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 Hooda Greig, compliance services manager about ways insurers can make the Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) process more efficient.
I lead an IPT team that delivers compliance services in Europe. I oversee the day-to-day management and delivery of IPT compliance for an extensive portfolio of global clients. We are the first point of contact between Sovos and our clients. My focus is ensuring all tax requirements for the clients are met, that is filing and paying their liabilities to the various territories they are registered in. I also work closely with other departments within our company, particularly our consulting team to assist with more technical aspects of IPT compliance.
Modernising the tax process will help insurers operate efficiently. There are still many insurers reliant on manual reporting methods for IPT. Strategic management of the end-to-end process is key to improving efficiencies, with a focus on managing risks by investing in digitization. Tax technology tools will make compliance for insurers simple, as will collaborating with tax teams with specialised IPT knowledge at a local level.
My top tip to manage risk is the use of tax technology. Tax authorities are introducing more demanding reporting requirements and digitization of filing and reporting processes can result in efficiency, accuracy, and cost reductions.
Efficiency, accuracy, and the costs of getting it wrong are concerns for insurers. The consequences of IPT non-compliance are not limited to statutory or legal penalties, the indirect costs to insurers are often more significant, the cost of correcting a mistake and non-compliance could also have an impact on the company’s reputation. Tax authorities are becoming more stringent in their reporting requirements. It’s important for insurers to work closely with a managed services team to help meet all their tax obligations and in preparation for future IPT requirements to ensure compliance now and in the future.
To minimise risks, we’re seeing an increasing number of insurers looking to technology solutions to change the way they operate. Sovos’ mission is to solve tax for good and we specialise in tax technology and data analysis with specialised knowledge at a local level, ensuring insurers’ compliance requirements are met. Keeping abreast of all regulatory changes can be difficult, Sovos issues regular tax alerts, newsletters and hosts webinars to keep clients up to date with the latest IPT updates.
Have questions about IPT compliance? Speak to our experts or download our e-book, Indirect Tax Rules for Insurance Across the World.
It’s no surprise that inflation is on the forefront of everyone’s mind, with prices continuing to sky-rocket month by month. Data from the United Kingdom shows that the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation jumped to a 40-year high of 9% in the past 12 months. Governments around the world are looking for ways to reduce the burden for consumers to keep global economies afloat. One method – implementing VAT rate cuts to certain goods and services – looks to be coming out on top as multiple countries around the world announced emergency budget sessions or introduced proposals to temporarily cut VAT rates.
Temporary VAT rate cuts are generally quick and easy to implement, which is why they are favored by governments globally. These cuts essentially allow for a boost to the economy by providing consumers with an overall higher amount to spend, incentivizing consumers to spend now while rates are lower.
As expected, many countries have already announced VAT rate cuts or measures to stimulate their economies:
Additional countries such as Estonia, Netherlands, Latvia, Greece, and Turkey are also taking measures to implement VAT rate cuts to fight the ever-rising costs for consumers.
These VAT rate cuts coincide with new measures passed recently by the European Commission allowing Member States to apply reduced rates to more items, including food. Though many Member States seem to be moving towards taking advantage of this new flexibility on VAT rate reductions, it’s expected that as costs continue to rise more Member States and countries around the world will introduce VAT rate cuts to ensure consumer spending doesn’t continue to trend downward.
To find out more about what we believe the future holds, download the 13th Annual Trends. Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter to keep up-to-date with regulatory news and updates.
Since many audits seem to occur at random, it’s not always possible to identify the reason why a tax office would decide to initiate one.
We’ve previously spoken about an increased interest in audits from the EU and audits for e-commerce. This article covers the most common reasons behind a VAT audit to help businesses anticipate and prepare for one when possible.
There are specific “trigger” events among the most common reasons that could cause further queries from the tax office. Generally speaking, these are changes in the company’s status such as a new registration, a de-registration, or structural changes within the company.
VAT refund requests also fall into this category. In some countries (Italy and Spain, for example) a refund request is almost certainly a reason for an audit to be initiated since the local tax office cannot release the funds before checks are completed. In this case, the likelihood of an audit increases when a refund is particularly substantial and the business requesting it is newly VAT registered. However, it doesn’t mean that the tax authority will not initiate an audit if the amount requested in a refund is relatively small.
Certain types of businesses are naturally more subject to audits due to their structure and business model. Groups commonly selected for scrutiny include, for example, large companies, exporters, retailers and dealers in high-volume goods. Therefore, elements such as a high number of transactions, high amounts involved and complexity of the business structure could be another common reason for an investigation to be initiated by the local tax authorities.
Tax authorities often identify individual taxpayers based on past compliance and how their information compares with specific risk parameters. This would include comparing previous data and trading patterns with other businesses in the same sector. Therefore, unusual patterns of trading, discrepancies between input and output VAT reported, and many refund requests may appear unusual from the tax office perspective and give rise to questions.
Another common reason for the tax authorities to request further information from taxpayers is the so-called “cross check of activities”. In this case, either a business supplier or client is likely to be subjected to an audit. The tax office will contact their counterparts to verify that the information provided is consistent on both sides. For example, if a business is being audited following its refund request, the tax office will likely contact the suppliers to verify the audited company didn’t cancel the purchase invoices and that they have been paid.
This category also includes cross checking activities on Intra-Community transactions reported by a business. In this scenario, the cross check would be based on information exchanges between local tax authorities through the VAT information exchange system (VIES). The tax authorities can check Intra-Community transactions reported to and from specific VAT numbers in each EU Member State and then cross check this information with what has been reported by a business on their respective VAT return. If any discrepancy arises, the tax office will likely contact the business to ask why they have (or haven’t) reported the transactions declared by their counterparts.
