enjoyed various roles in the IPT Managed Services Department at Sovos.
Share This Post

EMEA
June 16, 2022
VAT on Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)

The recent popularity of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has captivated investors, governments and tax authorities. An NFT is a digital asset that represents real-world objects such as a piece of digital art, an audio clip, an online game or anything else. NFTs are purchased and sold online and are typically encoded with the same software as […]

EMEA IPT
June 15, 2022
In Focus: Why is Italy’s IPT Regime so Challenging?

Tax compliance in Italy – where do we start? From monthly tax settlements to an annual declaration, prepayment, additional reporting and treatment of negative premiums – all these factors make Italy unique and one of the most challenging jurisdictions from an insurance premium tax (IPT) compliance perspective. Let’s break it all down: Insurance taxes IPT […]

EMEA VAT & Fiscal Reporting
June 15, 2022
Reciprocity Agreements and Why They Matter When Recovering VAT

Sovos recently hosted an online webinar on VAT recovery where we covered reciprocity agreements between the UK and EU Member States when making 13th Directive VAT refund claims. One of the questions that kept coming up is what are reciprocity agreements and why do they matter? Reciprocity When making 13th Directive refund claims, each EU […]

E-Invoicing Compliance EMEA
June 14, 2022
Draft Resolution Introduces Changes to Peru’s E-transport Document

E-invoicing was introduced in Peru in 2010, following the continuous transaction controls (CTC) trend in Latin American countries for a more efficient collection of consumption taxes. Since then, the government has rolled out measures to encompass a significant number of taxpayers under the country’s mandatory e-invoicing regime and advance new technical and institutional structures within […]

E-Invoicing Compliance EMEA
June 9, 2022
Belgium Steps Closer to Mandatory E-Invoicing

In line with the obligations set by the European Directive 2014/55 on electronic invoicing in public procurement, Belgium introduced a mandate for public entities to receive and process electronic invoices in 2019. For Brussels, Flanders, and Wallonia the initiative went beyond the bare minimum of the EU Directive requirements and introduced obligations to also issue […]