Description: A brief overview of the rules for corporate owned life insurance in section 101j and then summarizes the guidance contained in the IRS notice.

Description: The interaction of section 7702 cash value accumulation test [CVAT] and state nonforfeiture laws [SNFL] create a dual limitation on traditional life insurance contratcs. CVAT limiting the maximum permissible cash value and SNFL requiring a minimum cash surrender value. This article examines these dual limitations.

Description: To most observers, the value of a life insurance contract is the cash surrender value. However, when it comes to life insurance and the Internal Revenue Code, things are seldom as simple as they appear on the surface.

Description: A discussion of the PLR that addresses a Wellness Rider that an affiliated group of life insurance companies proposed to offer only on a prospective basis with newly issued life insurance contracts.

Description: This article provides a short history of the correction procedures previously developed to address compliance failures and the shortcomings of those procedures under sections 101f and 7702, laying the foundation for a sea change in the correction process.

Description: Articles on IRS private letter rulings on combination products, IRS treatment of reinsurance under section 845, and IRS waivers for failed contracts under section 7702.

Description: This article is a discussion of the proposal to tax the inside build-up in life insurance policies and the consequences if it were to be adopted.

Description: Congress has acted in recent years to remove outdated provisions governing the federal income taxation of life insurance companies from the Internal Revenue Code. In particular, section 809 and section 815 were repealed and suspended, respectively, in 2004. This article chronicles the demise of these provisions and explains why Congress was right in removing them from the Code.

Description: On June 30, 2015, the U.S. Tax Court reaffirmed the viability of the Investor Control Doctrine in Webber v. Commissioner. The case serves as a valuable example of what not to do with regard to the investment of assets supporting a variable life insurance contract purchased through a private placement transaction. In the end, however, the Webber court leaves a lot of questions unanswered—most significantly, the elusive answer to how to define investor control. This article examines the Investor Control Doctrine, as explained and applied by the U.S. Tax Court in Webber, and considers some of the open questions that remain after June 30, 2015.

Description: This article discusses a new procedure for correcting inadvertent failures to satisfy the diversification requirements applicable to variable annuity and life insurance contracts under section 817h of the Internal Revenue Code.