As we’ve already seen in an earlier article, audit triggers are also influenced by changes in legislation or shifts in the tax authorities’ attention to specific business sectors.
Regardless of whether it’s possible to identify the actual reason the tax authority initiated an audit, a business can undertake several actions in preparation for a check of activities, which will be covered in the next article of this series.
Get in touch about the benefits a managed service provider can offer to ease your VAT compliance burden.
Update: 29 February 2024 by Inês Carvalho
Since January 2023, Romania‘s mandatory e-transport system has monitored the transport of certain goods in the national territory. The e-transport system operates in parallel with Romania’s e-invoicing system.
This blog answers frequently asked questions about Romania’s e-transport system including what and who is in scope, document format and fines for non-compliance.
From January 2023, the Romanian e-transport system monitors the transport of high fiscal risk goods on the national territory.
Transportation in scope includes:
In addition to the transportation type, the categories of road vehicles in scope are as follows:
Transportation of high fiscal risk goods that don’t fall within this scope do not need to be declared in Romania’s e-transport system.
The carriage of goods intended for diplomatic missions, consular posts, international organisations, the armed forces of foreign NATO Member States or as a result of the execution of contracts, are not in the scope of the RO e-Transport system.
From December 15th, 2023, the scope of the e-transport mandate was expanded to include the international transport of all goods. Whilst the change was effective immediately, there is a grace period in place until 1 July 2024, after which, penalties will be imposed.
Romania’s National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) established a list of high fiscal risk products using the same criteria as the e-invoicing system (E-Factura), with a few differences.
The product categories of high fiscal risk products for the e-transport system are:
If the transportation includes both goods with high fiscal risk and goods outside the high fiscal risk category, transportation must be declared in the Romanian e-transport system.
Romania’s e-transport system is operational through the Virtual Private Space (SPV), the tax authority portal used for tax purposes, including the Romanian e-invoicing system. The e-transport system can be used through an API or a free application provided by the Ministry of Finance.
The entities required to report transport data in the e-transport platform are as follows:
The declarant must submit an XML format file following the official schema including the following:
Noncompliance with the e-transport system rules will result in a fine reaching RON 50,000 (approx. €10,000) for individuals and RON 100,000 (approx. €20,000) for legal persons. In addition, the value of undeclared goods will be confiscated.
Concerning the international transport of goods, other than goods falling under the ‘high fiscal risk’ category, fines will only apply from July 2024, after the established grace period ends.
Stay on top of your obligations with Sovos. Map, clear, correct, confirm and delete outbound eWaybill and much more with our specialist solution.
Continuing our series on VAT audits, we take a closer look at the trends we’ve seen emerging in the activities of the EU Member States’ independent tax administrations throughout the European Union.
In a recent report from the European Commission (EC) specific guidelines were published not only on best practices but also on how EU Member States can harmonise the focus of their VAT audit projects. We’ve seen a significant shift away from scrutiny of historically complex businesses in sectors such as automotive and chemicals to the other sectors such as online retailers and distance selling.
The report released by the EC in April noted that there should be a conscious effort from the local tax authorities to increase the efficiency of audit practices and outcomes, by indicating how complex projects can be directed to solve industry specific issues.
Speaking about EU Member States they noted:
“They should also put in place more complex audit projects (for specific groups of taxpayers, an industry or a line of business such as retail, to address a particular risk or to establish the degree of non-compliance in a particular sector) and perform comprehensive audits and fraud investigations.”
We’ve seen this already happening in some countries, such as the Netherlands and Germany, with a greater shift towards auditing of previously neglected companies in the e-commerce industry as a result of Brexit and the E-commerce VAT Package implemented in July 2021. Our own audit team here at Sovos has seen a 45% increase in audits opened on our e-commerce clients in the second half of the year – driven both by changing activity post-Brexit and the One-Stop-Shop (OSS) regime commencing.
Looking in more detail at different tax administrations’ approach to auditing, we’ve observed a greater focus in VAT refund audits in the Netherlands, whilst Germany has scrutinised e-commerce retailers on more specific matters. These polarisations both reflect the individual interests of EU Member States and also the activities of the businesses operating across the EU, but it’s clear that the tax administrations in all countries are taking note of the importance of conducting audits to close the VAT gap.
It’s recommended to involve administrative agencies and governmental bodies to assist with the more complex audit projects embarked upon by EU Member States. With changes to how goods move cross-border between the United Kingdom and the EU taking centre stage in 2021 there has been an increased importance placed on the information transfer between customs offices and their tax administration counterparts. As mentioned earlier, the implementation of the OSS regime has led to a greater shift in the reporting of e-commerce businesses operating in the EU and the impact on the audit process is yet to be revealed.
It’s clear that the major shifts in the VAT landscape in 2021 created a different set of challenges for businesses and tax administrations but encouraging accurate record keeping is still a central goal of most EU Member States. In our next article in this VAT audit series we’ll explore the common triggers of a VAT audit.
Need help ensuring compliance ahead of a VAT audit? Get in touch to discuss your VAT compliance needs.
France is known for its challenging Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) filing system. Understanding which tax authorities you need to register with, file with and talk to when you have questions is essential to meeting your business’s IPT compliance obligations. In this blog, we identify France’s IPT tax authorities and explain what makes IPT so different in this European country.
There are three different tax bodies in France in charge of collecting IPT. They are the Business Tax Department (Service des Impôts des Entreprises) (SIE), the Compulsory Damage Insurance Guarantee Fund (Fonds de Garantie des Assurances Obligatoires de Dommages) (FGaO), and the Union for the Collection of Social Security Contributions and Family Allowances (Union de Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité sociale et D’allocations Familiales) (URSSAF).
