EIOPA · 2397

Validations

Regulation
Other
Article
N/A
Topic
Validations
Submitted
2022-02-28
Answered
2022-03-16

Question

We have a question regarding the new business validation rule BV 1181-1 introduced with taxonomy 2.6.0. From our point of view this validation rule contradicts EIOPA Q&A 712 and 776. According to the above EIOPA Q&A, in S.23.02 in R0610 the change in technical provisions should be presented excluding the surplus Fund. However, in the new validation rule, the different valuation of technical provisions between Solvency II and statutory accounts from the balance sheet is used for validation. But the statutory accounts/HGB provisions include the surplus funds. For this reason, this validation rule incorrectly strikes. In our view, the new validation rule would therefore have to be reduced by the value of the surplus fund when checking the difference in the technical provisions in the balance sheet: abs({S.02.01, r0510, c0010} + {S.02.01, r0600,c0010} + {S.02.01, r0690,c0010} - {S.02.01, r0510,c0020} - {S.02.01, r0600,c0020} - {S.02.01, r0690,c0020} - {S.02.01, r0730,c0020}) = abs({S.23.02, r0610,c0110})-abs({S.23.02, r0660,c0110}) Can you please confirm this assumption with regard to the current annual reporting?

Answer

We have analysed this issue and want to confirm that BV1181 (and BV1180) is correct. The solution as per Q&A 776 and Q&A 712 is to exclude the variation on DTA from S.23.02 R0600. EIOPA revised Q&A 776 and Q&A 712 accordingly.

This Q&A is published by European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and is non-binding. It does not constitute legal advice. Updated weekly from official ESA sources.

Similar Q&As

More Q&As on this topic

📋 Track EU financial regulation continuously

Forseti monitors EU financial regulation and delivers personalised alerts anchored to verified official sources.

14-day free trial. No credit card required.