Reserve Mechanical : Microcaptive Insurance Arrangement Denied on Appeal
Several months ago, we examined the Tax Court’s decision in Reserve Mechanical and predicted with 77 percent confidence that the taxpayer’s appeal would be dismissed and the Tax Court’s decision affirmed. The Tenth Circuit has now made that prediction accurate. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that the outcome in Reserve Mechanical should not be regarded as an indictment of all microcaptive insurance arrangements. Instead, the particular facts of the case indicated that the taxpayer was not engaged in the business of insurance. Still, we expect that the result in Reserve Mechanical will have a significant effect on the captive insurance industry. Notably, since the release of the decision, the IRS has issued a statement warning taxpayers to beware of microcaptive insurance arrangements. The IRS said, “Taxpayers should be alert to these schemes, normally peddled by promoters, as they will ultimately cost them.” It added that “these transactions will result in serious economic loss to taxpayers, including the loss of deductions, required income inclusion, and penalties.” This is not new guidance: Since 2015 the IRS has included abusive microcaptive insurance arrangements on its “Dirty Dozen” list. In this analysis, we explore the relative merits and prospective strengths of three of the grounds for appeal advanced by Reserve Mechanical Corp. (Reserve). As it happens, all three were rejected by the Tenth Circuit. First, Reserve argued that the Tax Court erred in classifying the insurance arrangement as one of “excess” insurance only. Second, it claimed that the Tax Court erred in assessing the bona fides of a reinsurer who is not the taxpayer. Third, Reserve argued that the Tax Court erred in determining that the premiums were unreasonably high. We explore the key factors underpinning each of these grounds and use the insurance arrangement predictive module in Blue J Tax to assess how significant the three specific factual characterizations were to the overall decision. We then perform a series of distinct analyses, varying the mix of assumptions to identify scenarios that could have in principle led to Reserve succeeding in its appeal. There are two critical takeaways from our analysis of the facts in Reserve Mechanical. First, the most significant factor driving the result in the government’s favor was whether captive insurance premiums were set using objective methods, such as actuarial data. Second, the factors with a more modest effect were whether the insured maintained complete coverage from other insurers and whether there was a circular flow of funds
Year of publication: |
2023
|
---|---|
Authors: | Alarie, Benjamin ; Xue Griffin, Bettina |
Publisher: |
[S.l.] : SSRN |
Saved in:
freely available
Extent: | 1 Online-Ressource (10 p) |
---|---|
Type of publication: | Book / Working Paper |
Language: | English |
Notes: | In: Tax Notes Federal, Volume 175, Number 13 ■ June 27, 2022 Nach Informationen von SSRN wurde die ursprüngliche Fassung des Dokuments June 27, 2022 erstellt |
Source: | ECONIS - Online Catalogue of the ZBW |
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014264221
Saved in favorites
Similar items by person
-
An Unprofitable Pretax Venture Can Still Be a Partnership
Alarie, Benjamin, (2021)
-
Using AI to Characterize Financing Between Related Parties
Alarie, Benjamin, (2020)
-
Tax Credits That Bond a Partnership : Revisiting Cross Refined Coal
Alarie, Benjamin, (2022)
- More ...