Dealing with France’s tax authorities can be challenging, especially once an insurance company obtains authorisation from the Prudential Control and Resolution Authority (Autorite de Controle Prudentiel et de Resolution) (ACPR).
Have questions about IPT compliance? Speak to our experts or download our e-book, Indirect Tax Rules for Insurance Across the World.
Update: 21 June 2023
Changes are coming to VAT on virtual events. To ensure taxation in the Member State of consumption, all services supplied to a customer electronically will be taxable where the customer is established, has his permanent address or usually resides.
Member States must adopt and publish the required laws, regulations and administrative provisions by 31 December 2024 and must apply these from 1 January 2025. This blog will consider some of the issues that may arise from the impending changes.
Where there is physical attendance at an event then the place of supply is the place where the event takes place for all delegates.
For B2B delegates the current rules mean that virtual admission will be classified as a general rule service so VAT is due where the customer is established.
For B2C delegates the current rules depend on whether the virtual attendance can be considered an electronically delivered service or a general rule service. For electronically delivered services supplied, the place of supply is where the customer normally resides and for other services the place of supply is where the supplier is established.
The changes apply to “services that can be supplied by electronic means” but this is not defined. It would appear, from the following to be wider than “electronically delivered”.
To achieve this the current law governing attendance by B2B delegates which results in VAT being due where the event is held will specifically exclude admission where the attendance is virtual.
This suggests that “supplied to a customer by electronic means” occurs when attendance is virtual. This has the effect of removing the distinction of “human intervention” in respect of electronically delivered services.
The law governing B2C sales will state that where activities are “streamed or otherwise made virtually available”, the place of supply is where the customer is established.
These changes suggest that “supplied to a customer by electronic means” occurs when the service is streamed or available virtually. The possibility of streaming (which can be live or recorded) does not appear in the amendment to the B2B rule.
An update to the law governing use and enjoyment reflects these additions.
Many hosts currently use the available educational or fundraising exemptions, especially where the delegates are private individuals without the right of deduction, e.g., doctors. For events with physical attendance the host must consider the rules of the Member State where the event is held since that is where the VAT is due.
Under the new rules, a VAT exemption will be less relevant for B2B virtual events where the reverse charge applies as the attendee assesses the charge to tax themselves. However, it will remain relevant where delegates are unable to apply the reverse charge and unable to deduct the VAT charged – e.g. doctors. In such circumstances, VAT is due where the doctor normally resides and that is where the exemption must be considered.
These new rules may require the host to assess the availability of the exemption in several Member States and may also require multiple ruling request submissions. This is likely to increase operating costs substantially, and the (unintended) consequence could be that exemptions are not considered to the detriment of delegates.
Many future events are likely to include virtual attendees since it increases overall attendance at an event, requiring the host to manage two invoicing regimes.
There could be issues where one taxpayer has both physical and virtual attendees. In this case, the host will need to issue two invoices – one with local VAT for the physical attendance (and where the exemption may apply) and one where VAT is due in the customer’s Member State and the general reverse charge may apply. The attendance of B2C delegates will further increase this complexity for the host.
What happens if a delegate is invoiced for physical attendance, but changes to virtual attendance at the last minute?
When the host provides the login details for virtual attendance, this may change the place of supply. If the place of supply changes, the host must cancel the original invoice and issue a new invoice with the amended VAT treatment.
Where a host currently holds an event with virtual admission for non-taxable EU delegates (e.g. doctors) then the place of supply is where the supplier is established. For a host established outside the EU, no EU VAT is due (ignoring the possibility of use and enjoyment), and it is also likely that no local VAT is due in the host’s own country.
Implementation of the new rules will mean that the host must charge VAT in the Member State where the doctor normally resides. This will not only result in unrecoverable VAT for the doctor but will also increase the compliance costs of the host. Virtually attending such an event in 2025 may become significantly more expensive than in previous years.
The article governing the transposition of these changes requires Member States to “adopt and publish” the necessary laws, regulations etc., by 31 December 2024. The changes will then apply from 1 January 2025.
Member States must not break rank and apply these rules before this date. A situation where some Member States adopt and apply the rules early could lead to double taxation, particularly in B2C transactions.
Once the rules are in force on 1 January 2025, several issues could arise. What happens for an event in January 2025 where delegates must pay for admission ahead of time in 2024? Where is VAT accounted for, and under which rules?
For B2B, there should be no issue since the service remains a general rule, but there is a real issue for non-taxable delegates, e.g. doctors.
For example, a US host holds an event where a German doctor will attend virtually. The event is in January 2025, but the delegate must pay the admission fee by 30 November 2024 to secure a place. Under current rules, applicable in 2024, the place of supply is where the supplier is established, so no VAT is due on the invoice. But when the event happens in January 2025, the new rules say that German VAT is due.
The time of supply rules are not affected by these changes but could a tax authority seek to change these to increase its tax revenue? For example, Greek VAT law says that the tax point is when the event takes place – not when the invoice is issued/payment received. So, in the above example, Greek VAT would be due for a Greek B2C delegate.
When considering the taxation of virtual events, the new rules state it should be possible for Member States to provide the same treatment of live-streamed activities, including events, as those which are eligible for reduced rates when attended in person.
To enable this, amendments to the annex detailing which services can benefit from a reduced rate will include admission to:
This change means that events that are live streamed can benefit from a reduced VAT rate. Though the changes to the place of supply rules refer to “virtual attendance” for B2B and “streamed or made virtually available” for B2C.
Are we to assume that “virtual attendance” = “live streamed”? But “streaming” can be live or recorded. Do these changes also cause an issue for VAT rate determination?
