Until the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, the view was that businesses provide insurance such as Employers’ Liability during normal day-to-day operations. Employers’ Liability insurance is compulsory, protecting a company’s employees and workplace visitors for accidents where a claim needs to be settled.
Following the Covid-19 pandemic, the definition of a workplace has changed. It’s no longer solely an office or factory, now a workplace is likely to include an employee’s home.
Although the world has gotten used to Covid-19, it is something we’ll all have to live with for the foreseeable future. Therefore, all employers have had to consider what future working arrangements they need to have in place based on the type of business.
Companies primarily office-based before the pandemic have taken the opportunity to discuss these future arrangements with employees. Many have adopted hybrid working which includes a combination of office and home working where possible. It does seem very unlikely that in the short-term there will be a move for people to return to working in the office full-time.
Companies will need to consider the events they will need insurance for and how this will impact their current insurance policies.
This means that while they’ll still need mandatory insurance, such as Employers’ Liability, some requirements will likely have a greater impact on the insurance coverage and premiums moving forward.
This could include regular home Health and Safety checks to ensure employees’ working environment meets the company’s rules and regulations. Insurers could require all employers to provide evidence that their employees have passed annual health and safety tests to ensure ongoing compliance. Having this information on file ready to present to insurers if an accident happens at home to an employee during their working day would provide comfort to businesses for future claims that they won’t be rejected.
It’s also worth pointing out that the working day has changed for many, from a strict ‘9 to 5’ to more flexible arrangements to accommodate childcare and other responsibilities. This change in working hours should be taken into consideration by employers and insurers for accident claims that in pre-Covid times would have been outside regular working hours.
The other types of insurance policies likely to be affected by changes in working arrangements are:
Businesses should review all their current insurance policies to ensure they have the necessary coverages in place to protect against these changes in working arrangements. The implications of not getting insurance coverages right could be serious for the company. If this isn’t something they’re looking at already, they should start the process sooner rather than later to avoid potential future problems for themselves and their employees.
Speak to our tax experts for help with business insurance compliance.
Imagine this scenario.
Your business partner changes the rules on you mid-stream and your ability to conduct business with them is now contingent on changing your entire reporting structure to meet their new demands.
Oh yeah, I should also mention the time frame to meet these demands is extremely tight and if you don’t, you can forget about doing business in their region until you get it right. And if at any point moving forward you fail to live up to these standards, they can fine you or shut you down.
Sound farfetched? It isn’t. It’s exactly what is playing out in major economic markets from Brazil to Italy and parts of Asia and Africa. You see, governments have caught up to businesses when it comes to technology, and in many ways, they have moved past them when it comes to digitization.
It means that governments have now taken on a more proactive approach to reviewing financial transactions and are demanding real-time reporting. As part of that, they have implemented real-time enforcement to ensure that it’s meeting the proper mandated specifications. To accomplish this, they have taken up permanent residence within your data stack. And make no mistake, when it comes to e-invoicing, they are calling the shots.
Governments throughout the world are implementing mandated e-invoicing for its ability to facilitate compliance and track fraud quickly and efficiently. After the fact reporting, which had been the norm until now, was more difficult to enforce and took lengthy and costly audits to recoup what was rightfully owed. Many organizations didn’t take the penalties seriously and would simply set aside some money to deal with these inconveniences as they emerged.
This approach resulted in a tax gap that is continuing to grow. In 2019, the VAT gap of the European Union’s 28 member states was over 134.4 billion euros for all member states combined. This had become unsustainable and unacceptable to many governments and thus a new technology that focused on digitization was made to ensure that all legally owed revenue was being collected timely and in full. Failure to comply would lead to faster and more impactful enforcement measures.
This trend is growing rapidly with countries across the globe adopting new mandates and methodologies for tracking and enforcing the rules. In the next five years nearly every country that employs the VAT system of taxation is expected to update their systems to some degree.
Make no mistake. Due to the demands for real-time information, this is an IT problem, not a tax issue. For multinational companies that do business in dozens of countries, there could be some painful moments along the way if they don’t plan early and develop a sound strategy for each of the locations in which they have operations.
IT should focus on the end goal: implementing a centralized approach to managing these government mandated e-invoicing laws to ensure a globally consistent approach to all digital filings. I can’t overstate the importance of implementation synergies as requirements increase and expand. This is only going to get more complex as time goes on.
And perhaps most importantly, don’t be afraid to ask for help. This is complicated stuff that is changing by the day. This is not the time or the issue to try going it on your own.
Reach out to our experts for more help and information.
Meet the Expert is our series of blogs where we share more about the team behind our innovative software and insurance premium tax (IPT) compliance services.
As a global organisation with indirect tax experts across all regions, our dedicated team are often the first to know about regulatory changes and developments in global tax regimes to support you in your tax compliance.
We spoke with Sean Burton, senior compliance services representative who explained Slovakia’s specific IPT reporting requirements and shared some of his top tips to ensure compliance.
I’m a senior compliance services representative for IPT at Sovos. I joined the company just over three years ago and have mainly worked with clients writing global insurance programmes, exposing me to a wide range of scenarios within IPT.
My day-to-day role now involves overseeing the review and return preparation process for associates and representatives’ data, ensuring accurate submissions are prepared in a timely manner. The final step in this sequence is for me to sign off the final returns and pass them to our client money team. Outside of this work I deal with client queries, assisting with more complex annual reporting requirements and submission of the Slovakian IPT returns.
The IPT tax regime in Slovakia took over from the previous Non-Life Insurance Levy tax on 1 January 2019. Any policies incepted on or after this date are subject to the IPT tax as opposed to the old levy.
The tax rate remained the same at a flat 8% rate across all business classes.
There are three tax points for IPT in Slovakia:
This offers insurers greater flexibility with their tax points in comparison to other territories, allowing the insurer to pay taxes either upfront or spread across multiple returns in installments. The main point here is once a specific tax point has been selected, the insurer must use it for the next eight submission periods. After this they can change the tax point should they wish.
Slovakian IPT is submitted electronically via an online tax portal. The submission and payment are due at the end of each quarter.
As with most territories that have moved to online filings, the Slovakia tax authorities now require more specific information for each policy. As a result, Sovos now requests an additional field in our data template so that we can report this accurately.
Type of movement:
E/R – Issuance of a premium/renewals: grouped on the tax return by class of business. It’s important to note that an overall negative position for a specific business class is not permissible and will be rejected in the Slovakian Tax Portal.
S – Supplementary premium: the case whereby a premium or part thereof, is increased, reduced or cancelled. These premiums are reported within Box 19 on the Slovakian IPT return, where the total can be either positive or negative.
C – Correction of error: In the case of a correction of error a supplementary declaration must be submitted for the appropriate period affected.
This can be a problem for insurers who haven’t previously collated this information and it’s not part of their current internal booking systems, which can take time to update.
Another issue for insurers writing policies with a long duration over a number of years is that whilst the IPT regime took over from the old Non-life insurance levy (NLIL), NLIL can still be due if the policy incepted prior to 2019. Therefore, it’s important for insurers to be aware of this distinction and ensure both taxes are paid accurately.
My top tip for IPT reporting in Slovakia would be to collect as much detailed policy information as possible to complete the separate sections of the IPT return compliantly.
This will also help insurers be organised for any further updates to Slovakian reporting in the future. Requesting detailed policy information is a trend we’re seeing across all territories and insurers need to be prepared for this.
Firstly, at Sovos we have a good connection with local associates in Slovakia. This means we can keep our finger on the pulse with any IPT related legislative changes that arise in Slovakia.
Secondly, the online submission process requires each box to be manually inputted with information such as premium tax amounts, contact information and tax point selection. Leaving this process in our hands will certainly save insurers valuable time.
Have questions about IPT compliance? Speak to our tax experts or download our e-book, Indirect Tax Rules for Insurance Across the World.
France is implementing a decentralised continuous transaction control (CTC) system where domestic B2B e-invoicing constitutes the foundation of the system, adding e-reporting requirements for data relating to B2C and cross-border B2B transactions (sales and purchases).
Under this upcoming regime, data or invoices can be directly sent to the Invoicing Public Portal ‘PPF’ (Portail Public de Facturation, so far known as Chorus Pro) or to a Partner Dematerialization Platform ‘PDP’ (Plateformes de Dématerialisation Partenaires). In addition, there are also Dematerializing Operators (Operateurs de dématérialisation) that are connected to either the PPF or a PDP.
Requirements for these portal and platforms have been published.
The Ministry of Economy published Decree No. 2022-1299 and Order of 7 October 2022 on the generalisation of e-invoicing in transactions between taxable persons for VAT and the transmission of transaction data (together known as ‘new legislation’), providing long-awaited details for PDP operators and PPF.
The new legislation introduces rules concerning the application process for PDP operators. Although French establishment isn’t required, PDP operators must fulfill a number of requirements, such as operating their IT systems in the EU.
France is implementing a model where third-party service providers are authorised to transmit invoices between the transacting parties. With the mandatory use of the PPF or PDPs for exchanging e-invoices, trading parties cannot exchange invoices between them directly. Therefore, PDPs must be able to receive and send invoices in structured formats, whether the ones supported by the PPF (CII, UBL, or FACTUR-X) or any other required by their clients. Also, to ensure interoperability, PDPs are expected to connect with at least one other PDP. Besides this requirement, it’s stated by the new decree that PDPs must be able to send e-invoices to PDPs chosen by their recipients which implies a complete interoperability between PDPs.
It was previously announced that taxpayers could submit PDF invoices for a transitional period. The new legislation outlines the transitional period as until the end of 2027. During this period PDPs and PPF must be able to convert the PDF into one of the structured formats.
The new legislation also provides information about the content of e-invoices, which has new mandatory fields, and the content of transaction and payment data to be transmitted to the tax authority.
It also announced frequencies and dates of data transmission. Deadlines for transaction and payment data transmission are based on the tax regimes of taxpayers. For example, taxpayers subject to the normal monthly regime should transmit payment data within ten days after the end of the month.
With the aim of having traceability over documents, the lifecycle statuses of the domestic B2B e-invoices are exchanged between the parties and transmitted to the PPF. Lifecycle statuses that are mandatory (“Deposited”, “Rejected”, “Refused” and “Payment Received”) are listed in the new legislation.
Further details regarding the Central Directory, which consists of data to properly identify the recipient of the e-invoice and its platform, are provided within the Order.
PDP operator candidates can apply for registration as of Spring 2023 (precise date still to be confirmed), instead of September 2023 as previously set. From January 2024, a six-month test run is expected to be conducted for enterprises and PDPs before the implementation in July 2024.
Still have questions about France’s upcoming continuous transaction control mandate? Get in touch with our tax experts.
Update: 25 January 2024 by James Brown
There have been a couple of key developments in the space insurance landscape in recent months from an IPT perspective.
In October 2023, a District Court in the Netherlands passed judgment on its view of the compliant IPT treatment of space insurance. Whilst this only affects the Netherlands at present, it is one of the first countries to make a judgment in this context.
In the case, the insurance covered the reduced commercial book value of satellites launched into orbit. From a location of risk perspective, the court deemed that the risk resided in the Netherlands on the basis that this was the location of the establishment of the policyholder.
In light of this finding, the court considered the possible applicability of the IPT exemption that exists in the Netherlands for transport insurance. The court held that this exemption only applied to the coverage up until the point that a satellite was separated from the rocket being used to launch it into orbit. After this point, it viewed that it was no longer being transported as the in-orbit movement was incidental to the actual coverage.
In December 2023, Lloyd’s published its position on the treatment of space insurance, in part following its own work on the subject and in part as a response to the findings of the Dutch court. It confirmed its general agreement with the decision in the Netherlands.
More broadly, it confirmed its view that any separately apportioned insurance of the launch risk should benefit from international goods in transit IPT exemptions that may apply depending on the country. In-orbit risks will not benefit from these exemptions, however.
Nevertheless, if the risk location is a country with a more widely applicable space insurance IPT exemption (e.g. the UK), then that exemption could potentially still apply to in-orbit risks.
Although neither of these developments are legally binding across the European Economic Area, they will inevitably influence market practice.
If you have questions about your approach to the premium taxation of space insurance, speak with an expert.
Update: 27 October 2022 by James Brown
Space insurance and the application of IPT on these policies has been a talking point in recent months. The main question? Location of risk.
This blog considers the background and explores the current state of space insurance.
Space insurance typically provides a broad range of coverage relating to spacecraft, such as satellites and rockets, but also covers the vehicle used for launching the spacecraft.
Although not an exhaustive list, some of the classes of insurance set at European Union (EU) level that we expect to be included are:
Given the different elements of coverage possible, it is important to tax each element appropriately.
