The advent of these schemes raised a number of questions, mainly concerning the distinction between taxes and services, thus further guidance was considered necessary since the recording of these schemes varied across countries.

The AEG discussed the issue at its 7th meeting and 8th meeting. In particular, at its 8th meeting the AEG:

• Agreed that no distinction should be made between new schemes and long-standing schemes.


• Agreed that to determine whether payments to stability schemes should be classified as a tax or as a payment for an insurance-type of transaction, the criterion of proportionality between 5 payments and the provision of an insurance-type of services (including payments for the risk element) should be examined on a case by case basis. The existence of a fund functioning on insurance rules and with a full set of accounts may indicate proportionality. On the contrary, if the payments are not put aside, or can be used for other purposes, this would be an indication to treat the payments as a tax.


• Discussed the different aspects of the appropriation of the assets of financial corporations and the compensation of depositors (shortfalls or excess of assets) and concluded that many different arrangements may exist.


• Agreed that there was a need to have more information on the more common practices, in this respect, in order to be in a position to provide practical guidance.


• Noted that these complex issues will be examined by the Eurostat FAWG in June 2013, requested that the conclusions of the AEG be shared with that group, and that insights gained by that group be reported back to the AEG.

For more information, please see paragraphs 24 to 28 of the conclusions of the 8th AEG meeting.