If a delegate watches an event live, then a reduced rate is possible. If the same event is watched via downloading a recording later, then the reduced rate is not possible. If one fee gives a delegate the right to attend the event virtually and download the event for future reference, then the concept of a mixed supply may be relevant.
For events attended virtually, the place of supply for both B2B and B2C will be where the customer is established – although this can be amended by application of the use and enjoyment rules.
For B2B attendees, the host will not charge local VAT as the reverse charge will apply unless the host and attendee are established in the same Member State.
For B2C attendees the host will charge local VAT according to the location of the attendee. The Union and non-Union One-Stop Shop (OSS) will be available to assist reporting where the attendee is in the EU.
Get in touch to discuss your VAT compliance needs or download our guide, Understanding VAT Obligations: European Events.
A recent report released by the European Commission has stressed the need for Member States to increase the number of audits they undertake, particularly in e-commerce businesses. The European Commission specifically highlighted the need for Malta, Austria and France to make additional efforts to improve their value-added tax audit practices. They highlighted the seriousness of the issue and that the consequences of inaccurate VAT reporting can be severe. VAT audits, therefore, promote accurate reporting and mitigate fraud, and as such, they are being encouraged by the Commission.
The European Commission specifically stated that tax authorities should have a strategic approach which must observe multiple elements, including:
The report notes some of the positive actions taken by Member States. Generally, they pay close attention to the audit process, with Finland and Sweden highlighted as particularly good. Furthermore, the report notes that some Member States have established special “VAT task forces” to deal with audits.
Following this report, the European Commission also announced that Norway should be authorised to participate in joint audits with their counterparts in the EU as a further measure to crack down on fraud.
E-commerce is a good example of an area that continues to grow, with the VAT stake ever increasing. With tax authorities globally struggling to keep pace with new technology and consumer offerings, local tax authorities are implementing further measures to ensure that fraud is combatted at an EU-wide level. Whether further changes occur through a difference in how VAT is reported or new forms of reporting such as continuous transaction controls (CTCs) that are in place in some Member States already, VAT audits are at the heart of this strategic plan. In this report, the European Commission has clarified that the approach and scope of audits should be extended.
With increased Member States co-operation and new measures adopted by the European Commission, such as the implementing regulation that provides details on how payment providers should start providing harmonised data to tax authorities from 2024, businesses should ensure that they have adequate controls in place to be able to handle any audit request. Future blogs in this series will focus on the audit trends we’ve noticed at Sovos and how businesses should prepare for an audit.
For more information about how Sovos’ VAT Managed Services can help ease your business’s VAT compliance burden, contact our team today.
The Belgian taxation landscape can be challenging for insurers if they are not well versed in the rules and requirements for ongoing compliance. Belgium ranks as one of the somewhat trickier countries to deal with in the Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) sphere with a plethora of different taxes due dependant on the class of business as well as IPT prepayment requirements.
There are two different tax bodies Belgium insurers should be aware of: the Service Public Fédéral Finances which covers IPT and the National Institute for Health & Disability (INAMI) which covers a vast range of parafiscal charges.
The standard rate of IPT in Belgium is 9.25% which is due on the total amount paid by the policyholder to obtain cover, inclusive of any third-party fees. Goods in Transit risks as well as specific motor risks are subject to a different rate, whilst certain life cover can also have varying rates.
The tax point is the date which triggers the tax, and in Belgium for all taxes it is triggered on the maturity date. This is formally defined as the contractual date when the policyholder pays the premium to the insurer.
Something which sometimes causes issues for insurers is the existence and application of the Belgian prepayment. The prepayment is based on the IPT figures for the October declaration and is due by 15 December.
Similarly to the Italian prepayment the rate stands at 100% but that is where the similarities end. Initially prepayment was only allowed to be offset against the IPT liabilities in the December declaration. However, we did experience some issues in receiving monies from the tax authority where the December liability exceeded the prepayment, thus resulting in a reclaim due.
In 2021 an exercise was undertaken whereby insurers were able to offset any excess prepayment not received in the previous four years against current IPT liabilities. In 2022 insurers have been able to utilise the prepayment up until the March declaration i.e four periods in total (December-March), thereafter if there is any prepayment remaining, in theory a reclaim should be received.
In certain circumstances an exemption was granted to not pay the prepayment. This was often with Captive insurers where they were paying liabilities solely in October on a yearly basis and didn’t expect any further liabilities until the following October. Such exemptions were negotiated directly with the tax office.
To ease the burden for insurers covering solely life insurance, such coverage is exempt from IPT prepayment.
There are seven different taxes covered by INAMI, five of which are due monthly, these are:
Taxes are due on certain motor and motor liability risks dependant on what the contract is covering, with the exception of fire. Some insurance policies are taxed with an element charged to the insured and an element charged to the insurer.
Fire risk is the most common parafiscal we see from the above and care should be taken in its application. Unlike other countries where the fire element percentage is largely determined by the insurer and the scope of the contract, fire risks in Belgium must be apportioned according to a predetermined set rate.
The hospitalisation INAMI charge is due on a biannual basis for ‘Sickness – Pre & Post Hospitalisation Costs’ on an individual and group level. For the charge to apply the insured must receive the benefits of Belgian healthcare insurance (not applicable to doctors, dentists, optician’s fees etc). The applicable rate is 10% on the taxable premium unless the insured’s benefit is less than EUR 12.39 per day, in which case a de minimis limit exemption applies.
Finally, we have the Security Fund for Fire & Explosion due annually, which is currently 3% on the taxable premium. This applies on compulsory liability insurance for fire and explosion in premises open to the public.
Navigating the rules and requirements in Belgium can be demanding for even the most experienced insurer. Sovos has a dedicated team of compliance experts to walk you through even the most challenging problems and ensure you are on the right compliance path.