For example, the portion of the coverage related to damage to the spacecraft itself (including fire) may result in certain parafiscal charges due on property and fire insurance in some countries.
On the other hand, the portion of the coverage relating to the transport of the spacecraft may benefit from one of the exemptions that exists in many EU jurisdictions for goods in transit insurance.
It is worth noting that the United Kingdom has an IPT exemption relating to contracts of insurance for the operation of spacecraft within certain classes of business (including those classes identified above). The scope includes the operation of the spacecraft during launch, flight, orbit or re-entry, and the operation of the launch vehicle and any business interruption cover. This does not, however, extend to risks relating to spacecraft construction.
There may be multiple risk locations depending on the specific coverages provided on the policy.
When parts of a spacecraft are manufactured and then subsequently assembled, for example, they are considered moveable property and, as such, would be taxable in the property’s location based on EU rules, if contained in a building there.
When transporting spacecraft ahead of launch, then it would be taxable in the location of the establishment of the policyholder to which the insurance contract relates. Similarly, risks covering the launch, ongoing operation of the spacecraft once in orbit, and during the de-commissioning stage should be expected to be taxed in the same way.
From discussions within the market, we are aware that the practice has generally been to treat space policies as wholly exempt from IPT and parafiscal charges. This is rather than taking the approach to look at each element of the policy to see if they should be taxed, and if so, then how should the location of risk rules be applied to determine the correct country or countries.
Despite this practice, the market is presently rethinking its approach to taxing these policies. This is to mitigate the risk of assessments from EU tax authorities claiming for unpaid taxes. Subject to any future legal rulings affecting the market, the likely outcome is that IPT and parafiscal charges are charged as outlined unless there is a specific exemption.
Still trying to figure out how to approach space insurance? Get in touch with our IPT experts today.
With half a billion consumers, the EU market represents huge growth options for e-commerce companies. Maximize this potential through a seamless B2C service with fast delivery and no unexpected customer VAT charges.
Sovos Compliance Services Portal for e-commerce allows easy access to all simplified EU VAT reporting schemes:
Companies not established in the EU (unless established and supplying from Norway) are required to appoint an Intermediary to facilitate the reporting and payment of VAT under the IOSS scheme.
Sovos is set up to act as an Intermediary on behalf of your business. We will ensure that you reap the benefits of the simplification while safeguarding against the risk of penalties and expulsion for non-compliance.
Intermediaries assume joint responsibility for:
The Sovos Compliance Services Portal empowers you to take control of your sales data. Once you’ve mapped it into our portal, our tool allows you to run your own validation checks and correct any errors before our team of experts completes the filing. Our VAT Compliance for E-commerce solution gives you peace of mind that your data is secure and that your (I)OSS VAT return is accurate and reliable.
Future proof your VAT compliance profile, ensure your goods are delivered in a timely manner to your customers and do not get stuck at the border. Sovos Compliance Services Portal is underpinned by the deep knowledge and expertise of our Compliance Services & Consulting teams.
Our solution means you can:
A blend of human expertise and software to ease your VAT compliance workload and reduce risk wherever you operate today while ensuring you can easily flex to handle VAT requirements in the markets you intend to dominate tomorrow.
There are several countries within the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) that have introduced a Fire Brigade Tax (FBT). Fire Brigade Tax is payable on certain premium amounts and usually in addition to Insurance Premium Tax (IPT).
Fire Brigade Tax, or the Fire Brigade Charge (FBC) or Fire Protection Fee (FPF) as it’s known in some territories, is levied on the proportion of the premium that covers fire risks. Fire Brigade Tax is calculated on the fire premium multiplied by the applicable Fire Brigade Tax rate, which seems straightforward but, as is often the case with IPT, some countries have made this calculation quite complex.
This blog summarises the challenges around Fire Brigade Tax calculation and what to consider when calculating Fire Brigade Tax, as well as including country specific rules. For further information about country specific Fire Brigade Tax rules read our blog posts about UK, Portugal and Slovenia.
Solvency II Directive 2009/138/EC doesn’t provide a definition of fire proportion.
The following approach is the most common way to determine the fire proportion of FBT regulations (e.g. Austria).
In Luxembourg the rule is as follows: where the fire and natural forces element cannot be separately identified, the 6% rate applies to 40% of the premium in case of household contents or 50% of the premium in case of non-household contents. This is based on guidance issued by the Luxembourg Tax Office.
In Belgium, the taxable premium for Security Fund for Fire and Explosion charge (Fire INAMI) is dependent on the type of risk covered. The fire proportion is determined by the Law on compulsory healthcare and compensation insurance. For example, for premiums covering terrorism risks the fire proportion is 35%, while for electricity risk it’s 10%. It‘s not possible to deviate from these dictated fire proportions.
In Austria the fire proportion rate can be determined by the insurer based on the covered risks.
An interesting example of Fire Brigade Tax calculation is Finland where the taxable basis of IPT is increased by the amount of calculated Fire Brigade Tax.
As these examples demonstrate, there are many different approaches to the Fire Brigade Tax. Insurers need to stay up-to-date with the local Fire Brigade Tax regulations to correctly calculate the Fire Brigade Tax amount.
When calculating the fire proportion, it’s important to understand that Fire Brigade Tax is not only applicable for fire risks but is due on other risks too. Understanding what risks may trigger Fire Brigade Tax liability requires familiarising ourselves in the mappings of the covered risks.
The immediate answer is Class 8, Fire and Natural Forces. According to Annex I of the Solvency II Directive Class 8, Fire and natural forces covers “All damage to or loss of property (other than property included in classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) due to fire, explosion, storm, natural forces other than storm, nuclear energy, land subsidence.”
And from this definition it’s not difficult to figure out what other classes may be impacted by Fire Brigade Tax. So, these are Class 3 Land Vehicles, Class 4 Railway rolling stock, Class 5 Aircraft, Class 6 Ships, Class 7 Goods in Transit and Class 9 Other Damage to Property.
From a risks point of view, Fire Brigade Tax is usually charged on theft, hail and frost damages on top of the fire, storms or land subsidence.
Up-to date knowledge of the Fire Brigade Tax rates is required to calculate Fire Brigade Tax. Plus, you also need to know how the settlement is working, that is where to declare Fire Brigade Tax, what form should be used and the payment method etc.
Staying up to date with Fire Brigade Tax rates is even more important. In our ever-changing world tax rates increase and decrease constantly depending on the climate and politics.
