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.
The Colombian tax authority (DIAN) continues to invest in the expansion of its CTC (continuous transaction controls) system. The latest update proposes an expansion of the scope of documents covered by the e-invoicing mandate.
In this article we’ll address the newly published Draft Resolution 000000 of 19-08-2022. This advances important changes for taxpayers covered by mandatory e-invoicing rules.
These draft changes include a new obligation to issue equivalent documents (documentos equivalentes) in electronic format, a schedule for its implementation, updated technical documentation and other significant developments, all of which require taxpayers to ready themselves to comply.
Amongst many proposed changes, the draft resolution’s main purpose is to regulate the electronic issuance of the equivalent document.
These documents correspond to the sales invoice under Colombian law, but cover specific types of transactions and are regulated in the draft resolution, as follows:
This means that all taxpayers subject to the Colombian e-invoicing mandate who issue one of these equivalent documents will be required to do so in an electronic format, according to the Technical Annex of the Electronic Equivalent Document version 1.0 (Anexo técnico del Documento Equivalente Electrónico), introduced by the draft.
Additionally, the draft provides an initial regulation of the electronic documents of the invoicing system (documentos electrónicos del sistema de facturación). These are documents that aid control by the tax and customs authority, to support tax or customs declarations and/or to support the procedures carried out before DIAN, under the provisions of subsection 1 of article 616-1 of the Tax Statute.
Finally, the technical specifications of the system’s main electronic invoice, the sales e-invoice, is updated to version 1.9 (Anexo técnico de la Factura Electrónica de Venta version 1.9).
The obligation to issue the equivalent document in electronic format will be implemented gradually, according to the type of equivalent document. It starts on 1 March 2023 and will cover all equivalent documents on 1 July 2023.
Early voluntary implementation will also be possible, once the functionality is available in DIAN’s system. Until the deadlines for the electronic implementation of the equivalent document are fulfilled, these must continue to be issued in accordance with Resolution No. 000042 of 2020.
The draft also sets a schedule for implementation of the electronic documents of the invoicing system, during the taxable years of 2023 and 2024. These documents will be further regulated in the six months following the validity of the official resolution, as well as the adoption of its technical annex, which hasn’t been presented with the draft resolution.
Lastly, the proposal establishes the deadline for implementation of the Technical Annex of the electronic sales invoice version 1.9 by taxpayers. This will be at least three months following its official publication.
The draft resolution, once officially published, will derogate DIAN Resolution No. 000042 of 2020 in all provisions that are contrary to it, except those related to equivalent documents, which will remain in force until the DIAN establishes their electronic implementation.
Taxpayers can also expect new legislation regulating the remaining electronic documents of the invoicing system, in the months following the official publication of this draft resolution.
Until then, companies should prepare for the significant upcoming changes and adjust their businesses processes to comply with the new Colombian mandate.
Need help with evolving e-invoicing requirements in Colombia? Get in touch with our tax experts about how Sovos can help your business meet your VAT compliance obligations.
It seems such a short time since HMRC sent a reminder letter in March 2022 recalling the upcoming changes to the UK’s customs systems and explaining what to do to prepare for these changes.
With the deadline rapidly approaching, here’s a brief recap.
The Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system, which is now nearly 30 years old (it was introduced in 1994), will close in two phases:
The Customs Declaration Service will serve as the UK’s single customs platform, with all businesses needing to declare all imported and exported goods through the Customs Declaration Service (CDS) after 31 March 2023.
As mentioned on the HMRC website, the Customs Declaration Service toolkit gives traders access to the many benefits of the upcoming changes. In summary:
To be able to use CDS and import goods into the UK from 1 October 2022 and to export from 1 April 2023, businesses are required to have the following:
Want to know more about how changes to the UK’s customs systems will impact your business and its compliance? Contact us to find out more.
The Dutch government issued an updated Policy Statement for Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) on 12 May 2022. The first of its kind since February 2017, the update is intended to replace the 2017 version in full. While the majority of the content remained consistent, there were notable details pertaining to Netherlands storage insurance and ‘own transport’ insurance. These changes will be effective from 13 May 2023.