Get in touch about the benefits a managed service provider can offer to ease your IPT compliance burden.
Eastern European countries are taking new steps concerning the implementation of continuous transaction controls (CTC) systems to reduce the VAT gap and combat tax fraud. This blog provides you with information on the latest developments in several Eastern European countries that may further shape the establishment of CTC systems in other European countries and beyond.
Previously announced on 1 January 2022, taxpayers have been able to issue structured invoices (e-invoices) using Poland’s National e-Invoicing System (KSeF) voluntarily, meaning electronic and paper forms are still acceptable in parallel. On 30 March 2022, the European Commission announced the derogatory decision from Article 218 and Article 232 of Directive 2006/112/EC. The decision will apply from 1 April 2023 until 31 March 2026, after receiving the last approval from the EU Council. Moreover, on 7 April 2022, the Ministry of Finance published the test version of the KSeF taxpayer application that enabled the management of authorisations issuing and receiving invoices from KSeF. The mandatory phase of the mandate is expected to begin the second quarter of 2023, 1 April 2023.
For more information see this overview about e-invoicing in Poland or VAT Compliance in Poland.
The Romanian CTC system is one of the fastest developing in Eastern Europe, with the E-Factura system being available for B2G transactions since November 2021. Based on the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 41, published in the official gazette on 11 April 2022, the use of the system will become mandatory for transporting high fiscal risk goods domestically as of July 2022.
Moreover, Draft Law on the approval of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 120/2021 on the administration, operation, and implementation of the national e-invoicing system (Draft Law) on 20 April 2022 was published by The Romanian Chamber of Deputies. According to the Draft Law, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) will issue an order in 30 days following the derogation decision from EU VAT Directive and establish the scope and the timeline of the B2B e-invoicing mandate. As derived from the proposed amendments, B2G e-invoicing will become mandatory as of 1 July 2022, and mandatory e-invoicing for all B2B transactions is in the pipeline.
For more information see this overview about e-invoicing in Romania or VAT Compliance in Romania.
Serbia has introduced a CTC platform called Sistem E-Faktura (SEF) and an additional system to help taxpayers with the processing and storage of invoices called the Sistem za Upravljanje Fakturama (SUF).
To start using the CTC system Sistem E-Faktura (SEF) provided by the Serbian Ministry of Finance, a taxpayer must register through the dedicated portal: eID.gov.rs. SEF is a clearance portal for sending, receiving, capturing, processing and storing structured electronic invoices. The recipient must accept or reject an invoice within fifteen days from the day of receipt of the electronic invoice.
The CTC system became mandatory on 1 May 2022 for the B2G sector, where all suppliers in the public sector must send invoices electronically. The Serbian government must be able to receive and store them from 1 July 2022. Additionally, all taxpayers will be obliged to receive and store e-invoices, and from 1 January 2023, all taxpayers must issue B2B e-invoices.
The Slovakian government announced its CTC system called Electronic Invoice Information System (IS EFA, Informačný systém elektronickej fakturácie) in 2021 through draft legislation.
The CTC e-invoicing covers B2G, B2B and B2C transactions and will be conducted via the electronic invoicing information system (IS EFA).
The official legislation regulating the e-invoicing system has not been published yet although it is expected to be published soon. However, the Ministry of Finance has recently posted new dates concerning the implementation of the electronic solution:
The second phase will follow for B2B and B2C transactions.
Slovenia has not progressed in introducing its CTC system. Due to the national elections in April 2022, the CTC reform was not expected to gain much traction until at least the summer of 2022. Nevertheless, there are still ongoing discussions around the CTC reform, which intensified soon after the Slovenian parliamentary elections.
The fast pace of the developments happening within Eastern European countries brings challenges. The lack of clarity and last-minute changes makes it even harder for taxpayers to stay compliant in these jurisdictions.
Staying compliant with CTC changes throughout Eastern Europe is easier with help from Sovos’ team of VAT experts. Get in touch or download the 13th Annual Trends report to keep up with the changing regulatory landscape.
Events and conferences typically take a long time to organise and in the early part of 2020 several events that were scheduled to take place were impossible because of the various Covid-19 restrictions. Looking at a loss of revenue, and not knowing how long restrictions would last, many hosts went online and hosted virtual events. This changed both the nature and the place of the supply.
Where there is physical attendance at an event then the place of supply is the place where the event takes place for all delegates.
For B2B delegates the current rules mean that virtual admission will be classified as a general rule service so VAT is due where the customer is established.
For B2C delegates the current rules depend on whether the virtual attendance can be considered an electronically delivered service or a general rule service. For electronically delivered services supplied the place of supply is where the customer normally resides and for other services the place of supply is where the supplier is established.
An electronically delivered service is one which can be delivered without any human intervention such as downloading and watching a pre-recorded presentation. Where a service requires human intervention, this is not considered to be electronically delivered.
Online conferences and events typically have a host or compere and will normally also allow delegates to ask questions in real-time via live chat or similar. The human dimension excludes the possibility of this being classified as an electronically delivered service which means that for B2B the place of supply is where the customer is established and for B2C the place of supply is where the host is established.
The changes are being introduced to ensure taxation in the Member State of consumption. To achieve this, it is necessary for all services that can be supplied to a customer by electronic means to be taxable at the place where the customer is established, has his permanent address or usually resides. This means that it is necessary to modify the rules governing the place of supply of services relating to such activities.
The changes apply to “services that can be supplied by electronic means” but this is not defined. It would appear, from the following to be wider than “electronically delivered”.
To achieve this the current law governing attendance by B2B delegates which results in VAT being due where the event is held will specifically exclude admission where the attendance is virtual.