Fire Brigade Tax rates vary across the EU. In Slovenia Fire Brigade Tax rates increased from 5% to 9% as of 1 October 2022. The new rate is applicable to policies that were cashed on or after 1 October 2022.
In some countries there are no separate Fire Brigade Tax regimes as such, but if fire is covered by the premium, then the applicable Insurance Premium Tax rate is higher. Examples include France and Greece. In Greece if the premium covers fire risks a higher IPT rate of 20% is applicable.
There are countries (Iceland), where, broadly speaking, Insurance Premium Tax applies only if fire is covered.
And lastly, there are countries where separate Fire Brigade Tax regimes exist and Fire Brigade Tax is calculated on the fire proportion and the applicable Fire Brigade Tax rate is applied. Examples include Austria, Germany and Luxembourg.
The Fire Brigade Tax rates discussed so far are in territories where the taxable premium rate model is used. However, there are Fire Brigade Tax regimes using other rate models too, like the sum insured. This is the case in Liechtenstein where Fire Brigade Tax is calculated based on the value of the property.
Within the frame of this topic, it’s also worth mentioning that Fire Brigade Tax can be insurer borne, insured borne or both. In Austria for example, 4% of the Fire Brigade Tax is insured borne and is invoiced to the policyholder as an addition to the premium and the other 4% is insurer borne and is deducted from the collected premium.
Completing the Fire Brigade Tax obligation requires submitting the tax declaration and paying the corresponding tax. These two processes can be referred to as settlement.
The variety of Fire Brigade Tax settlement processes is colourful. Differences exist in:
For compliant tax settlement, it’s vital that understanding and interpretation of Insurance Premium Tax regulation is up-to-date and accurate.
Need to learn more about Fire Brigade Tax regimes? Contact Sovos’ IPT expert team who are happy to help you.
Update: 27 July 2023 by Edit Buliczka
The registration requirements for settling taxes in a country are similar – if not the same, usually involving the central tax administration or tax authority.
This, however, is not always the case and there are exceptions. For example, due to a recent change in Austria, the registration requirements for Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) in favour of third-country insurers have been modified.
Third-country insurers can register and settle IPT liabilities directly with the Austrian Tax Office under this legislation, which takes effect on 1 January 2024. Currently, IPT payable on insurance premiums with third-country insurers must be handled by an authorised representative or the policyholder.
In Austria, IPT is levied on the collected premium and Fire Brigade Tax (FBT) may also be due if the policy includes fire risks.
The Austrian Tax Office has not changed the law that governs FBT rules. The FBT legislation is simpler than the IPT law, with no special regulations for local, EU or EEA-based or third-country insurers. The FBT Law states: “if the insurer has no domicile (seat) in a contracting state of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, but an authorised representative has been appointed to accept the insurance premium, then the latter is liable for the tax.”
There’s a possibility the FBT laws were purposefully left unaltered because the term “insurer” may be understood in a way that covers third-country insurers. As a result, third-country insurers can already register directly with the Austrian Tax Office for FBT purposes.
Interestingly, in Austria, both IPT and FBT are controlled by the Central Tax Administration – commonly referred to as the Austrian Tax Office and there is just one taxID used for both IPT and FBT.
Contact our team of experts if you have any questions concerning the Austrian IPT Registration.
Update: 4 October 2022 by Dawn Rowlands
Registering for IPT across Europe is often complex and can raise several additional questions. This is particularly pertinent if your company has branches established in different territories: can we register our head office and file a single return for all branches via this registration? What about branches operating on a freedom of service (FoS) basis? What about domestic branches? Is it mandatory or optional to register branches?
Before we dive into these questions, let’s take a closer look at why branches are useful. Some insurers prefer to have a separate IPT registration for their branches, even if it’s not a mandatory requirement of the country. It’s often an easier method of handling IPT compliance for the country, based on the reports generated from internal accounting systems. For acquisitive insurance companies who may be using legacy systems, it’s simpler to have individual branch registrations rather than consolidating all branches into a single return filed via the head office.
For many territories, it’s not mandatory to have branches operating as it’s possible for EU domiciled companies to register and file taxes through their head office, operating under FoS across the European Union. However, this is territory dependent and some require branch registration, as we will explain later.
In addition to the registration of your head office operating on a FoS basis, it’s also possible to register branches in some territories. Each branch must also be authorised independently by the regulators in their country of domicile to operate on a FoS basis.
In some territories such as Spain, Portugal and Italy it’s not mandatory to have a branch as taxes can be filed via a company’s head office. However, if your company does operate branches in these territories it is mandatory to be registered separately to head office. This requires companies with multiple branches to have multiple registrations, each with their own independent tax identification number. The registrations are managed separately, and a tax return is required for each of them.
Country requirements are also subject to change. For example, in Austria it was previously mandatory for branches to be registered separately to their head office. This rule changed and branch registrations are no longer permitted, with all returns being filed through the FoS head office. Any existing branch registrations had to be deregistered with the Austrian tax authorities.
A domestic branch is a branch of a company whose headquarters are located in a different country to where the branch is domiciled, and where the registration is required. For example, your head office could be in Germany, you write insurance business liable to IPT in Italy and you have an established branch domiciled in Italy – the Italian branch will be considered as your domestic branch.
If your company has branches and wishes to register for IPT in the country where your branch is domiciled, some tax authorities insist the domestic branch has a separate registration to its head office. This applies in Hungary, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, and Spain.
In some instances, domestic branches will have different tax points to those operating under FoS.
If a branch or head office operating in the territory is operating noncompliantly, this will directly impact all parts of the business operating in the territory, and the fines will be levied accordingly.
Want to learn more about branches and IPT registration? Speak to Sovos’ tax experts today.
Continuing our IPT prepayment series, we take a look at Italy’s requirements. In previous articles we have looked at Belgium, Austria, and Hungary.
All insurers authorised to write business under the Italian regime have a legal obligation to make an advance annual payment for the following year. Refer to this blog for a general overview for IPT in Italy.
The amount of prepayment is calculated as a percentage of the total IPT and Anti-Racket contribution made in the previous year, deducting any IPT paid in respect of Motor Third-Party Liability business. The IPT prepayment rates increased from 85% for tax year 2020 to 90% for 2021 and 100% for tax year 2022 onwards.
All insurers writing non-life insurance risks in Italy need to pay 100% of their 2021 tax bill in November 2022 as a 2023 prepayment, in anticipation of their future tax liabilities. Once settled, the prepayment can be offset against IPT liabilities (excluding Motor third-party liabilities) arising from February 2023, when the January 2023 tax liabilities are due. Businesses can use excess prepayment to offset tax liabilities in the next period or offset against the next prepayment.