The change extends the scope of storage insurance that can still be regarded as goods in transit insurance, increasing from storage of up to one month to three months. It may even be possible to show goods in transit insurance applies for storage greater than three months, but the onus is on the insurer to prove an absolutely necessary connection between storage and transport.
It’s general market practice in the EU to consider storage of up to 60 days as being part of the goods in transit coverage, making the Dutch approach more flexible in this regard. Any goods stored beyond the 60 days are treated as a property risk, taxable where the goods are located and not where the policyholder has their establishment.
It’s useful to consider this change from the perspective of both IPT rate application and location of risk. In terms of the former, the IPT exemption applicable to all goods in transit insurance in the Netherlands widens this exemption to policies involving longer periods of storage.
Regarding location of risk, the relevant provisions in EU Directive 2009/138/EC determine that in the case of goods in commercial transit risks, the risk location (and therefore the country entitled to levy IPT and/or associated levies) is the policyholder’s establishment to which the contract relates. Where storage insurance does not constitute goods in commercial transit, the risk location is the location of the property itself.
As a result, goods stored in the Netherlands for more than three months as part of a transport policy will generally be taxable there, even where the policyholder’s establishment is elsewhere. Whereas goods stored in the Netherlands for less than three months will not be taxable in the country (unless the policyholder’s establishment is also in the Netherlands).
The other key takeaway from the Policy Statement was on the subject of ‘own transport’. This is defined as transport ‘where no transport company is contracted, but commercial transport is involved’, confirming the exemption for transport insurance is equally applicable to scenarios where companies arrange for the transportation of commercial goods for their own benefit. As such, the exemption is not restricted to third-party contractors utilised for the transport.
The Policy Statement also states the exemption applies to:
However, the exemption does not apply to insurance of own goods which, although transported are not for the sole purpose of transferring it to another place of destination. This could include the tools of a contractor that are stored in his delivery van.
The changes outlined above are relatively minor given they relate solely to goods in transit business. One more fundamental change that had been mooted as a possibility was for the Netherlands to introduce stricter rules on the application of IPT to non-EEA risks, as we saw in Germany at the end of 2020.
The scope of the changes in Germany caused considerable confusion in the market at the time so it’s possible the Dutch government has put any potential plans on hold for now. This will be an interesting issue to monitor as countries seek out alternative ways to generate tax income.
Want to understand more about how these changes affect your business? Get in touch with our team of experts to see how Sovos can help ease your IPT compliance burden.
Update: 14 February 2023 by Andrés Landerretche
As of February 2023, new rules came into force in Colombia. These are for the issuance threshold of equivalent documents generated by Point of Sale (P.O.S.) systems.
As a result, a ticket issued by cash registers with P.O.S. systems (tickets de máquinas registradoras con sistemas P.O.S.) must not exceed the maximum amount of five Tax Value Units (UVT), without including the amount of tax for each sale or service provision operation.
For sales operations and the provision of services exceeding this amount – excluding taxes – taxpayers must issue an electronic sales invoice as part of the country’s e-invoicing mandate.
It is important to note that the equivalent documents generated by cash registers with a P.O.S. system do not entitle the purchaser to discountable sales tax (VAT) or costs and deductions in income and complementary taxes.
However, purchasers may request that the seller issue a sales invoice when they have the right to request deductible taxes, costs, and deductions. In this case, the supplier must issue an electronic sales invoice.
The Colombian tax authority (DIAN) officialised the implementation of the five UVT thresholds for tickets generated through P.O.S. systems through Resolution 1092, published on 1 July 2022.
The Resolution implemented the phased roll-out of this mandate, following the calendar below:
Every 1 January from the taxable year 2024, taxpayers obliged to issue a sales invoice that choose to issue the equivalent document, called a ticket for a cash register with a P.O.S. system, must adjust the value of the applicable UVT to comply with the limitation of five UVT in the issuance of each ticket.
Speak with a member of our expert team for further clarification of e-invoicing in Colombia.
