|
The location of risk, and hence of liability for IPT, was initially established by the 2nd Non-Life Insurance Directive. This details guidance for property, vehicle, travel and holiday insurance. However, for many years, exact interpretation and enforcement were patchy in practice - until the 2001 Kvaerner Case.
The outcome of this case, and the will of tax authorities to drag foreign insurers into their tax nets, as seen in the 2007 DSG Case, have focused IPT compliance in the eyes of the insurance community.
Kvaerner Case
If there were any lingering doubts on the IPT liability to foreign tax authorities on risks covered in their territories by cross-border insurance, then the 2001 Kvaerner case resolved them.
Kvaerner, a Norwegian engineering and construction service group, took out a global professional indemnity insurance policy for its group companies. This covered a Dutch subsidiary of John Brown plc., which was owned by Kvaerner. The policy was taken out in the UK, and Kvaerner believed it should pay UK IPT on all the coverage.
The Dutch tax authorities raised an IPT assessment on the Dutch element of the policy. The case was eventually referred to the European Court of Justice ('ECJ'). This court ruled that IPT was due where the risk was located - hence Dutch IPT was due on the Dutch subsidiary's element of the policy.
In addition, the ECJ ruling stated that it was not relevant who paid the insurance, or where. It also charged the insured (Kvaerner), and not the insurer.
This landmark decision firmly defined the location of liability for IPT. It also highlighted that cover taken out by parent companies, out of country, will nevertheless be assessed locally by the tax authorities concerned.
DSG Case
Following Kvaerner, there seemed to be doubt about whether the tax authorities would pursue non-compliant insurers. However, the DSG case has recently underscored that the authorities are now keen to employ the ruling as one of a number of tools to bring in IPT revenues.
DSG International Insurance Services was part of the old Dixons Group, a household electronics retailer. DSG, an Isle of Man company, was providing appliance breakdown cover for a company offering service cover on appliances in the UK.
The UK tax authorities raised an assessment against DSG for the IPT due on the insurance cover provided in the UK. This implied that DSG should IPT register in the UK, and charge local IPT. DSG took the case to tribunal and won on a complex technicality.
Whilst the UK tax authorities did not win this case, it did show that it was now willing to employ the Dutch Kvaerner ruling to increase its IPT revenue. More similar cases can be expected.
How TMF can help
The Kvaerner and DSG cases have firmly established the responsibility of companies and their insurers to properly allocate and report on multi-jurisdictional IPT.
TMF IPT Services can assist:
Its IPT professionals in 35 offices in Europe, and many more beyond, have been helping insurers and captives with IPT compliance since 1987. This means it has excellent relationships with the local tax authorities, and is often able to come to the best, practical resolution on IPT issues.
Contact us:
iptax@tmf-group.com
+44 (0)870 067 8881
|