Prepayment is due by 16 November each year. No prepayment is required if the insurance company deregistered for IPT purposes prior to the prepayment deadline. Penalties and interest for late payments are strictly applied by the Italian tax authorities. They are time sensitive and calculated daily and payable alongside tax liabilities/prepayments.
Where the prepayment for the year is not fully utilised, balances can be carried forward to offset against future liabilities or used towards next year’s prepayments. If a company is no longer writing business in Italy and doesn’t expect further premiums to be received, they should formally file for a reclaim of any prepayment credits. Recovery is made through a formal reclaim and takes significant time (a few years) for the authorities to process and return the funds.
Although prepayment shouldn’t represent an additional cost to insurance transactions, it can pose some cash flow considerations for insurers. It’s Important to note prepayment is due on a historical basis and cannot be settled based on an estimate of future tax liabilities. The legal obligation to pay the prepayment doesn’t cease, even if the insurance company foresees termination of their insurance risks in Italy. This creates issues for insurance companies winding down their Italian exposures, starting underwriting Italian risks through EU based subsidiaries, or when closing the business.
Most UK insurers changed their company structure due to Brexit. A special application for transferring the prepayment credit needs to be made to the Italian tax authorities for mergers or portfolio transfers and a response or approval from the tax office can take significant time.
When an insurer is exiting Italy, be it due to Brexit or any other reason, being aware of their current and ongoing prepayment obligations is key to minimising unnecessary pain in the future.
Get in touch with our tax experts today for advice on how to navigate this often confusing IPT procedure in Italy. Questions about IPT in general? Read this guide to IPT compliance.
Brazil is known for its highly complex continuous transaction controls (CTC) e-invoicing system. As well as keeping up with daily legislative changes in its 26 states and the Federal District, the country has over 5,000 municipalities with different standards for e-invoicing.
The tax levied on consumption of services (ISSQN – Imposto Sobre Serviços de Qualquer Natureza) lies under the competence of the municipalities. Each municipality has authority over the format and technical standard of the services e-invoice (NFS-e – nota fiscal de serviço eletrônica). This poses a significant compliance challenge, as e-invoicing is mandatory for nearly all taxpayers in the country.
However, important steps have been taken towards changing this scenario. An agreement (Convênio NFS-e) recently signed by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Agency (RFB), the National Confederation of Municipalities (CNM), and other relevant entities, has established the National System of the NFS-e with a countrywide unified standard for the services e-invoice.
The SNNFS-e introduces a unified standard layout for the issuance of the NFS-e, as well as a national repository of all e-documents generated within the system. Adhesion to the system is voluntary for municipalities. Since the bill proposed to regulate this issue (PLP 521/2018) has been static in Congress since 2019, the agreement was designed to allow municipalities to voluntarily adopt the national standard, which then becomes mandatory for taxpayers.
The system will allow issuance of the NFS-e in a national standard, through the web portal, mobile app or API (application programming interface). It also creates the National Data Environment (ADN), the NFS-e unified repository.
The SNNFS-e offers several service modules and municipalities can choose which ones to adopt. The ADN is the only mandatory module, as it ensures the integrity and availability of information contained in the documents issued is in the unified standard. Additionally, the ADN allows adhering municipalities to distribute issued NFS-e among themselves and taxpayers.
Once the agreement is signed, the municipality must activate the system within a certain deadline, which hasn’t been established. Activation involves configuring system parameters and amending municipal legislation to reflect the national system requirements. Only after complete activation will taxpayers be able to issue invoices based on the unified standard.
Technical documentation of the NFS-e has also been released, but these are not the definitive specifications, which are still to be approved by the National Standard Electronic Service Invoice Management Committee (CGNFS).
The NFS-e national standard provides substantial simplification of taxpayers’ e-invoicing obligations. With a standard layout, compliance with multiple formats can be drastically reduced. The document format for issuance of the standard NFS-e is XML and it must be digitally signed.
Another benefit is that one of the available modules allows taxpayers to pay the ISSQN owed in several municipalities at once, using one single document (Guia Única de Recolhimento) issued by the system.
Although municipalities may choose to keep their current NFS-e issuance system, they must still adhere to the communication deadlines, layout, and security standards of the national NFS-e. They must also ensure transmission of all issued documents to the national data environment. This ensures that taxpayers will only be required to issue the NFS-e in one standard layout.
The first phase of production started on 23 July 2022 with five pilot municipalities. Transmission will be available through different methods, with gradual implementation. According to the initial implementation schedule of the National Confederation of Municipalities, API transmission is set to happen from mid-October 2022 or later, depending on the stability of the other transmission methods. Further development of this schedule can be expected in the coming months.
São Paulo, Salvador, and Florianópolis are among the many municipalities that have already signed the agreement. The success of this national NFS-e standard relies on significant adoption by municipalities, so taxpayers must ready themselves to comply as this takes place across the country.
Need to ensure compliance with the latest e-invoicing requirements? Get in touch with our tax experts.
Update: 20 May 2024 by Edit Buliczka
In January 2024, the Hungarian government modified the prepayment system for the extra profit tax on insurance premium tax (EPTIPT). These amended rules are first applicable at the end of May 2024, when the 2024 EPTIPT prepayment becomes due.
According to the new rules, the EPTIPT prepayment must be paid in two installments: one in May and another in November.
Both prepayments are based on installments paid for the 2023 final settlement. As a result, the prepayment, due by 31 May 2024, corresponds to the first installment of the 2023 EPTIPT settlement (paid in January 2024). The second installment of the prepayment, due by 15 November 2024, should be equal to the second installment of the final 2023 settlement (payable in July 2024).
Looking for guidance on meeting your IPT obligations? Sovos can help.
Update: 20 September 2022 by Edit Buliczka
It’s time to return to Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) prepayments – a continuation of our blog series on this important IPT topic. You can find the first entry in our blog series here.
IPT is declared and settled differently throughout Europe. Monthly, quarterly, or biannual declarations – the frequency varies across Member States – and some jurisdictions request prepayments to ensure the liabilities due from insurance companies are collected in good stead.
Hungary is one country where legislation states prepayments are required. However, the prepayment obligation is a new requirement, introduced alongside the so called ‘extra profit tax’ or supplemental IPT, which is payable on an annual basis. No prepayment is required in relation to the ‘normal’ insurance premium tax paid monthly.
