No Insurance VAT Exemption For Pension Fund Management - LinkedIn
Agree & Join LinkedIn
By clicking Continue to join or sign in, you agree to LinkedIn’s User Agreement, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Policy.
Sign in to view more content
Create your free account or sign in to continue your search
Sign inWelcome back
Email or phone Password Show Forgot password? Sign inor
By clicking Continue to join or sign in, you agree to LinkedIn’s User Agreement, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Policy.
New to LinkedIn? Join now
or
New to LinkedIn? Join now
By clicking Continue to join or sign in, you agree to LinkedIn’s User Agreement, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Policy.
Skip to main contentAdvocate General Pikamäe has opined that pension fund management services do not fall within the insurance VAT exemption, regardless of whether they are supplied by insurers or non-insurers.
If his Opinion is followed by the CJEU, that would mean there is no current scope for VAT exemption for the management of defined benefit pension schemes.
The CJEU judgment is expected in the second half of 2020, before the case is returned to the Court of Appeal.
Background
The case concerns the VAT liability of services comprising the discretionary management of the assets of:
(i) a defined benefit (“DB”) pension scheme; and
(ii) an investment fund in which the DB scheme had invested.
The investment managers supplying the services did not provide any coverage or indemnification against any risks (e.g. the risk of poor investment performance or capital losses).
The United Biscuits pension scheme (“UB”) had originally paid VAT on the management services supplied by investment managers who were not insurers (“non-insurers”).
UB sought to challenge this, arguing that such services should be treated as VAT-exempt, in the same way that HMRC had accepted that insurers could treat their pension fund management services as exempt during the periods in question.
Reference to CJEU
The case came before the Court of Appeal in February 2019, which referred the following question to the CJEU.
Are supplies of pension fund management services as are provided to the Trustees by (a) Insurers and/or (b) Non-insurers “insurance transactions” within the meaning of Article 135(1)(a) of the VAT Directive?
Key Points from Opinion
Not an “insurance transaction”
· There is no definition of an “insurance transaction” in the Principal VAT Directive.
· However, the key components can be identified from CJEU case-law. There needs to be a contractual relationship between insurance provider and insured, which includes:
(a) a risk to be covered;
(b) the payment of a premium to cover that risk; and
(c) the insurer’s liability to provide something (whether cash, goods or services) in the event the risk arises.
· On the facts of the case, there was no assumption of risk by the investment managers – and hence the investment management services did not meet the criteria to be an “insurance transaction”.
Interaction with Insurance Directives; Fiscal Neutrality
· Even though the “management of group pension funds” might be referred to in the Insurance Directives as a class of long-term insurance, the AG noted that the objective of those directives was to specify the classes of activity subject to compulsory authorisation. The inclusion does not mean that pension fund management represents an “insurance activity” for VAT purposes.
· Equally, it makes no difference whether the supplier has regulatory authority to conduct insurance business.
· The fact that HMRC erroneously allowed insurers to treat their supplies of pension fund management as VAT exempt for many years does not bring the same supplies by non-insurers within the scope of the exemption.
Next Steps
The next step is for the CJEU to issue its judgment, which we expect in the second half of 2020.
If the CJEU follows the AG’s Opinion, this would mean that the investment management services supplied to UB did not fall within the VAT exemption for insurance transactions.
It would also mean that (following Wheels) there is no current basis in EU law for applying VAT exemption to the management of DB schemes or their assets.
Claims relating to these proceedings should be maintained until the case reaches its final determination.
Like Like Celebrate Support Love Insightful Funny Comment- Copy
To view or add a comment, sign in
No more previous content-
BlackRock Investment Management (C-231/19) CJEU rules that the management of a mix of SIFs and non-SIFs cannot be apportioned
Jul 2, 2020
Insights from the community
- Financial Management How can you manage pension and benefit plans to minimize risks?
- Financial Management How can you assess and manage pension fund investments?
- Employee Benefits Design What are the common challenges and pitfalls of a defined benefit plan conversion or termination process?
- Automotive Engineering Here's how you can navigate the key considerations for retiring as an automotive engineer.
- Career Management What benefits should you negotiate for to support long-term financial stability?
- Deferred Compensation What are the best practices for NQDC plan governance and oversight?
- Business Strategy What do you do if unexpected expenses arise during retirement for late career professionals?
- Mentoring Here's how you can effectively manage your finances as a self-employed consultant.
- Corporate Finance What do you do if you're a corporate finance professional planning for healthcare needs in retirement?
- Deferred Compensation How do you align your top hat plan with your overall compensation strategy and goals?
Others also viewed
-
Roundtable: The rise of the superfund
Terry O'Dwyer 4y -
The implication of African Alliance Insurance settling its indebtedness to the Pension Transitional Arrangement Directorate (PTAD)
Adebayo Adekola 3y -
Pension Funds, U.S. Insurers, and other Asset Owners Update
Andrew Perrins 3y -
New insurance and open pensions regulation in Brazil brings unprecedented depth in ESG topics
Luciane Moessa de Souza, PhD 2y -
Regulation Round Up – September 2024
We Complement 2mo -
New Entrées on the Menu: Navigating Endgame Choices for DB Schemes
Ryan Daley 4mo -
News Alert, May 2020 – Advocate General’s Opinion in United Biscuits (C 235/19)
Peter Dylewski بيتر ديليوسكي 4y -
Japan's Governance Conundrum
Nicholas Benes 5y -
Mansion House Reforms - Thoughts for Asset Managers and Insurers
Hazell Hallam 1y -
Amendments to Regulation 28
Adept Advisory 2y
Explore topics
- Sales
- Marketing
- IT Services
- Business Administration
- HR Management
- Engineering
- Soft Skills
- See All
Từ khóa » C-235/19
-
C-235/19 - CURIA - List Of Results
-
Case-law - CURIA - List Of Results
-
United Biscuits (C-235/19) - CJEU Judgment - TaxScape | Deloitte
-
ECJ C-235/19 (United Biscuits Pensions) Vs. UK - VATupdate
-
ECJ Case C-235/19 (United Biscuits (Pensions Trustees) Ltd ...
-
Taxation Of Occupational Pension Fund Management Services - Accace
-
ECJ Confirms Pension Fund Management Services Not Exempt From ...
-
CJ, 08-10-2020, Nr. C-235/19 | Navigator
-
C-235/19 United Biscuits (Pensions Trustees) And United Biscuits ...
-
08/10/2020 - Hogan Lovells - Pensions 360
-
ECJ Confirms Pension Fund Management Services Not ... - Westlaw
-
Tim Ward QC And Andrew Macnab, Representing The United ...
-
General Law - Part III, Title II, Chapter 235, Section 19