This suggests that “supplied to a customer by electronic means” occurs when attendance is virtual and has the effect of removing the distinction of “human intervention” in respect of electronically delivered services.
The law governing B2C sales will state that where activities are “streamed or otherwise made virtually available”, the place of supply is where the customer is established.
These changes suggest that “supplied to a customer by electronic means” occurs when the service is streamed or made virtually available. The possibility of streaming (which can be live or recorded) does not appear in the amendment to the B2B rule.
The law governing Use and Enjoyment has also been updated to reflect these additions.
For events that are attended virtually the place of supply for both B2B and B2C will be where the customer is established, although this can be amended by application of the Use and Enjoyment rules.
For B2B attendees, the host will not charge local VAT as the reverse charge will apply unless the host and attendee are established in the same Member State.
For B2C attendees the host will charge local VAT according to the location of the attendee. The Union and non-Union OSS will be available to assist reporting where the attendee is in the EU.
Member States are required to adopt and publish the required laws, regulations and administrative provisions by 31 December 2024 and must apply these from 1 January 2025.
In our next blog we will consider some practical issues that may arise from these changes and how they impact VAT compliance.
Get in touch to discuss your VAT compliance needs or download our guide, Understanding VAT Obligations: European Events.
Over the past decade, the Middle East region has undergone impactful financial and fiscal changes. VAT was introduced as one of the solutions to prevent the impact of decreasing oil prices on the economy after the region’s economic performance started to slow down.
After realising the benefits of VAT to the economy, the next step for most governments is to increase the effectiveness of VAT controls. Currently, most Middle Eastern countries have VAT regimes in place. Like many countries, Middle Eastern countries are paving the way to introduce continuous transaction controls (CTC) regimes to achieve an efficient VAT control mechanism.
Saudi Arabia is leading the way, introducing its e-invoicing system in 2021. This e-invoicing framework, in its current form, doesn’t require taxpayers to submit VAT relevant data to the tax authority in real-time. However, that is about to change, as the Saudi tax authority will enforce CTC e-invoicing requirements from 1 January 2023. This means that taxpayers will be required to transmit their invoices to the tax authority platform in real-time. More details on the upcoming CTC regime are expected to be published by the ZATCA.
The introduction of the CTC concept in Saudi Arabia is expected to create a domino effect in the region; some signs already indicate this. Recently, the Omani tax authority issued a request for information that revealed their plans to introduce an e-invoicing system. The tax authority’s invitation to interested parties stated that the timelines for implementing the system have not been set yet and could involve a gradual rollout. The objective is to roll out the e-invoicing system in a phased manner. The e-invoicing system is expected to go live in 2023 on a voluntary basis and later on a compulsory basis.
The Bahrainian National Bureau for Revenue (NBR) has made similar efforts. The NBR requested taxpayers to take part in a survey asking the number of invoices generated annually and whether taxpayers currently generate invoices electronically. This development signals upcoming e-invoicing plans – or at least a first step in that direction.
In Jordan, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship (MODEE) published a “Prequalification Document for Selection of System Provider for E-Invoicing & Integrated Tax Administration Solution” that was, in fact, a request for information. The tax authority in Jordan previously communicated its goal to introduce e-invoicing. As the recent developments suggest, Jordan is moving closer to having an up and running platform for e-invoicing which will likely be followed by legal changes in the current legislation concerning invoicing rules.
The overall global trend is clearly toward various forms of CTCs. In recent years, VAT controls and their importance and the advantages presented by technology have changed the tax authorities’ approach to the digitization of VAT control mechanisms. As governments in the Middle East countries are also noticing the benefits that the adoption of CTCs could unlock, it’s reasonable to expect a challenging VAT landscape in the region.
To find out more about what we believe the future holds, download Trends 13th Edition. Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter to keep up-to-date with regulatory news and updates.
Understand more about Lithuania SAF-T including when to comply, submission deadlines, filing requirements and how Sovos can help.
Need help to ensure your business stays compliant with the SAF‑T obligations in Lithuania?
Our experts continually monitor, interpret and codify changes into our software, reducing the compliance burden on your tax and IT teams.
Learn how Sovos’ solution for Lithuanian SAF‑T and other VAT compliance changes can help companies stay compliant.
Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) can be complex with fragmented rules and requirements levied by the many different tax authorities in the jurisdictions where this tax applies. This only adds to the challenges faced by finance teams when calculating and settling IPT accurately and on time.
Failure to do so can result in penalties, fines and unwelcome audits – all of which will have an adverse effect on profitability.
Unlike other IPT compliance service providers, at Sovos we provide a complete end-to-end service for our customers providing complete peace of mind and allowing them to focus on what they do best while leaving the IPT compliance to us.
We not only produce and file IPT and parafiscal reports for our customers, but we also make the necessary payments and settle liabilities to the relevant tax authorities using cleared funds held in segregated client bank accounts.
We recognise that IPT is niche and not always a core function for finance teams which is why we offer a client money service for our IPT customers. The funds are held in a segregated bank account for our customers with reconciled statements being provided on a monthly basis.
Based on data uploaded we let our customers know in advance the exact amount needed to settle each of their local IPT liabilities as they become due so there’s plenty of time to ensure the funds are available ahead of tax authority deadlines.
Once the funds have been received, we can then ensure the correct payments are made directly to the tax authorities in line with local legislation.
All receipts and payments with the segregated client bank accounts are reconciled with the submitted returns and monthly reports are provided.
Ensuring Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) compliance can be a complex task. With tax rates and filing varying from country to country, many organisations choose to work with Sovos to ease their IPT compliance workload and for tax peace of mind.