Update: 23 August 2022 by Kelly Muniz
The Colombian tax authority (DIAN) has concentrated heavily on expanding its electronic invoicing regime over recent years. The DIAN introduced the first schedule for mandatory implementation of e-invoicing in the country in 2018, and, since then, the system has gradually encompassed more transactions and taxpayers.
In this article, we’ll look at the two latest new mandates in Colombian e-invoicing:
These new obligations have significant impact and require adjustments by taxpayers. These changes also represent a substantial expansion of Colombia’s e-invoicing to include entirely new transactions under its scope.
The Colombian tax authority has created a new e-document type, the support document for acquisitions from subjects not obliged to issue e-invoices. This support document and its corrective notes were introduced by Resolution 167 of 2021. It expands the e-invoicing scope to ensure more transactions fall within the mandate and allows support for tax deductions.
Taxpayers obliged to generate this e-document are those under the country’s e-invoicing regime. It includes those subject to income and complementary tax payments and responsible for VAT when purchasing goods and/or services from suppliers not obliged to issue e-invoices or equivalent documents and require support for costs and deductions in the mentioned tax declarations. To generate the support document, the taxpayer must be authorised by the DIAN as an electronic issuer.
The support document and its corrective notes must be generated in XML format and contain a CUDS: unique support document code (código único del documento soporte). This alphanumeric code allows it to be unequivocally identified. After generation, the e-documents must be transmitted for clearance by the DIAN either in real-time or, at the latest, on the last calendar day of the week, for accumulated operations with the same supplier carried out during that same week.
Having been postponed from its original implementation date, the generation of the acquisitions support document became mandatory on 1 August 2022.
According to this mandate, cash register tickets generated through POS systems (tickets de máquinas registradoras con sistemas P.O.S.) may be issued by subjects obliged to invoice, provided that the sale of the good and/or the provision of the service recorded therein doesn’t exceed five (5) UVT (tax value unit) for each document, excluding taxes.
This means that, for operations covering sales of goods and/or provision of services exceeding the amount of five (5) UVT, taxpayers under the country’s e-invoicing mandate must issue an electronic sales invoice. The purchaser of goods and/or services below the threshold may still require the issuance of a sales invoice, in which case the supplier must provide it.
The threshold was de facto introduced in 2021 by Law 2155, but it was only in July 2022 that the DIAN established a phased roll-out of the mandate, through Resolution 1092, following the calendar below:
While the generation of the support document for acquisitions is already srequired, taxpayers must start preparing to comply with the new threshold for e-invoice issuance in place of POS tickets. Sovos can help your company adjust to e-invoicing and ensure compliance with Colombia’s new mandates.
Contact our team of experts today to ensure your company is complying with Colombia’s e-invoicing mandates.
Update: 30 November 2022 by Charles Riordan
Romania SAF-T Filing declarations are changing. The draft order extending the grace period for SAF-T will not be implemented. The President of ANAF has confirmed that decision.
The extension originally supported large taxpayers who have had to submit SAF-T since 1 January 2022. ANAF now states that large taxpayers have, on the whole, complied with the original deadlines. This renders the extension “not appropriate.”
ANAF will follow an unofficial policy of leniency for SAF-T submissions. According to a spokesperson, the agency will first give notifications to delinquent taxpayers. Next, they will issue warnings. Fines are a last resort.
The initial six-month grace period for SAF-T hasn’t been formally extended, but it remains in force. Taxpayers will not receive penalties for late or missed filings while the grace period exists.
The grace period applies for six months after the obligation to file SAF-T arises. This obligation begins:
Still have questions about SAF-T Filing Declarations in Romania? Speak to our tax experts or see this overview about VAT Compliance in Romania.
Update: 18 August 2022 by Charles Riordan
On 1 August 2022, the Romanian National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) published a draft order extending the current grace period for Standard Audit File for Tax (SAF-T) declarations from six months to twelve months. The order will take effect upon approval and publication in the Official Gazette. At the time of writing, approval and publication are expected shortly.
