Description: This article summarizes IRS guidance on what constitutes a change in basis for computing life insurance reserves under the Internal Revenue Code.

Description: Provides in-depth discussion of IRS Rev. Proc. 2008-24, including tax background of partial annuity exchanges. Then discusses partial annuitizations and “modified endowment contracts.”

Description: Summary of Administration's FY 2023 Tax Proposals of Interest to Life Insurers

Description: A discussion of tail-design LTC riders for annuities and how contract cash values are offset by reductions to the annuity contract. LTC benefits, and how they relate to the annuity contracts, are also discussed.

Description: Reserves for Annuity Contracts that Flunk Section 72(s) Can be Deductible

Description: Owners of nonqualified annuity contracts, individuals under qualified retirement plans, and annuity issuers are left without any published guidance on when annuity payments can be used to satisfy the SEPP [Substantially Equal Periodic Payments] exceptions to the 10 percent penalty tax under sections 72q2D and 72t2Aiv. This article discusses that problem. The insurance industry requested guidance on this issue.8

Description: The article discusses PLR 201632004, which addresses the partial annuitization rules of IRC section 72(a)(2) in the context of a deferred income annuity rider attached to a variable deferred annuity contract.

Description: This is an article about how to place value on an annuity benefit.

Description: In PLR 202109001, the IRS ruled that a proposed assumption reinsurance transaction between related foreign parties changing the counter party obligated to a domestic corporation (“Taxpayer”) under an existing agreement did not give rise to Taxpayer being treated as making a base erosion payment (“BEP”), as Taxpayer did not receive a deduction under §832(b)(4)(A) from the amount of gross premiums written on insurance contracts during the taxable year for premiums paid for reinsurance.

Description: The United States district court for the Southern District of Ohio recently issued its opinion in American Financial Group and Consolidated Subsidiaries v. United States. The issue in the case as framed by the Internal Revenue Service IRS was whether Actuarial Guideline XXXIII AG 33 applies retroactively or prospectively to the calculation of reserves for deferred annuity contracts. This article is a discussion of this opinion.