We spoke to Neal Bazeley, supervisor of client money about Sovos’ solution for IPT compliance payments and why customers value this service.
Unlike other IPT compliance providers, for our customers we provide a simple endpoint to settle international tax liabilities in a single payment. Through our network of international subsidiaries and partners, we can pay taxes in over 30 countries.
As a team, we’re responsible for client funds from the moment they’re credited to our account to the point the monies arrive at the respective tax office.
We currently have bank accounts in 13 different currencies with our main bank provider here in the UK. We offer clients the choice to send in funds to us in the currency of the territories they have liabilities in or send all combined funds to one account and we transfer accordingly.
Using our proprietary software, we manage the funds sent to us and allocate to each client account accordingly. This software works with Sovos IPT to ensure funds are linked to liabilities. When payments are due, we use Sovos IPT to generate the necessary payment file that is uploaded to our bank online portal. This then creates a payment in the correct format required by the respective tax authorities.
At the start of each month we generate a statement of account for all clients showing funds in and payments made in the preceding month. We work tirelessly to ensure that every statement is entirely accurate and reflects the period’s transactions.
Issues can occur when clients send funds with no clear indication of which entity they relate to or when tax offices collect payment or refund differences without communication. We pride ourselves on ensuring that these issues are dealt with as they arise so our customers can be confident in the knowledge that their statement is entirely representative of the work we do on their behalf.
IPT payments in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain
In most cases the central government is responsible for taxation and finance and will accept any payment method, providing it is full and accurate. There are however some exceptions. We maintain currency accounts domiciled in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain as these territories require payments to be made from a local account. Italy and Spain present challenges because they require each payment to be routed to each commune or region where tax is due. To complicate matters further, they have specific payment types which cannot be accessed by the layman. These territories are exceptions.
While it may seem that cross-border payments are simple, this isn’t the case. No two countries are the same, with each territory having their own set of rules and regulations. We are constantly updating our processes to adapt to any changes that occur to ensure our customers remain compliant.
Brexit has changed the way we work as a team. Legislation has meant our preferred method of SWIFT payments became prohibitively expensive overnight. We therefore amended our payment deadlines to take these changes into account. We responded quickly to the developing situation – having no prior notice of the change – to ensure we wouldn’t have to pass on these extra fees to our insurance customers.
Paired with Brexit, the Coronavirus pandemic forced our banking partners to begin implementing negative interest rates in currencies where central banks had to adjust their rates to counteract the economic downturn. Being a large client fund we had to implement a system that accurately predicted and recharged the constantly changing fees that were being incurred. Within the space of a couple of months, we had to overhaul our operation to ensure that funds were received and paid by strict deadlines, avoiding negative interest charges on stagnant deposits and leaving enough time for payments to be processed accurately.
Want to learn more about how IPT Client Money can ease your IPT compliance burden? Get in touch.
E-businesses have recently been dealing with the change of rules within the EU with the introduction of the E-Commerce VAT Package but it’s also important to ensure compliance requirements are being met globally. In this blog we look at some of the low value goods regimes that have been introduced over the last few years together with those on the horizon.
Switzerland was one of the first countries outside the EU to introduce a low value goods regime when it revised the Swiss VAT law with effect from 1 January 2018. Previously, import of goods below CHF 62.50 were exempt from Swiss customs duty and import VAT. However, from 1 January 2018 any overseas sellers importing low value goods below CHF62.50 (standard-rated goods) or CHF 200 (reduced rated goods) that breach the CHF 100,000 threshold are required to register for and charge Swiss VAT on the sales of those goods.
On 1 April 2020, Norway introduced the VAT on E-Commerce (VOEC) scheme for foreign sellers and online marketplaces selling low value goods. These low value goods include those with a value below NOK 3,000 exclusive of shipping and insurance costs. The threshold applies per item and not per invoice, although doesn’t include sales of foodstuffs, alcohol and tobacco as these goods continue to be subject to border collection of VAT, excise duties and customs duties. Any foreign seller that exceeds the threshold of NOK 50,000 has an obligation to register for Norwegian VAT and apply this at the point of sale if they’re registered under the VOEC scheme.
Australia and New Zealand introduced very similar schemes to collect GST on low value goods being sold by overseas sellers. Australia introduced its scheme on 1 July 2018 for all goods with a customs value of less than AUD 1,000 and a turnover threshold of AUD 75,000 which once breached means the overseas seller must register for Australian GST and charge this at the point of sale.
New Zealand introduced a low value goods scheme on 1 October 2019 and applied this to low value goods valued at less than NZD 1,000. The turnover threshold in New Zealand is NZD 60,000 which once breached requires the overseas seller to register and charge New Zealand GST.
Following Brexit, the UK abolished the low value goods consignment relief of GBP 15 and introduced a new regime on 1 January 2021 covering imports of goods from outside the UK in consignments not exceeding GBP 135 in value (which aligns with the threshold for customs duty liability). Under these new rules, the point at which VAT is collected moves from the point of importation to the point of sale. This has meant that UK supply VAT, rather than import VAT, will be due on these consignments. Making these supplies requires registration for VAT in the UK from the first sale.
Singapore is the latest country to announce it will introduce new rules for low value goods. Effective 1 January 2023, private consumers in Singapore will be required to pay 7% GST on goods valued at SGD 400 or below that are imported into Singapore via air or post (the GST rate will rise to 9% sometime between 2022 to 2025).
An overseas vendor (i.e., supplier, electronic marketplace operator or re-deliverer) will be liable for GST registration where their global turnover and value of B2C supplies of low value goods made to non-GST-registered customers in Singapore exceeds SGD 1 million at the end of any calendar year. It may also be possible to register voluntarily if required.
