The Ruling on Reserve Mechanical Corp. v. Commissioner, and Impact to Captive Insurance Tax Benefits
Beckett Cantley Geoffrey Dietrich This article provides an overview of the May 13 th , 2022, U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Reserve Mechanical Corp. v. Commissioner , and analyzes its likely impact on the aggressive captive insurance company (“CIC”) industry. A much longer and broader discussion of this topic will be published in our forthcoming article in the U.C. Davis Business Law Journal.
How Reserve Mechanical Corp v Comm affects captive insurance tax benefitsA storm has been brewing in the tax world, and there may be no safe harbor in sight for participants in aggressive captive insurance schemes. On May 13th , 2022, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a major defeat to one of these aggressive captive insurance schemes. In a landmark case, Reserve Mechanical v. Commissioner , the Court found that the transactions that the Captive Insurance Company (CIC) Reserve Mechanical had engaged in were not insurance and therefore Reserve Mechanical was not an insurance company. As a result, Reserve Mechanical could not take advantage of the federal income tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 501(c)(15). This tax exemption allows a CIC to not pay tax on whatever premiums are paid to it, up to a certain threshold. Tax planners would be paid to set up CICs for business owners and the business owners would then pay premiums to the new CIC while the CIC books those premiums as tax exempt income. These premiums are often determined without actuarial data and with a poorly produced risk pool consisting of other CICs managed by the tax planners engaged in the scheme.
The benefits of Captive Insurance Companies (CICs)With correct planning CICs stand to obtain favorable tax treatment under IRC Sections 501(c)(15) and 831(b). This creates a tax exemption for insurance companies whose gross receipts for the tax year do not exceed $600,000 under IRC Section 501(c)(15) or $2.3 Million under IRC Section 831(b). These exemptions are treated identically with the only difference being the level of exemption permitted under the statute. The use of CICs for businesses with a true and real economic need for them does not, in and of itself, constitute an abusive tax transaction. However, despite the real economic circumstances that would call for the use of CICs, the practices of several tax planners in the CIC world have become flagrantly abusive. This abuse has colored CICs in the IRS’ eyes such that even those who have a very real need for the use of CICs may become potential targets of IRS audits.
As a CIC, Reserve was owned by the same people that owned Peak.The original Reserve Mechanical Corp. v. The Commissioner case came down before the U.S. Tax Court on June 18 th , 2018. Reserve Mechanical Corp (“Reserve”) was a CIC formed to insure Peak Mechanical & Components Inc. (“Peak”). As a CIC, Reserve was owned by the same people that owned Peak. The three issues at hand in this case were
- whether the transactions that Reserve engaged in were insurance resulting in the right to the IRC Section 501(c)(15) exemption;
- whether Reserve was a domestic corporation under IRC Section 953(d); and
- if Reserve was not an insurance company and did not make a valid IRC Section 953(d) election, whether it could be taxed 30%.
Factors that drove IRS’s assessment that Reserve was not an insurance companyThe IRS’s assessment that Reserve was not an insurance company was based on several factors.
- The first, was that the transactions that Reserve engaged in constituted a circular flow of funds. Peak would pay premium payments to Reserve for direct coverage.
- Reserve would then take these premiums and pay them to the CIC risk pool, PoolRe, as reinsurance by attempted risk distribution across a number of other CICs also paying into the risk pool. Peak would then also pay premiums to PoolRe in exchange for stop-loss insurance from PoolRe.
- Lastly, PoolRe would pay the same stop-loss premium amount it received from Peak to Reserve to insure the same stop-loss coverage it had with Peak.
IRS ruled in favor of the IRS on all issues.The Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of the IRS on all issues. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling against Reserve was damning. In the words of the court:
- Reserve has not presented any argument as to why a factfinder could not infer that Peak’s intent was simply the intent to create a plausible insurance company through which Peak could obtain a substantial tax deduction without reducing the funds available to its two owners. The intent behind the act does not change just because the act failed to achieve its purpose. [Emphasis added]
- The Tenth Circuit’s comments make it clear that it does not see Reserve as being run like a legitimate business. The court found that there was no evidence of any reasonable risk assessments to determine whether Peak needed any of the additional policies. The court noted that Reserve prepared policies that only lasted for a month in a rush to obtain a large business deduction for Peak in 2008, and that this behavior was “laughable”.