Prepayments are defined as a tax payment credit made to a tax authority before the payment is actually incurred.
This prepayment tax will be deducted to cover the tax liabilities until the total credit is used, then current liabilities must be paid by the basis applied in each “jurisdiction“.
You can learn more about IPT prepayments in our blog.
Before the introduction of extra profit tax, or supplemental IPT, prepayment for IPT in Hungary wasn’t a requirement. The ‘normal’ IPT is paid monthly with no prepayment obligation and there is no need to submit an annual return.
In Hungary the prepayment concept is used for taxes where there is an annual declaration obligation, such as in the case of corporation tax.
Regarding IPT, the prepayment obligation was introduced with the extra profit tax regime. Extra profit tax or supplemental IPT is an annual tax. This might be the reason for the introduction of the prepayment obligation for this tax type.
Supplemental IPT prepayment is due on 30 November 2022 regarding 2022 (bi)annual supplemental IPT, while for 2023 the prepayment is due by 31 May 2023.
Based on the original concept, the basis of the prepayment for 2022 was the premium collected during the period between July 2021 and June 2022, applying the rates applicable for 2022. However, this was modified shortly after the issuance of the Government Decree of 197/2022 on extra profit taxes.
This adjustment most likely occurred as the original concept would have generated a substantial overpayment since the base period to calculate 2022 prepayment is one year and the supplemental tax is due only for the second half of 2022. According to the updated rules the basis of the 2022 prepayment remained the same but the applicable rates were changed from 2022 rates to the rates normally applicable for 2023. The 2023 rates are half of the 2022 rates, decreasing the prepayment amount by reducing the rate instead of changing the base period from one year to half year.
Regarding 2023, the calculation of the prepayment is equal to the supplemental tax paid for 2022 in January 2023.
The tax office confirmed that any overpayment regarding the extra profit tax/supplemental IPT can be offset against the ’normal’ IPT and vice versa. This is because the extra profit tax has the same tax code (number 200) and is payable to the same bank account as the IPT.
For example, if the prepayment for 2022 is higher than the 2022 extra profit tax there will be an overpayment on the 200 tax account at the end of January. This overpayment can be offset against the January 2023 IPT liabilities which are payable by 20 February 2023. Or if the insurance company has an IPT overpayment at the end of November 2022, this overpayment can be used to cover the extra profit tax/supplemental IPT prepayment obligation.
Get in touch with our tax experts today for advice on how to navigate this often confusing IPT procedure.
Update: 8 March 2023 by Kelly Muniz
Spain launches public consultation for B2B mandatory e-invoicing
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation (Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital) has launched a public consultation on the upcoming B2B e-invoicing mandate.
The mandate will enable citizens to participate in elaborating norms before its development. This public consultation is carried out through the web portal of the competent department and all interested parties have until 22 March 2023 to send feedback.
Based on the feedback received, the government will develop and approve the regulatory framework that is needed according to the law adopting mandatory B2B e-invoicing which was published on 29 September 2022.
The public consultation consists of 32 specific questions on seven different areas that the regulatory framework will address. These areas are:
You can find the official text of the public consultation here.
Looking for more information on e-invoicing in Spain? Speak to a member of our expert team. For more information about VAT compliance in Spain read this page.
Update: 16 September 2022 by Victor Duarte
The Congress of Spain has approved the Law for the Creation and Growth of Companies, and it is expected to be published in the Official Gazette (BOE) in the following days.
This Law also amends Law 56/2007 on Measures to Promote Information to adopt the mandatory electronic invoice issuance requirement for all entrepreneurs and professionals in their commercial relationships.
According to this Law, all entrepreneurs and professionals must issue, send, and receive electronic invoices in their business relationships with other entrepreneurs and professionals. Additionally, the recipient and the sender of electronic invoices must provide information on the status of the invoices.
The main rules of the Law related to e-invoicing establishes that:
The process for accreditation of interconnection and interoperability of the platforms will be determined by the regulations at a later stage.
The law establishes that companies providing the supply of certain services to final consumers must issue and send electronic invoices in their relations with individuals who agree to receive them or who have explicitly requested them. This obligation affects companies supplying telecommunication services, financial services, water, gas, and electricity services among other sectors and activities prescribed in Article 2.2 of Law 56/2007.
These companies must provide access to the necessary programs so that users can read, copy, download and print the electronic invoice for free without having to go to other sources to obtain the necessary applications. They must also enable simple and free procedures so users can revoke the consent given to the receipt of electronic invoices at any time.
Companies within scope that refrain from offering users the possibility to receive electronic invoices will be sanctioned with a warning or a fine of up to 10,000 euros.
The Government will develop provisions of this Law in accordance with the regulations, and within the scope of its powers. Therefore, the Ministries of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation and of Finance and Public Administration will determine the information and technical requirements to be included in the electronic invoice to verify the payment dates and obtain the payment periods.
It is also necessary to establish the minimum interoperability requirements between the providers of electronic invoice technology solutions, and the security, control, and standardisation requirements of the devices and computer systems that generate the documents.
The Government will have 6 months from the publication of this Law in the Official Gazette to approve the regulatory framework.
The provisions regarding mandatory B2B electronic invoicing will be effective according to their annual turnover:
This means that the B2B e-invoicing obligation could be effective for large taxable persons by the first quarter of 2024.
It is important to highlight that the entry into force of the B2B e-invoicing obligation is subject to obtaining the community exception to articles 218 and 232 of the VAT Directive. This exception is less difficult to obtain the previously as has been granted to other Member States such as Italy, France, and Poland to allow them to adopt the mandatory e-invoicing regime in their jurisdictions.
Need to ensure compliance with the latest e-invoicing requirements in Spain? Get in touch with our tax experts.
In the next edition of our series of blogs in Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) prepayments, we look at a less familiar regime to many, the Austrian IPT Prepayment.
Those who are well versed in the IPT sphere will be perplexed at this blog, as they most likely will never have paid a prepayment in Austria.
This is because the prepayment is only due in the event of the November tax period being paid late. Due to the elongated deadline of Austrian IPT and Fire Brigade Tax (FBT) this rarely happens in practice. As a reminder, the tax payment in Austria must be made by the 15th day (due date) of the second consecutive month (i.e January 2022 period due 15 March 2022).
But what if the November deadline isn’t paid in full by the 15 December? A special advance payment of 1/12 of the sum of the calculated tax amounts of the last 12 tax return periods must be made. This special advance payment is credited against a subsequent self-calculation for the declaration period of November.
