VAT and insurance intermediation: a case law rendered by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Douai reiterates the tax risks for brokers

Background of the dispute: outsourced services and questioning of the exemption

GID Assurances, a French insurance broker, was audited for the financial years 2016 to 2018. At the end of the audit, the tax authorities questioned the VAT exemption applied to services provided by three foreign service providers (Tunisia, Israel, United Kingdom). The latter were involved in telephone prospecting missions, with the aim of presenting the company's insurance products and generating qualified appointments for its sales teams.

In accordance with article 283 of the FTC (French Tax Code), if these services were not eligible for VAT exemption, the customer had to auto-pay the VAT. Given its limited deduction rights, the operator had no interest in automatically settling this VAT.

The central question: can these service providers be considered as intermediaries within the meaning of article 261 C, 2° of the FTC?

The arguments of GID Assurances

The company maintained that these missions were intermediation, within the meaning of the VAT Directive and European case law (CJEU, Aspiro, C-40/15). It was also based on:

• The specifications detailing the missions;
• the prospecting role of service providers;
• the BoFip (BOI-TVA-CHAMP-30-10-60-10, §290), which recognizes the exemption of benefits relating to insurance transactions and reiterates the position of the CJEU.

The response of the Douai CAA: a lack of sufficient autonomy

The Court rejects the company's analysis. It considers that service providers:

• They only had limited freedom in the choice of prospects, they being targeted according to geographical areas and socio-professional profiles defined by GID Assurances;
• Applied scripts and arguments provided by the company;
• Were not involved in the finalization of contracts, this phase being exclusively provided by the employees of the SARL.

As a result, the Court considers that this is not an autonomous intermediation mission, but commercial assistance to the broker's activity, which does not fall under the exemption provided for by article 261 C, 2° of the FTC.

A decision in line with European case law?

The Court reads the judgment strictly Aspiro, specifying that a subcontractor must participate directly in the conclusion of the insurance contract to qualify for the exemption.
This interpretation seems restrictive to us, especially since neither the BoFIP nor European case law expressly retains the criterion of participation in the finalization of contracts: the BoFiP specifies that participation in the signing is not a condition. As such, BoFIP aims at prospecting at the request of the insurer on the basis of a sales script or a telemarketing approach.

The administration and the Court consider that it is also appropriate for the intermediary to participate in prospecting activities until the conclusion of the contract.

They probably considered that service providers played a role equivalent to that of a simple telephone operator, and not to that of a real insurance broker. In this capacity, they acted as call center subcontractors. The analysis would undoubtedly have been different if the operator had been responsible for prospecting specific customers, not identified in advance.

The Court probably decided in the present case, considering that the outsourcing of part of the intermediation activity (the cold calling activity by call centers) should not be eligible for the exemption.

What to remember for insurance professionals

1. Service providers should really act as brokers and not as a function separate from the broker business.

For an insurance intermediary to benefit from VAT exemption, it must meet two essential conditions:

• Maintaining a relationship with the insurer and the insured : this relationship can be direct or indirect, in particular when the service provider acts as a subcontractor for a broker or other intermediary.
• To provide services that are characteristic of an insurance intermediary, directly linked to the essence of insurance business.

The administration has already provided numerous details in this regard (see our previous article).

Thus, it is imperative that subcontractors have:

• Of their own marketing process ;
• With a capacity to analyze the needs of prospects ;
• Of a real margin of appreciation in the connection.

It should not only be a matter of carrying out a simple telephony function on behalf of another broker.

2. The exemption does not automatically apply to all actors in the commercial chain

Even if they are involved in a brokerage activity, service providers must perform a mission similar to that of a broker or intermediary. Administrative assistance or simple lead generation is not enough.

3. VAT controls are tightening on this type of transaction

This case illustrates the Increasing vigilance on the part of the tax administration in terms of the qualification of exempt benefits, in particular in the insurance sector, which is often subject to a strong outsourcing of commercial functions.

Conclusion

The CAA Douai judgment, on 20 March 2025, is a strong signal to professionals in the insurance sector. It confirms a restrictive approach by the administration — and now the judge — with regard to the VAT exemption provided for in article 261 C of the FTC. A thorough review of contractual and operational practices is essential to secure existing systems.

Do you need a VAT audit or support to secure your contracts? Get in touch with our team.

‍