Tax liability insurance and VAT: An important tool to protect transaction partners

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Tax liability insurance and VAT: An important tool to protect transaction partners

Sponsored by

BMS Group
The test can be seen as a hybrid of the Australian ‘same or similar business’ test and the UK test.

In this interview, Geert De Neef, tax partner of Lydian, talks to Dean Andrews, head of tax liability Insurance in London at BMS Group, about VAT issues that arise in M&A and how TLI can be used to ring-fence them.

Tax liability insurance (TLI) has become an extremely effective and widely applied tool to protect the VAT taxpayer’s position, especially in the context of merger and acquisition (M&A) deals, where it is used to facilitate transactions by removing contentious issues from negotiations.

Dean: Which VAT issues do you most frequently see arising in an M&A context?

Geert: There are three categories of ‘VAT-evergreens’ that regularly arise in M&A transactions.

First, there are VAT issues generated by the transaction itself. An example would be that certain goods are often carved out of the scope of transactions, which could lead to a correction of earlier deducted input VAT on these goods.

Further, VAT issues may materialise in the acquired company after – or sometimes even during – the acquisition process. Such risks may have been considered, or not, during the due diligence process and may have been included, or not, in the representations and warranties.

Finally, certain VAT issues may result from post-acquisition structuring, for example, changes imputed in an existing VAT group by including the acquiring company in it, or VAT issues resulting from a merger between group companies, etc.

Dean: That is certainly our experience of the type of VAT risks that we frequently see arising in an M&A context across Europe, which are frequently insured. In relation to your point about issues arising during the acquisition process, the most common reason for a TLI policy being taken out is to cover a potential tax issue, be it VAT or otherwise, that is flagged during the diligence process.

What are the financial consequences of getting your VAT filing position wrong in Belgium?

Geert: If VAT becomes due as a result of a VAT inspection in Belgium, the additional VAT levied often corresponds to 21% (standard VAT rate) of the value or price of the targeted supply of goods or services, increased by a VAT penalty, often amounting to 200% of the VAT due.

The financial consequences therefore are very substantial which means a TLI policy can be an extremely cost efficient tool to transfer risk from a company’s balance sheet.

Dean: How frequently do you see companies seek a preliminary ruling from the Belgian tax authorities with respect to potential VAT risks?

Geert: Corporate taxpayers file on ruling requests with the Federal Ruling Committee on a regular basis. However, such a VAT-ruling can only be applied for transactions which have not yet occurred. As a result, VAT risks related to past transactions or events cannot be covered by such a formal VAT ruling. Furthermore, applying and obtaining a positive ruling can easily take up to four months after the request introduction, all formalities and approval procedures included. Finally, parties often do not want to run the risk of first revealing specific VAT issues to the tax authorities without being reasonably sure on the positive outcome of the ruling request.

Dean: Is there a specific limitation period to be considered for VAT disputes with the Belgian tax authority?

Geert: Based on Article 81bis of the Belgian VAT Code, VAT can be corrected or (re)claimed by the VAT authorities during a period of three years. This correction period however amounts to seven years, in case certain infractions or irregularities occur. Although the seven-year period is often referred to as the ‘fraud period’, it should be noted that the infractions or irregularities concerned are defined in a very broad manner.

For example, the seven year period applies in case “an investigation indicates that a transaction has been exempted from VAT on an unjustified basis” (Article 81bis, §1, section 2, 1° VAT Code). As a result, a seven years’ contractual period for the TLI is indeed recommended for VAT-taxpayers seeking adequate security.

Dean: How frequently do you see TLI being used to insure VAT risks?

Geert: In Belgium, TLI is not yet generally applied, and even fewer policies – if any – focus exclusively on VAT risks.

Dean: What do you think could be done to increase the use TLI across Belgium to bring it more in line with the rest of Europe?


Geert: I believe that increasing awareness with corporate taxpayers in general, and with those involved in the M&A industry in particular, of the importance of insurance protection on VAT risks, would be very useful and productive. Many professionals are unaware of the importance of the financial consequences if things go wrong on a VAT-level.





Dean Andrews

T: +44 0 20 7480 0308

E: dean.andrews@bmsgroup.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article