The Romanian tax authority initially granted the grace period due to the complexity of the country’s SAF-T filing. The SAF-T must include available data from master files, source documents, general ledger entries, and, on a separate cadence, data related to fixed assets and inventory. Because of this complexity, ANAF instituted a six-month grace period, during which taxpayers would not be penalised for late or incorrect filings. The ANAF also implemented SAF-T in phases, with the large taxpayers obliged to file before mid-sized and small taxpayers.
ANAF has acknowledged, however, that even large taxpayers have struggled to meet the technical requirements of the SAF-T declaration. Therefore, with the initial six-month grace period set to expire, ANAF proposes to extend it to alleviate the burden on filers.
The grace period, as before, takes effect from the date a taxpayer is obliged to submit the SAF-T declaration. The obligation for different categories of taxpayers begins:
This means that taxpayers who are obliged to file SAF-T in 2022 will now have grace periods extending into 2023 (e.g. 1 January 2023 for “large taxpayers” who were categorised as such in 2021; 1 July 2023 for “large taxpayers” who were only categorised as such in 2022).
The language of the amendment doesn’t limit the twelve-month grace period to large taxpayers, so it is presumed that the grace period will apply to other taxpayers as well. This amendment would extend the grace period for medium taxpayers into 2024 and all others into 2026. Further clarifications on this point may be released in the future.
The rollout of SAF-T in Romania has been eventful, with multiple revisions to both the schema itself and taxpayer obligations. Taxpayers doing business in Romania must ensure that they stay abreast of the latest developments with this declaration, as there will undoubtedly be more to come.
Need to comply with the latest changes in Romanian SAF-T? Speak to our team. Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter to keep up-to-date with the latest regulatory news and updates.
In Italy, the discipline of transfer pricing states that in intra-group transactions between entities from different countries, where one is resident in Italy, transactions must take place on an arm’s length basis. In other words, transactions are based on freely competitive prices and under comparable circumstances.
Companies carefully treat the transfer pricing adjustments from a corporate income tax perspective. However, less attention is paid from a VAT perspective.
It’s worth mentioning that in most cases, the transfer price adjustments are profitability adjustments (rather than price) of the transactions carried out between associated companies.
However, treating the transfer pricing adjustments as outside the scope of VAT might cause problems in case of a tax authority audit and re-qualification of the transactions.
The issue of transfer pricing adjustments for VAT purposes is not expressly regulated by the Italian legislator, other EU Member State legislators or from an EU VAT legislative point of view. In the absence of an ad hoc provision, reference is made to EU and local legislation, and private and public rulings on a case-by-case analysis.
Regarding public rulings, Italian tax authorities published several responses in 2021.
With the last response to ruling no. 884 of 30 December 2021, inspired by EU Commission Working Paper n. 923 and VAT Expert Group document n. 071, Italian tax authorities clarified that to establish whether transfer pricing adjustments represent the consideration for a transaction relevant for VAT:
In the 30 December 2021 ruling (no. 884), Italian tax authorities confirmed the adjustments in question were outside the scope of VAT following the transfer pricing adjustments. It stated for subsidiaries “the recognition of an extra cost aimed at lowering their operating margin“, wasn’t “directly related to the original supplies of finished products“.
The same outcome didn’t apply to ruling no. 529 of August 6, 2021.
In this case, at the time of the sale of the goods, the seller applied a provisional price.
That provisional price was then subject to adjustment on a quarterly basis, through the so-called “Profit True Up“. The result could consist either of a claim by the transferor against the transferee or, conversely, transferor’s debt.
In this specific case, Italian tax authorities found a “direct link between the sums determined in the final balance and the supplies” and concluded by determining the relevance of the transfer price adjustments made by the taxpayer for VAT purposes.
Whether or not your business is operating in Italy, the above shows how important the potential VAT implications of transfer pricing adjustments are and the confusion for businesses on how to proceed in different scenarios.
At Sovos we’ve seen more local tax authority audits focused on clarifying if the treatment is valid from a corporate income tax and a VAT perspective.
After a review of the contracts and agreements between the companies and subsidiaries involved, it’s essential to understand whether the transfer pricing adjustments are:
Speak to our team if you have questions about the latest approach from a VAT perspective on transfer pricing adjustments in Italy, the EU and the UK and the potential solutions to mitigate any risk of audit and penalties.
