The Andersen Judgment
on Insurance Outsourcing
|
Jarlath
O'Keefe
Director Indirect Tax Services |
We have heard much talk in the media in recent times, emanating
from the insurance industry, that premiums are falling due
to lower costs for insurers as a consequent of a number
of factors. A recent European Court of Justice judgment
in relation to VAT may put a spanner in the works and lead
to increased premiums for consumers in the long run.
The case in question concerned the VAT exemption which
currently applies to outsourced insurance services. Many
insurance companies have in recent years outsourced much
of their back office functions to specialist service providers
who typically would undertake all of the tasks which previously
would have been done in-house by the insurance company.
To date, the position in Ireland is that the Revenue Commissioners
have allowed exemption from VAT for these services where
the service provider had delegated authority to bind the
insurance company to contracts and to settle claims, etc.
The European Court of Justice in the Andersen Case ruled
on the 3 March 2005 that these services did not qualify
for exemption.
The Irish VAT legislation closely mirrors that of the EU
Sixth Council Directive (the cornerstone of VAT legislation
throughout Europe) and provides for exemption of ‘insurance
and reinsurance transactions, including related services
performed by insurance brokers and insurance agent …’
The Court found that specialist service providers such as
Andersen could not be regarded as insurance brokers since
it does not have complete freedom as to the choice of insurer.
It can also not be regarded as insurance agent since its
services do not constitute services that typify an insurance
agent. In the Court’s opinion, the fact that Andersen
did not have a direct relationship with the insured was
an important consideration in determining whether it was
acting as an insurance agent (i.e. Andersen only became
involved in the process after the insured had submitted
the policy application which would most likely have been
channelled through a conventional insurance agent). It is
not clear what view would have been taken by the Court had
Andersen had a role in the sales function, i.e. would the
existence of this direct relationship with the insured mean
that exemption would apply to the range of Andersen’s
back office services?
How
will the Andersen judgment effect the position for insurance
outsourcing in Ireland and Irish insurers receiving such
services? The Revenue Commissioners are currently reviewing
the position in regard to the existing exemption. On 8 March
2005, the Revenue issued a statement confirming that it
would consult with the insurance industry and other interested
parties and that until such time that it had completed its
review, service providers could continue with their existing
treatment of outsourced services. The speed of the Revenue’s
confirmation of its position was a clear indication of its
concern regarding the implications for the Irish insurance
industry. Our contacts with the Revenue Commissioners on
the matter would suggest that while they are under an obligation
to comply with the Court ruling, they may be prepared to
work with the industry with a view to mitigating the effects
of the judgment. Certainly, in our view, service providers
with an active role in the sales process have a strong case
for arguing for retention of their exemption.
The one thing that is clear is that in the event that exemption
no longer applies to outsourced services, there will be
significant increased costs for insurers, which at the end
of the day will be paid for by you and me by way of higher
premiums
|