With respect to IPT, FBT and Vehicle Insurance Tax (VIT), the rules are as follows:
Insurers should be aware that whilst tax payments are paid monthly, the return is due on an annual basis, the deadline being 30 April. The return(s) includes the tax ID, name of the insurer, tax amount on a per month basis, and the amount paid in tax for the year in question thus far.
For FBT liabilities the amount is split evenly between the insured and the insurer. So, for a risk with 100% fire portion and €100.00 premium, in addition to the €11.00 IPT amount the insured would also pay €4.00 FBT. The remaining €4.00 of FBT would be from the insurer.
From an exemptions perspective there is quite an exhaustive list in Austria. Some of which are export credit, cross-border cargo, reinsurance, and livestock (If the insured amount doesn’t exceed €3.650, as well as insurance of livestock with a small livestock insurance association).
Keeping abreast of changes in IPT compliance requirements in Austria and across the EU can be challenging. Our team of experts can guide you through the details and ensure you are on the right compliance path.
Many countries have recently started their continuous transaction controls (CTC) journey by introducing mandatory e-invoicing or e-reporting systems. We see more of this trend in the European Union as the recent reports on the VAT in the Digital Age Initiative discuss that the best policy choice would be to introduce an EU-wide CTC e-invoicing system covering both intra-EU and domestic transactions.
However, the efforts to fight tax fraud aren’t limited to mandatory e-invoicing or e-reporting systems. Many governments prefer to look beyond and introduce another tool that gives them greater insight into their economy: e-transport documents. When introducing e-transport systems, we see that one country differs from other EU Member States with the early adoption of an e-transport system – Hungary.
The Electronic Public Road Transportation Control System or Elektronikus Közúti Áruforgalom Ellenőrző Rendszer (EKAER) has been in place in Hungary since 2015. Operated by the Hungarian tax authority, the EKAER is intended to monitor compliance with tax obligations arising from the transportation of goods on public roads in the national territory.
The system was initially introduced to monitor the movement of all goods in the national territory. However, after several letters from the EU Commission asking Hungary to bring their system in line with the EU regulations, the scope of the system was narrowed down to the so-called risky products in January 2021. The risky products are defined in 51/2014. (XII. 31.) NGM decree, which consists of foodstuffs or other risky products (such as flowers, all kinds of natural sands, different types of minerals, etc.).
According to 13/2020. (XII. 23.) decree on the operation of the Electronic Road Traffic Control System, Hungarian taxpayers are required to report specific data regarding the transport of risky products by using the EKAER system before the transportation of goods begins. It’s also important to mention that it’s necessary to be registered in the EKAER system and provide a risk guarantee for certain types of transport unless there is an exemption in the law.
Taxpayers are obliged to report the transport of risky goods in XML format to the EKAER system. This information includes data regarding the sender, the recipient, and the goods. Moreover, businesses must also report additional specified data to the tax authority based on the transport type (domestic, intra-community acquisitions and intra-community supplies).
Following the report by the taxpayer, the EKAER system generates an EKAER number, an identification number assigned to a product unit. This number will be valid for 15 days; therefore, the delivery of goods must be performed within this period. Businesses must communicate the EKAER number to the carrier, and it should accompany transported goods.
Although no future changes are foreseen for the EKAER system, different countries worldwide continue to introduce e-transport requirements similar to the EKAER system. Taxpayers must ensure that their transport processes are flexible and compatible with changes that the tax authorities are introducing to stay compliant.
Meet the Expert is our series of blogs where we share more about the team behind our innovative software and insurance premium tax (IPT) compliance services.
As a global organisation with indirect tax experts across all regions, our dedicated team are often the first to know about regulatory changes and developments in global tax regimes, to support you in your tax compliance.
We spoke with Mai Nguyen, senior compliance services representative who explained why it’s so important for insurers to get IPT filing right and shared her top three tips for submitting IPT liabilities.
I’m a senior compliance services representative – specialising in IPT at Sovos. I joined the company over four years ago and I deal with a diverse portfolio of 30+ clients, helping them with the entire cycle of IPT submission.
My team reviews data provided by our clients, creates a summary of tax due and confirms IPT and parafiscal liabilities due for a specific period. My day-to-day tasks include approving the IPT liabilities to be declared correctly and compliantly and authorising payments to be made on behalf of our clients.
My role is to oversee the day-to-day operational management whilst ensuring all compliance requirements are met consistently. I also work closely with clients to answering their queries to ensure their IPT submissions meet the strict regulations set by global tax offices.
The IPT filing process varies from one territory to another and it’s crucial for insurers to follow it accurately and compliantly. There are many elements that need to be considered in this process:
IPT filings can be made online in Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Finland and Germany. This filing method is becoming a common trend and is likely to be introduced in other jurisdictions.
In Portugal a data file must be uploaded to a web portal which requires detailed information for each policy such as NIF number (policyholder Tax ID), postcode, country code and territoriality.
In Spain the IPT portal determines the declaration period for each transaction, tax payment or any interest payment due. The portal links the payments due directly to the bank account, meaning the payment is made by direct debit.
IPT filings can be made by post or in person. With any method, it’s important to make sure that deadlines are met to avoid unnecessary penalties.
The consequence of noncompliance is not only the penalty or interest regimes imposed by tax offices but also the indirect costs to insurers which are more significant. These can include the cost for correcting the mistake, as well as additional associate or representative costs. Noncompliance could also have an adverse impact on the insurer’s reputation.
To avoid the unnecessary consequence of noncompliance when submitting IPT liabilities, here are my three top tips:
It can be very challenging for insurers to ensure that IPT is declared accurately and compliantly while adhering to the latest rules and regulations. Here at Sovos, our dedicated IPT Compliance Services team is equipped with in-depth expertise and the most up-to-date changes to help insurers meet all IPT requirements to make submissions efficient and compliant.
All IPT compliance information can be found through Sovos’ blogs, webinars, tax alerts, LinkedIn, Twitter and newsletters.
Have questions about IPT compliance? Speak to our tax experts or download our e-book, Indirect Tax Rules for Insurance Across the World.
On 30 August 2022, the Ministry of Finance published draft legislation amending the Regulation on the use of the National e-Invoice System (KSeF). The purpose of the draft amendment is to adapt KSeF’s terms of use to the specific conditions that apply to the local government units and the VAT groups that will operate as a new type of VAT taxpayer from 1 January 2023.