- The Tenth Circuit also held that the re-insurance policies that Reserve held with PoolRe did not distribute risk and that if anything the previous Tax Court decision understates the compelling evidence that these re-insurance arrangements were a “sham”.
- The Tenth Circuit held that they would have emphasized different evidence than the Tax Court, but that the Tax Court’s conclusions were supported by overwhelming evidence in the record.
Reserve raised no persuasive challenges to the Tax Court’s conclusion.No experience, expertise, or studies supported the need for Peak to obtain the issued policies. Further, the Tenth Circuit found that Reserve raised no persuasive challenges to the Tax Court’s conclusion. Despite one of Reserve’s expert witness’ testimony that commercial insurance policies were available as an alternative to several of the Reserve policies, Reserve provided no evidence that anyone compared the rates on such policies or otherwise considered industry standards in determining its premium rates. Instead, the record suggests that Reserve based the rates on the premiums charged by other captive insurers managed by Capstone.
Inconsistencies in Reserve’s business practices created doubt in perception as a bonafide insurance companyThe Tenth Circuit doubted the actuarial methodology used to determine the premiums, and determined that these insurance contracts were not negotiated at arm’s length. The many inconsistencies in Reserve’s business practices made it impossible for the Tenth Circuit to take seriously Reserve’s claim that it was a bonafide insurance company engaged in the business of insurance. As a result, the Tenth Circuit’s decision that Reserve’s policies were not actual insurance feels like a layup and the intensity of the court’s contempt for this aggressive CIC program should be very concerning to other similarly situated CIC owners.
Decision in Reserve Mechanical Corp. – a major boost in the IRS’s overall attack on aggressive CIC tax programsThe 10 th Circuit decision in Reserve Mechanical was a major boost in the IRS’s overall attack on aggressive CIC tax programs. If Reserve had won on appeal, then the aggressive CIC industry would have at least one major case to stand on. The IRS’s Reserve Mechanical win was the biggest in a line of IRS wins in cases on similar grounds. As such, the aggressive CIC industry must either change its ways or close up shop, because the IRS appears determined to shut it down one way or another, and the judiciary is giving it all the ammunition it needs to do so. View Original Document
The Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”) is an important part of administrative procedure law and a crucial piece of the United States tax system. Enacted to help expedite the tax revenue process, the Act works to invalidate any lawsuit to restrict the assessment or collection of taxes. Nonetheless, having the power to bar standing and having the right to do so are two completely different things. For instance, while the AIA gives the power to bar suits brought against administrative rulemaking processes, the Act does not give this right unless the suit was brought with the purpose of restraining the assessment of a tax.
Does a Tax Return Filed in the United States Virgin Islands (“USVI”) Start the IRS Statute of Limitations?
The Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) § 6662(a) permits the IRS to impose a twenty-percent (20%) accuracy-related penalty to an underpayment of tax, and there are several different defenses to this penalty depending on the facts of the case and the reason for the penalty. One of the most common accuracy-related penalties is the negligence penalty. Although there are multiple different reasons for the application of an accuracy-related penalty, only one penalty may be applied for each understatement.
Wells Fargo v. US: A Potential Beginning of The End of The Objective Reasonable Basis Tax Penalty Defense
The Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) § 6662(a) permits the IRS to impose a twenty-percent (20%) accuracy-related penalty to an underpayment of tax, and there are several different defenses to this penalty depending on the facts of the case and the reason for the penalty. One of the most common accuracy-related penalties is the negligence penalty. Although there are multiple different reasons for the application of an accuracy-related penalty, only one penalty may be applied for each understatement. If a taxpayer faces the negligence penalty, one common defense is that the taxpayer’s return position has a reasonable basis under the relevant authorities. Until recently, most courts simply proceeded through a discussion on whether the authorities supported the taxpayer’s return position, and did not even reach whether the taxpayer actually relied on relevant authorities when forming a return position. However, over the past few years, several courts have begun to require a subjective actual reliance component to the reasonable basis standard, in addition to the other requirements described under the regulations. This article explores these concepts more in detail in six parts.
Since his election, there have been non-stop court battles over President Trump’s refusal to release personal financial information. Several House Committees have sought President’s Trump's personal information on multiple different grounds, each claiming a valid legislative purpose for needing the information. President Trump argues the subpoenas do not serve a valid legislative purpose and that the House Committees are seeking this information to release to the public. The various sides have been locked in legal battles for years, with no end in sight.
This article is discussing
the same lawsuit discussed elsewhere in this issue, Shivkov v. Artex Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-
04514-GMS (D. Ariz. Dec. 6, 2018), but references a different plaintiff. It should be noted that Mr. Cantley
has a cocounsel arrangement with the tax shelter practice of Loewinsohn Flegle Deary Simon LLP, counsel
for the plaintiffs.
Beckett G. Cantley teaches international taxation at Northeastern University and is a shareholder in Cantley Dietrich PC. Geoffrey C. Dietrich is a shareholder in Cantley Dietrich PC.
In this article, Cantley and Dietrich discuss two recent Tax Court opinions and their implications for section 831(b) captive insurance companies.
Beckett G. Cantley, The Tax Shelter Disclosure Act: The Next Battle in the Tax Shelter War, 22 Va. Tax Rev 105 (2002). Summary. This article analyzed the most important sections of the draft “Tax Shelter Disclosure Act” (“TSDA”), including the significant amendments to the Internal Revenue Code that would have been made by the TSDA. Two of the main provisions of the TSDA define what constitutes a “tax shelter” and raise the penalties associated with tax shelters. The article synthesized and analyzed the criticisms of several important organizations who issued public comments on the legislation and provided policy assessments of its likely benefits and burdens.
Beckett G. Cantley, Taxation Expatriation: Will the Fast Act Stop Wealthy Americans from Leaving the United States?, 36 Akron L. Rev. 221 (2003). Summary. This article analyzed the recently enacted legislative solution to the problem of wealthy American citizens expatriating to a foreign nation to avoid taxes. The article also discussed the last major attempt to prevent tax expatriation through the enactment of IRC Section 877 and the fact that Section 877 was being easily circumvented by tax expatriates and their advisors. To stem the tide of tax expatriation, certain tax provisions were added to the Foreign and Armed Services Tax Fairness Act (“Fast Act”) that would bolster the previsions existing under Section 877. Under the draft Fast Act, two of the ways tax expatriates will be punished are by (1) treating all of the tax expatriate’s holdings as if they had been sold the day before expatriation, thereby triggering all inherent capital gains on the holdings and (2) requiring that estate taxes due from the death of a tax expatriate be collected against a domestic heir of the tax expatriate, rather than the tax expatriate’s estate. The article analyzes the operational and policy implications of the FAST Act, and concluded that while it adds additional deterrents to tax expatriation, it cannot eliminate it.
Beckett G. Cantley, Corporate Inversions: Will the REPO Act Keep Corporations from Moving to Bermuda?, 3 Hous. Bus. & Tax. L.J. 1 (2003). Summary. This article discussed the attempted legislative solution to the issue of “corporate inversions.” A company undertakes a corporate inversion by forming a company in an offshore tax haven and then having the US based company become a subsidiary of the offshore company. The result is that the offshore tax haven does not tax the offshore company on its profits and the US based company is not taxed on its offshore profits. In addition, the US based company may also undertake an “earnings stripping” program to have significant US income redirected to the non-taxable offshore company. The article discussed draft legislation called the “Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore Act” (“REPO Act”), which would have amended the IRC in several significant ways to prevent companies from undertaking corporate inversions. The article analyzed the draft REPO Act from an operational and policy perspective and concludes that the draft REPO Act will likely prevent corporate inversions.