There are some countries across Europe where declaring and settling insurance premium tax (IPT) and parafiscal charges on time is not enough to prevent late payment penalties. You may ask why. Or you may say it’s unfair. The answer is simple.
Some European countries collect insurance premium tax and parafiscal charges or part of them in advance before they become due for payment. We call these prepayments, advance payments or provisional payments. And missing the deadline for the prepayment can be penalised by the tax offices.
This blog will give you an overview of how prepayment regimes work. At the end of this blog, we’ll list the countries where prepayment rules are in place without detailed requirements. In later blog posts, we will discuss the detailed prepayment rules in these countries in depth.
Prepayment or advance payment in the taxation world is a payment that is paid before the tax is due. Therefore, when a prepayment is paid, it’s unknown how much the actual tax will be.
There are various prepayment tax calculation methods. In IPT, the most common calculation is when the prepayment amount is based on the tax amount paid for the previous reporting period. Either the same tax amount or maybe a certain percentage of this tax is required to be paid in advance. However, there are other methods used.
For example, in Poland, there is a quarterly prepayment obligation. The prepayment amount is based on the premium amounts collected in the current quarter. Another example is in Austria, where there is a unique prepayment approach. According to the regulation, you can opt not to pay the prepayment if you pay the IPT liabilities for the November period one month earlier than the standard deadline, so not by 15 January but on or before 15 December instead.
There are similarities in the legislation on how the amount of the prepayment is considered in the final tax due. In most cases, insurers can offset the prepaid tax amount against the future period`s tax obligation. But there are differences in the “how”.
For example, in Belgium, the prepayment made in December can be offset against the December liability. Also, in January and February (the Belgian Tax Offices recently added these two months), periods’ liabilities and the remaining should be reclaimed. In Italy, the prepayment made in November can be fully offset against the next year’s IPT liabilities and against the following tax years’ liabilities until it is used up entirely. Alternatively, insurers can also reclaim it from the Italian tax authority.
If we take a closer look at the calculation of the prepayment, we can conclude that it’s usually based on the tax amount of the same tax type. However, in Italy, the basis of the IPT prepayment isn’t only the paid IPT but also what has been paid for the 1% Consap parafiscal charge.
The due dates to pay prepayments vary across Europe. Some due dates fall at the end of the year, such as Austrian IPT and the Italian IPT. However, for the Italian Hunting Accident Victims’ Fund (HAVF) and Road Accident Victims’ Fund (RAVF) and the Spanish Fire Brigade Tax (FBT), the advance payment is due in January. The advance payment for the Hungarian supplemental IPT is due in November and May. On the other hand, the prepayment is due every quarter regarding the Polish Ombudsman fee.
Without pursuing completeness, here is a list of the prepayment regimes across the EU:
Contact our team of experts today for help with IPT compliance or download our e-book Indirect Tax Rules for Insurance Across the World.
The European Commission (EC)’s action plan for fair and simple taxation – ’VAT in the Digital Age’- continues to progress. After a public consultation process, the EC has published Final Reports discussing the best options for the European market to fight tax fraud and benefit businesses with the use of technology.
The areas covered are:
The EC is expected to propose legislative amendments in the VAT Directive this autumn.
The report focusing on VAT reporting and e-invoicing evaluates ‘Digital Reporting Requirements (DRR)’. This is any obligation for VAT taxable persons to periodically or continuously submit transaction data digitally to the tax authority, e.g. by use of SAF-T, VAT listing, real-time reporting or e-invoicing.
According to the report, the best policy choice would be the introduction of a DRR in the form of an EU-wide continuous transaction controls (CTC) e-invoicing system covering both intra-EU and domestic transactions. Member States with an existing e-invoicing system would be able to keep this in the short term via a standstill clause, provided they ensure interoperability with the new EU system. However, in the medium term of five to ten years, national e-invoicing systems would be required to converge to the EU system.
The report clearly favours the policy option of a full EU harmonisation through a CTC e-invoicing system, meaning the invoice will be submitted to the authorities before or after issuance. The harmonisation focus seems to be primarily on form, with a suggestion of an EU-wide common protocol and format. Whereas important decisions regarding architecture risk being left to the Member States include whether the system will be clearance or simply reporting, whether to leverage an existing domestic B2G platform and the periodicity of the reporting etc. The only requirement on Member States seems to be accepting issued and transmitted e-invoices based on a common protocol and format.
The report suggests aligning the scope of requirements and excluding non-registered taxable persons and those covered by the SME VAT scheme. In the short term, only B2B and B2G transactions are covered, with B2C transactions remaining out of scope.
Finally, the report suggests that to ease the burden on businesses Member States must consider a number of measures such as jointly removing other reporting obligations, providing pre-filled VAT returns, supporting the investment in business automation (especially for SMEs) and providing public support to the adoption of the IT compliance systems
How this will be jointly coordinated isn’t discussed but it doesn’t sound like the EC expects such measures to be harmonised by the EU.
Although the report concludes implementing an EU-wide mandatory e-invoicing system is the best and most future-proof measure, how to design an effective e-invoicing system is not explained in the report and doesn’t seem to be in scope for harmonisation.
However, the design of the e-invoicing system may have an important impact on fiscal and economic results. As the independent expert report ʻNext Generation Model Decentralized CTC and Exchange’ (supported by EESPA, openPEPPOL and other key stakeholder groups) describes, the greatest benefits can only be realised when an e-invoicing system allows businesses to automate other processes as well as invoicing.
It’s a welcome start that the Commission is aiming for an EU-wide CTC e-invoicing scheme. It remains to be seen how effective this harmonisation will be. When Europe’s politicians return from this year’s summer break, we’ll start to gain more insight into the overall feasibility of the Commission’s views.
As a vendor that has implemented CTC and VAT compliance solutions around the world for several decades now, our desire would be for the debate to go beyond interoperability on a data level, so that Europe can take bold steps towards a future that preserves supply chain automation and technological innovation.
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.
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 regulatory changes and developments in global tax regimes, to support you in your tax compliance.
We spoke with Hector Fernandez, principal compliance tax services representative, who explained the complexities surrounding Spanish insurance premium tax (IPT) and how Sovos helps insurers operating in Spain.
I’m a principal compliance tax services representative at Sovos. As part of my role I work with the different teams helping them with the tax requirements of different tax authorities.
I also work with clients with IPT requirements in Spain, helping them with the many elements of tax compliance.
As mentioned in previous blogs about Spanish IPT, Spain has one of the most complex monthly and annual IPT reporting procedures. It’s challenging due to many factors such as multiple IPT tax authorities (national and provinces), additional entities to deal with including the Fire Brigade Tax (FBT) and the surcharges that must be paid to the Consorcio de Compensación de Seguro (CCS) or other bodies like Spanish Motor Insurers Bureau (OFESAUTO).
In Spain, five tax authorities charge IPT: the National Tax Authority (AEAT) and four provinces (Alava, Guipuzcoa, Navarra and Vizcaya). They are responsible for the policies in those territories. The Modelo 480 contains the same information for different tax authorities, but the formats and requirements can vary.
The annual submission coincides with the December monthly period, which means that it occurs at the same time as submitting the last monthly submission of the year and the annual report.
The Modelo 480 is a yearly overview form submitted by insurance entities that summarise monthly returns and payments. Insurers must include exempt premiums written during the year on this form because this information is not included in the monthly returns.
The data provided in this summary form will be broken down by class of business and monthly payment. While this form is purely informative, it’s vital since it helps tax authorities to find any mistakes, inconsistencies or fraud that could have been committed in the monthly submissions.
There is a compulsory annual return for those entities that subscribe to Fire and Multi-risk policies in Spain (Class 8 & 9). The report is submitted through a specific portal provided by CCS. Insurers must submit the return before the last day of April.
In this report, the different Fire or Multi-risk policies must be declared and broken down by the postcode where the risk is located and include the taxable premium of each policy.
CCS will share this information with the local bodies with competencies to calculate and charge the Fire Brigade in Spain, including councils and provincial councils or the body that helps the insurance companies to deal with this surcharge such as GESTORA (Gestora de Conciertos para la Contribución a los Servicios de Extinción de Incendios).
