All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Spain: A quest to locate risk for insurance premium tax

Sponsored by sponsored-firms-garrigues.png

Jorge Moreira Pelaez of Garrigues investigates a potential flaw in how insurance transactions are located, which could lead insurance and reinsurance taxpayers onto difficult territory.

The insurance premium tax (IPT) is an indirect tax levied on insurance transactions. In accordance with the European legislation on (re)insurance activity (Article 157 of Directive 2009/138/EC, November 25 2009, on the taking-up and pursuit of the insurance and reinsurance business (Solvency II)), the Spanish IPT law situates the taxable event – the insurance transaction – by identifying where the insured risk is deemed to be located. The location of the insured risk is itself determined pursuant to the application of the criteria provided for in Directive 2009/138 as well.

Although there are many varied types of risk that are covered by insurance transactions nowadays, the criteria for localising a risk are based exclusively on the following, pursuant to Article 13, point 13 of the Directive:

a) the member state in which the property is situated, where the insurance relates either to buildings or to buildings and their contents, in so far as the contents are covered by the same insurance policy;

b) the member state of registration, where the insurance relates to vehicles of any type;

c) the member state where the policy holder took out the policy in the case of policies of a duration of four months or less covering travel or holiday risks, whatever the class concerned;

d) in all cases not explicitly covered by points (a), (b) or (c), the member state in which either of the following is situated:

a) the habitual residence of the policy holder; or

b) if the policy holder is a legal person, that policy holder's establishment to which the contract relates.

The final criterion listed in (d) is singularly important because it encompasses the great majority of insurance transactions; every transaction that is not related to a building or its content, a vehicle or a trip.

Leaving aside policies taken by individuals, the application of this criterion to insurance transactions executed by companies turns out to be quite complex, in many cases.

In fact, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has twice ruled on the appropriate interpretation of this rule. These rulings are the decision of June 14 2001 in case C-191/99 – Kvaerner, and more recently, the decision of January 17 2019 in C-74/18 – A Ltd.

The ECJ's jurisprudence in this regard may be summarised as follows:

1) A risk can only be situated in one place.

2) It must be construed that, like the other rules, this rule has a physical rather than legal basis for localisation. In this rule, this specifically means the physical location of the establishment, owned by the policyholder, where the activity that carries the risk which is being insured is undertaken.

Despite the apparent simplicity of these criteria, doubts may arise about the way in which they must be applied in many cases: let us think, for instance, about the risks covered by cyber-insurance.

These doubts concern not only the insurance undertakings, but also the policyholders, because the latter might be bearing an excessive chargeability of tax – for example, in respect of all those insurance transactions that cover risks in foreign affiliates – or might be facing an insufficient chargeability of tax, when the insurance provider is not established in Spain.

In summary, it will be necessary to go on a quest to locate risk in order to determine whether the tax burden under this tax and under the other parafiscal charges (as in the case of surcharges legally established in favour of the Spanish Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros) that follow the same localisation rule, is correct.

T: +34 915145200

More from across our site

The state secretary told the French press that the country continues to oppose pillar two’s global minimum tax rate following an Ecofin meeting last week.
This week the Biden administration has run into opposition over a proposal for a federal gas tax holiday, while the European Parliament has approved a plan for an EU carbon border mechanism.
Businesses need to improve on data management to ensure tax departments become much more integrated, according to Microsoft’s chief digital officer at a KPMG event.
Businesses must ensure any alternative benchmark rate is included in their TP studies and approved by tax authorities, as Libor for the US ends in exactly a year.
Tax directors warn that a lack of adequate planning for VAT rule changes could leave businesses exposed to regulatory errors and costly fines.
Tax professionals have urged suppliers of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to pause any plans to restructure their supply chains following the NI Protocol Bill.
Tax leaders say communication with peers is important for risk management, especially on how to approach regional authorities.
Advances in compliance tools in international markets and the digitalisation of global tax administrations are increasing in-house demand for technologists.
The US fast-food company has agreed to pay €1.25 billion to settle the French investigation into its transfer pricing arrangements over allegations of tax evasion.
HM Revenue and Customs said the UK pillar two legislation will be delayed until at least December 2023, while ITR reported on a secret Netflix settlement and an IMF study on VAT cuts.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree