For over 50 years, Bloomberg Tax’s renowned flagship daily news service, Daily Tax Report® has helped leading practitioners and policymakers stay on the cutting edge of taxation and...
Taxpayers should expect the IRS to take an even harder stance on “micro-captive” insurance arrangements after a recent U.S. Tax Court decision in the agency’s favor, practitioners told Bloomberg BNA.
The Internal Revenue Service will likely feel emboldened after the Aug. 21 decision, said John Dies, managing director of tax controversy at Alliantgroup LP. In the decision, the court ruled that taxpayers—Benyamin and Orna Avrahami—who set up a micro-captive arrangement to protect their three jewelry stores from terrorist attacks can’t claim deductions for amounts paid to their captive insurance company ( Avrahami v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. No. 7, T.C., No. 17594-13, 8/21/17).
“I actually see this case as making it harder to resolve the mass number of captive cases that are out there being examined,” Dies said. “If anything, it’s likely to entrench the positions of both parties even more.”
The facts and circumstances that led the court to its decision were very specific to the Avrahamis’ situation, said Steven Miller, a former acting IRS commissioner who now works at Alliantgroup representing captives in agency audits. As a result, taxpayers will argue that their facts are different, and the IRS will say it doesn’t matter because the transaction is similar enough, he said.
Dies said he expects the IRS to continue to seek penalties against other captives under audit as a result of this ruling or at least try to use the decision as a leveraging tool to force taxpayers to back away from these transactions, he said.
In Avrahami, the Tax Court invalidated the micro-captive’s tax code Section 831(b) and 953(d) elections to be treated as a small insurance company and domestic corporation. Section 831(b) allows insurers with $2.2 million or less in premium income to be taxed only on their investment income.
The decision is the latest development in the IRS’s efforts to crack down on what it perceives as abuses under Section 831(b). Last November, the agency issued Notice 2016-66, which identified certain captive insurance arrangements that qualify under Section 831(b), and any similar structures, as “transactions of interest.” Section 831(b) captives have also been on the agency’s “Dirty Dozen” list of tax scams for the past several years, and are one of the first 13 issues being targeted by the IRS Large Business and International Division’s new tax compliance campaigns.
“With respect to the captive insurance industry at large, I don’t think that there would be a significant impact on legitimate, well-designed, properly capitalized, and established captive insurance companies,” said Matthew J. Mueller, of counsel at Wiand Guerra King PA and a former prosecutor with the Justice Department’s Tax Division.
Mueller said he doesn’t anticipate a “sea change” from this ruling but that more aggressive uses of captive insurance companies—especially those that make the Section 831(b) election—will continue to be frowned upon by the government.
Captive insurance companies are often formed to insure the risk of an operating business, which may be a corporate parent, as well as subsidiaries of a corporate parent. One of the main benefits is that a captive can insure risks that otherwise can’t be insured because it would be too expensive or coverage isn’t available in the commercial marketplace. The industry covers both large captives that insure the risks of giant corporations and smaller captives that fall into the Section 831(b) space.
David Provost, deputy commissioner of the Captive Insurance Division in Vermont’s Department of Financial Regulation, said the decision won’t have a significant impact on his state—the leading captive insurance domicile in the U.S.—because only about 5 percent of Vermont’s captives make the Section 831(b) election.
However, he worried about how this decision might tarnish the industry as a whole. The ruling will give people the impression that captives are “tax manipulation tools instead of insurance companies and that’s what we’ve been trying to avoid for years,” he said.
Jay Adkisson, a founding partner of Riser Adkisson LLP who practices in the captive insurance area, said the case is likely to cause a lot of micro-captives—as many as 1,000—problems. But in terms of premium dollars and reserves, “this decision is only going to affect a very small slice” of the total industry, he said.
“We have to keep in mind that the captive industry is huge,” Adkisson said, noting that it won’t impact large corporate captives at all. The captives that have to be most concerned are those that take the Section 831(b) election and participate in risk pools, he said.
In the 105-page opinion, the Tax Court said the risk pool that the Avrahamis’ micro-captive—Feedback Insurance Co. Ltd.—used to distribute risk was not a bona fide insurance company.
In 2009 and 2010, Feedback started participating in a risk distribution program through Pan American Reinsurance Co. Ltd. The court found that Pan American wasn’t a bona fide insurance company, citing its “excessive premiums, an ultralow probability of a claim ever being paid, and payments of a circular nature.”
The Tax Court imposed penalties on the Avrahamis on amounts related to distributions from Feedback Insurance Co. Ltd.—their offshore captive insurance company—that the taxpayers classified as loans but that the IRS reclassified as dividends or interest.
The court, however, didn’t impose penalties on the taxpayers for improperly deducted captive insurance premiums that were paid to Feedback. The court found that the Avrahamis acted reasonably and in good faith when they relied on the professional advice of their attorney Neil Hiller, who is based in Phoenix and practices in estate planning, employee benefits, and tax.
When discussing whether the Avrahamis acted in good faith, the court noted that there is a lack of prior case law that deals with the issues the Avrahamis were facing. “There is no clear authority to guide taxpayer,” the opinion said.
Miller said he hopes the opinion prompts the IRS to move quickly to issue guidance on micro-captives, which the industry has been requesting for several years.
David J. Slenn, chair of the American Bar Association’s Captive Insurance Committee, said the Tax Court’s decision is beneficial to the captive industry because it provides both current captive insurance owners and taxpayers that are considering using captives with some direction on how to structure their arrangements.
But there are issues that practitioners are still waiting for guidance on.
For an arrangement to be “insurance” for federal tax purposes, there are four factors that need to be considered: risk shifting, risk distribution, insurance risk, and whether it meets commonly accepted notions of insurance.
The Avrahami decision only explores risk distribution and the commonly accepted notions of insurance, Slenn and Miller said.
The other two “areas remain very much wide open,” Miller said. However, there are several other Section 831(b) cases in the pipeline, including James L. Wilson & Vivien Wilson, et al., v. Commissioner , where these topics might be addressed, he said.
“We’ll have to see what happens with those cases,” Miller said.
(August 23, description of Section 831(b) corrected in sixth paragraph; description of captive insurance companies corrected in tenth paragraph.)
To contact the reporter on this story: Allyson Versprille in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Meg Shreve at email@example.com
Text of the 'Avrahami' decision is at http://src.bna.com/rQN.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)