Description: I.R.C. § 4371 imposes an excise tax on policies issued by foreign insurers or reinsurers covering U.S. risks. The application of the tax to funds withheld reinsurance can raise difficult questions. The IRS’s position is that an accrual concept applies, although that position is questionable. Taxpayers that instead determine the excise tax by looking only to actual payments made by the ceding company to the reinsurer or to the net amount of the ceded premiums after adjusting for the allowance paid by the reinsurer have a variety of arguments to support their position. The language of the premium excise tax, the regulations thereunder, the legislative history of the provision, and the very nature of an excise tax all support the position that the tax applies only when there is an actual payment. Other Code provisions that use similar language as well as the Supreme Court also support this view.

Description: On April 24, 2015, Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published proposed regulations (REG-108214-15) that provide guidance regarding when a foreign insurance company’s income is excluded from the definition of passive income under Section 1297(b)(2)(B). The proposed regulations are directed at hedge funds that purport to establish a foreign reinsurance company in an effort to avoid treatment as a passive foreign investment company (PFIC), but could have unintended consequences for traditional insurance companies.

Description: Many life insurance companies that issue participating policies follow business practices that they argue allow them a deduction for tax purposes for policyholder dividends in the year prior to actual payment. This article discusses several recent developments related to policyholder dividend accruals, including Revenue Ruling 2011-29 and the New York Life and MassMutual cases, and highlights the four arguments commonly made by the IRS in challenging companies' claimed tax treatment of such dividends.

Description: The Internal Revenue Code includes certain rules that apply when a taxpayer has a change in method of accounting. A special rule applies when a life insurance company changes its basis of computing reserves. The article discusses two recent court cases, Bosamia v. Commissioner and Capital One Financial Corp. v. Commissioner, that address change-in-method-of-accounting issues. The article examines whether and how the courts' conclusions in these two cases might apply to changes in basis of computing reserves to correct errors.

Description: This article discusses key tax issues that exist under current law with respect to asset rebalancing and hedging transactions that an insurance company might undertake.