Those insurance companies that provide car insurance must deal with the Green card surcharge paid to OFESAUTO, the body in charge of this surcharge. Companies must provide the number of car insurance policies issued during the year, and the body will issue the invoice.
Spanish IPT complexity is based on the timing and the high amount of data that insurers must take into account to provide accurate data to the tax authority. It’s important to have software that can compile and process vast amounts of data in an accurate way.
Sovos’ team of IPT experts can help ease the burden of Spanish IPT compliance, through our managed services or consultancy offering as well as our IPT determination software.
Still have questions about Spanish IPT? Sovos can help. Contact our team of experts today or watch our webinar on The Complexity of Insurance Premium Tax in Spain.
The Italian Customs Authorities recently updated their national import system by applying the new European Union Customs Data Model (EUCDM). These new changes came into effect on 9 June 2022.
According to the new procedure, the old model of paper import declarations has been abolished. The import declarations are now transmitted to the Italian Customs Authorities’ information system with a digital signature.
The acceptance of a customs declaration is notified to the economic operator (that can be the importer, the Customs Agent, etc.) through a Master Reference Number (MRN), an alphanumeric string of 18 characters.
The old IM message (telematic track to be submitted at the time of the import to the Italian Customs Authorities through the Customs Telematic Service (i.e. Servizio telematico doganale (STD)) has been replaced by the following paths as defined by EU legislation:
At the time of the release of the goods, Italian Customs Authorities make available the “summary statement for accounting purposes of the customs declaration” (prospetto di riepilogo ai fini contabili della dichiarazione doganale). The summary includes all data necessary to detect customs duties, import VAT and any other charges due.
The summary mentioned above is made available to the importer and the declarant/representative in the reserved area of the single portal of Italian Customs Authorities through the “Document management – customs declarations” service.
We recommend that importers contact their Customs Agent to receive a copy of this summary for their accounting purposes.
As per Italian VAT Law, possessing a Single Administrative Document (SAD) is needed to exercise the right to recover import VAT in Italy. As the SAD is now unavailable, Italian Customs Authorities, in agreement with the Italian Revenue Agency, agreed that the new accounting summary is sufficient to allow the importer to exercise the right to recover the import VAT.
Therefore, the new accounting summary is needed to exercise your right to recover the import VAT paid to the Italian tax authorities.
Moreover, the right to recover import VAT is exercised only once the summary is reported in the Purchase VAT Ledger as per art. 25 of Italian VAT Law.
Finally, the import document must be included in your quarterly VAT return and your annual VAT return which must mirror your Italian VAT Ledgers.
To ensure your import VAT is not lost, we recommend considering that the last day to recover the import VAT, related to an import of goods carried out in 2022, is 30 April 2023.
In addition to the Summary Prospetto di riepilogo ai fini contabili della dichiarazione doganale, discussed above, economic operators will be able to receive:
Italian Customs Authorities advise customs operators to provide the Prospetto di svincolo to transporters as proof of the fulfilment of customs formalities in the case of checks.
Speak to our team if you have any questions about the latest Italian importing requirements and their impact on your business’s compliance.
In India, the e-invoicing system has been live since 2020. Taxpayers in the scope of e-invoicing mandate must issue their invoices relating to B2B and B2G transactions through the e-invoicing system, which is a form of continuous transaction controls (CTC).
However, B2C invoices are not issued through the CTC system, which means that B2C invoices don’t pass through the Invoice Registry Portal’s (IRP) clearance. The Indian authorities have announced their goal to include B2C invoices in the scope of the CTC system although there is no timeline provided for that plan.
Meanwhile, there is a separate QR code requirement for B2C invoices. We explain why and when a QR code is required and how taxpayers can generate it:
The QR code requirement for B2C invoices aims to promote digital payments. In that respect, it differs from the QR code for B2B and B2G invoices which include the IRP’s signature. The latter serves as proof of clearance that B2B and B2G invoices must go through. Additionally, the QR code for B2C invoices must be self-generated, whereas the IRP generates the QR code content for B2B and B2G invoices (if the supplier is in the scope of e-invoicing).