The concept of VAT groups was introduced in Poland in October 2021. VAT groups are a legal form of cooperation, a type of taxable entity that exists solely for VAT purposes. On joining a VAT group, a group member becomes part of a new separate VAT taxpayer possessing one Polish tax identification number (NIP).
The regulation on the use of KSeF didn’t take into consideration the uniqueness of the legal nature of the VAT group, as well as the VAT settlements in the local government units. Based on current regulation, the governmental units are treated as a single VAT taxpayer, using one NIP number.
Similarly, in the case of VAT groups, separate VAT taxpayers who create one new taxpayer (a VAT group) use one NIP number. The proposed changes resulted from the ongoing public consultations that took place in December 2021. Additionally, the change was also requested in May 2022 by the Union of Polish Metropolises.
The draft law provides the possibility to grant additional limited rights for the local government units and members of VAT groups. Moreover, local government units and VAT groups will be able to grant administrative rights, to manage permissions in KSeF, to a natural person who is their representative.
Thanks to such delegated rights, there will be an option to manage authorisations for the local government unit and for the entity that is a member of a VAT group. Moreover, it is significant that a person with such authorisation will not have simultaneous access to invoices in other units within the local government or within other members of a VAT group.
For local government units and VAT groups, granting or withdrawing authorisation to the natural person must be performed electronically. It’s not possible to submit a paper form to notify the competent tax authority.
As mentioned, the proposed amendments are in response to concerns that were raised by the impacted entities. However, they don’t meet all the needs of local government units and VAT groups. For instance, the question of how to assign an inbound electronic invoice to a particular internal unit or member of a VAT group remains open. This is because invoices contain only the data of the taxpayer, which in this case is the local government unit or a VAT group, and not data of the internal unit or member of a VAT group.
The regulation will enter into force 14 days after the date of publication. However, provisions that apply to VAT group members will be effective from 1 January 2023.
Want to ensure compliance with the latest e-invoicing requirements in Poland? Get in touch with our tax experts. For more information see this overview about e-invoicing in Poland or VAT Compliance in Poland.
For the UK and other non-EU businesses it’s vital to determine the importer of the goods into the EU as this will impact the VAT treatment.
For goods under €150 there are simplified options such as the Import One Stop Shop (IOSS) or special arrangements through the postal operator. However, when supplying goods over €150, businesses need to consider how they want to import the goods.
One option is for businesses to deliver on a Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) basis and be the importer of the goods into the EU. This improves the customer experience for B2C transactions but creates a liability to be registered in the county of import and to charge local VAT, along with additional compliance requirements. If goods are moved from that country to other EU countries, then depending on the supply chain, the One Stop Shop (OSS) could be used to avoid further VAT registration requirements.
Due to increased compliance costs many businesses have chosen not to be the importer and pass this obligation to the end customer. If a business chooses this route, options are still available.
The business could simply place the full obligation on the customer., The customer would be sent a payment request for the VAT and any duty by the carrier before delivery., There could also be a handling fee passed on to the customer. Once paid the goods would be delivered This approach doesn’t provide the best customer experience.
This is why many businesses have opted for a ’landed cost method’ offered by many couriers. The customer is still the importer on the import documentation, but the business collects the VAT and duty from the customer at the time of sale and settles the carrier’s invoice on their behalf. In theory, this avoids the need for the business to register in the EU and still offers the customer a seamless experience. However, this raises the question: is the customer actually the importer?
Some tax authorities are beginning to take a different view of arrangements for goods with a value above €150 where goods are imported directly into the Member State of delivery. A law change on 1 July 2021 included the concept “where the supplier intervenes indirectly in the transport or dispatch of the goods”. This is to counter arrangements that allowed the seller to argue they were not distance selling but making a local sale, so only had to account for VAT in the Member State of dispatch of the goods.
Following the law change some tax authorities are arguing this concept means if a seller sells to a private individual in their country and the seller arranges for the goods to be delivered from a non-EU country and customs cleared in their EU Member State, the place of supply is the Member State as the supplier has indirectly intervened in the transport.
As a result, the supplier must register and account for VAT in the Member State even if the customer is the importer of the goods. This argument could result in double taxation and can create additional compliance obligations along with tax authority audits – all of which add additional costs and time for businesses.
It’s important that businesses adopting a method where the customer is the importer put correct arrangements in place. This includes ensuring website terms and conditions reflect the fact the customer is the importer and giving the company the power to appoint a customs declarant on their behalf. It’s also important that customs documentation is completed correctly. Avoiding terms such as DDP on the website is also key as this implies that the business is the importer.
For help with EU import queries or if your company needs VAT compliance assistance get in touch to speak with one of our tax experts.
It’s time to return to Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) prepayments – a continuation of our blog series on this important IPT topic. You can find the first entry in our blog series here.
Throughout Europe’s different countries and jurisdictions, IPT is declared and settled in different ways. Monthly, quarterly, biannually – this varies across Member States – and some jurisdictions request prepayments to ensure the liabilities due from insurance companies are collected in good stead.
Belgium is one country that states within its legislation that IPT prepayments are required.
You can learn more about IPT prepayments in this blog however for those who missed our coverage on the topic, prepayments can be defined as a tax payment credit made to a tax authority before the payment is actually incurred.
This prepayment tax will be deducted to cover the tax liabilities until the total credit is used up and then current liabilities must be paid by the basis applied in each jurisdiction.
Each jurisdiction uses a different method to apply prepayments and we explain how this is legislated in Belgium.
The prepayment is due no later than 15 December each year. The tax base for the prepayment will be the amount paid in November of the current year, that is based on the tax liabilities of the October period.
It’s important to follow the state on the Belgium tax law in order to pay and submit the return within the deadline because when the tax hasn’t been paid within the deadlines set out previously, penalties will automatically be due to the Belgium tax authority from the day the payment should have been made.
The previous prepayment will be deducted during the next tax period (December, January, February and March) correspondingly submitted in January, February, March and April.
What happens if an insurance company paid the prepayment but during the three first months, the insurance company has not used that credit, perhaps because no policies were subscribed and therefore no submission or payment was due?
In these cases, the entire, or part of the prepayment is still pending to be deducted and a formal reclaim should be requested to the tax authority in order to obtain the unused prepayment.
Although this appears to be a simple process, not following the rules or not processing the returns, payments, or refunds within the correct deadlines can see the insurance company receive penalties or obtaining the refund for the unused prepayment could be prevented.
Speak to our team today for advice on how to navigate this often confusing tax procedure.