Want to ensure compliance with the latest e-commerce VAT requirements across the globe? Get in touch with Sovos’ team of experts today or download Trends Edition 13 to learn about global VAT trends.
SAF-T (Standard Audit File for Tax) is an international standard for the electronic reporting of accounting data from organisations to a national tax authority or external auditors used by tax administrations to gather granular data from businesses either on demand or periodically.
The SAF-T standard has been adopted in mostly European countries, alleviating the need for tax authorities to physically visit companies to extract and review wide-ranging corporate data.
This e-book includes:
Countries that have introduced legislation to enforce SAF-T requirements include Austria, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Romania. SAF-T requirements are continuing to be adopted in a number of EU Member States and countries in other regions are actively considering introducing it.
The latest SAF-T standard includes accounting, accounts receivable, accounts payable, fixed assets and inventory datasets. In most cases authorities request a text file on an XML structure.
The SAF-T guideline is flexible, enabling governments to freely adapt SAF-T to suit their tax filing and audit systems, to perform audits, or as a basis for prefiling periodic tax declarations such as VAT returns or inventory statements.
This e-book discusses the introduction of SAF-T back in 2005 and how the standard has evolved since then, as well as the challenges of SAF-T for both businesses and governments.
Sovos helps customers manage their SAF-T requirements across multiple jurisdictions through software solutions that automate the processes to seamlessly extract required data, map data accurately to SAF-T structures in the latest legal formats and perform deep analysis on the SAF-T output generated.
Sovos provides certainty with a future-proof strategy for tackling compliance obligations across all markets as VAT regulations evolve toward continuous e-reporting and other continuous transaction controls requiring increasingly granular data. Sovos’ solution for SAF-T combines extraction, analysis and generation providing our customers with the certainty they need.
Experience end-to-end handling with compliance peace of mind with Sovos.
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 Rahul Lawlor, Senior Compliance Services Representative – IPT, about his top compliance tips for large and small insurers.
I’m a senior compliance services representative – IPT at Sovos. I joined the company just over five years ago and in that time have dealt with insurers of all sizes, from multinationals to startups, domiciled in a plethora of different countries in the EU and beyond.
I oversee the compliance activities of a portfolio of insurers. As part of my team there are associates and representatives handling more of the day-to-day data, who I oversee to ensure everything’s on track. Queries from our customers are escalated to me and I also approve returns for customers as well as assisting with reports and annual requirements.
In terms of rules and regulations there is largely no difference in IPT requirements for large and small insurers, one exception could be in Hungary where the IPT rate applied is based on the volume of business.
I would say the main difference between large and small insurers is how they approach IPT compliance. Small insurers don’t tend to have dedicated tax teams – we tend to speak to finance departments who handle invoices and have also been tasked with IPT. When filing IPT in other countries outside their domicile, smaller insurers might not have the language or tax expertise required to file returns or register IPT. Whereas large insurers have specialised teams spanning the globe who deal with a variety of complex tax issues.
Small insurers tend to need more assistance, we help them through the IPT compliance process from start to finish, whereas larger insurers broadly understand IPT and often come to us with queries about more complicated IPT requirements.
Small insurers are often still using legacy systems that were designed before the IPT revolution when the requirements weren’t as extensive as they are now. This means that the information and data necessary for IPT submissions isn’t always being collected at source and on occasion we notice there are elements missing. This then requires going back to policyholders to retrieve the additional information, which can cause submission delays.
Not having the information required for IPT submissions can lead to some countries not accepting the risks and not accepting reports. The cost of non-compliance outweighs the cost of staying with a cheaper system. Setting up a new system might feel like a significant undertaking but in the long-term it provides benefits and minimises the risk of reputational damage associated with not filing risks on behalf of policyholders.
My top tip for small insurers is to educate themselves on IPT, especially if they are writing risks in countries where the tax points aren’t uniform and could pose issues for their systems. The tax point is the date which triggers the tax but it can vary – often it’s cash received, but in can be issuance, written date, maturity date (the list goes on).
Always allow plenty of time ahead of filing and reporting deadlines, especially when entering new markets. We’ve helped many insurers with registration and IPT requirements to avoid any surprises.
Don’t rest on your laurels. Large insurers are more experienced with IPT but when there are wholesale changes, details can sometimes be missed or not fully understood. Make sure you are expanding your horizons and always learning. When changes are required, for example when Portugal went from return to transactional filing or when Spain announced a rate change, it’s important to understand the effect this will have on systems and consequently submission.
Don’t be afraid to ask for help beyond your team. At Sovos we deal with a wide range of insurers and have a wealth of experience, so we’ve most likely helped with a similar query and our team of experts are up to date with the latest IPT requirements.
Don’t be scared to reach out and get a second opinion if you’re unsure, we can help guide you.
Preparation and education are key! There are various stakeholders in the data supply chain, and it is important that everyone is uniform in their understanding of the requirements needed for ongoing compliance.
For small insurers who are still using legacy systems, Sovos’ IPT Determination software can integrate with legacy systems to ensure relevant details are captured. We’ve helped many small insurers with IPT registrations, assisting with the process from preparation stage, submitting documents on a client’s behalf, and advising once registration is complete. You can lean on our expertise to save you time and enable you to focus on your business.
Implementation of Sovos’ IPT Determination software is not limited to solely smaller insurers. For large insurers we also offer an end to end to end solution. Furthermore, our IPT consultancy is on hand to advise on complex tax issues, to give you confidence in high-level decision making.
We have extensive relationships with tax authorities and we have local representatives and associates in countries across the globe who can assist us and our clients with the most complex of IPT queries and requirements.
Have questions about IPT compliance? Speak to our experts or download our e-book, Indirect Tax Rules for Insurance Across the World.