The QR code requirement doesn’t apply to all suppliers. As per the CBIC notification, F. No. CBEC-20/16/38/2020-GST, suppliers with annual revenue of 500 Cr. Rupees or more (from 2017-2018) must comply with the QR code requirement when issuing invoices to their end customers (B2C).
The QR code must be dynamic. Unlike static QR codes, the system will update the content of the dynamic QR code if the payment is received. Content-wise, businesses must include the following information:
After printing the QR code on the invoice, customers must be able to scan it to make payments. If the supply is made through an e-commerce platform, suppliers must give cross-references of the payment received in respect of the said supply on the invoice. Then the invoice would be deemed to have complied with the requirements of the Dynamic QR Code.
The Indian authorities are making significant progress with their efforts to digitize paper processes in the country by introducing a CTC invoicing system and encouraging digital payments. In line with their ambitions, we expect further digitization developments in the near future.
Need to ensure compliance with the latest e-invoicing requirements in India? Get in touch with Sovos’ tax experts.
An increasing insurance premium tax (IPT) trend is using transactional level information in various returns and reports. Preparation and education are key to ensuring details are being captured on an ongoing basis rather than at the last moment. Furthermore, in some cases where legacy systems are being utilised and don’t have the capability to capture all required fields, a software update may be required. All relevant parties in the data supply chain should educate themselves on the importance of collecting the details to avoid the often painstaking and time-consuming exercise of going back to the policyholder to collect the required information.
Many businesses initiated this trend because of the changes to the Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros (CCS) reporting system in 2019. However, this is not always the case as some countries have had transactional submission in place for some time. Two such examples would be Cyprus and Malta. For the former, Policy Number, Class of Business, Inception/Expiry Date, Premium and Tax Amount are required per policy. The same fields are required for the latter bar Inception/Expiry Dates. We rarely experience any difficulties for insurers collecting this information, as these are common fields often being collected at the source.
Whilst this may surprise some, Italy is another country where transactional level information is required to be recorded. The main difference here is that these details aren’t required for ongoing tax submissions but rather in the form of IPT books which must be regularly maintained and contain the transactional information for the preceding ten years. You can find more about the required details here.
The IPT books are mandatory for successful prepayment transfer following a Part VII portfolio transfer, general prepayment reclaims and historicals. Transactional details are also required for the Claims Report and Contract & Premium Report.
The changes in CCS submission brought the trend of transactional submission to the forefront of insurers’ thinking. A mandatory field for successful submission is the postcode, which many insurers weren’t capturing at the time. To help insurers with this change, there was a six-month transitional period where insurers could submit policies without the postcode. However, this field then became mandatory and the requirement was that the preceding six months of reports would need updating.
The introduction of the Greek Annual Report in 2019 brought another layer of complexity for insurers. The main issue was the requirement for the VAT/tax registration number to be populated. Where it was impossible to collect, insurers sometimes opted to submit incomplete reports. To date, we haven’t experienced pushback from the tax authority for omitting this detail, but we cannot guarantee this will continue to be the case.
The most recent change has been to Portuguese Stamp Duty submissions. This change brought elements of the Greek Annual Report and the CCS changes together, in the sense that the geographical area required population (Azores, Madeira, Mainland) and the tax ID of the policyholder were required. Unlike in Greece, there was no option of submitting incomplete reports; if all necessary details were not populated, the insurer couldn’t pay the tax.
The above list is by no means exhaustive but gives a good idea of the exponential complexity facing insurers for ongoing compliance. Simply put, the insurer must have agile systems to deal with any potential changes. We believe that more countries will implement transactional reports in the coming years, so it would be prudent to set up certain controls now to help prepare and ease the burden later.
As the world of IPT compliance is so fragmented across territories, keeping abreast of changes in reporting requirements can be challenging. Our team of experts can guide you through the details and ensure you’re on the right compliance path.
Need help ensuring your IPT compliance? Get in touch with Sovos’ team of experts to discover the benefits of a managed service provider.