CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES
Risk Pools are generally used in the captive insurance sector to allow each participating captive insurance company to lay off a portion of its risk to like captives, so as to minimize the captive's particular exposure to the particular risk.
However, risk pools are often used for the purpose of creating third-party insurance so that businesses that cannot meet the multiple-insured safe harbor for risk distribution, can instead meet the 50% third-party safe harbor. These risk pools are typically embodied in insurance companies that are owned by the captive manager, but may also be owned by independent purveyors of third-party risk.
In recent years, risk pools that used primarily to create third-party risk have come under heavy scrutiny by the IRS, with the Service's primary challenge being that such pools are "insufficiently risky" and in many cases are little more than a vehicle for premiums to briefly stop over while (non-existent) risk distribution is claimed.
At any rate, a captive considering participation in a risk pool should thoroughly vet the risk pool through independent counsel and not merely swallow the promoter's representations that risk distribution will be provided.
IRS Global Settlement Initiative
831(b) RISK-POOLED CAPTIVE INSURANCE TAX SHELTERS COURT OPINIONS
Avrahami v. Comm'r, 149 T.C. No. 7 (Aug. 21, 2017).
Reserve Mechanical Corp. v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2018-86, 2018 WL 3046596, T.C.M. (RIA) 2018-086, 2018 RIA TC Memo 2018-086 (June 18, 2018).
Syzygy Ins. Co. v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2019-34 (April 10, 2019).
Foreign Insurance Excise Tax - Audit Technique Guide, April 2008
Foreign Insurance Excise Tax - Audit Technique Guide, April 2008 (no longer published by the IRS apparently).
NOTE: This document is not an official pronouncement of the law or the position of the Service and cannot be used, cited, or relied upon as such. This guide is current through the publication date. Since changes may have occurred after the publication date that would affect the accuracy of this document, no guarantees are made concerning the technical accuracy after the publication date.
Chapter 9 - Pooling of Risks
When risks are substantial or unusual, a company may not be able to obtain insurance through a regular insurance company. Pooling arrangements may be used to secure insurance in these situations.
Pooling is defined as an organization of insurers or reinsurers through which particular types of risks are underwritten with premiums, losses, expenses, and profits shared in agreed ratios. This is also known as an “association” or “syndicate”. An example of pooling would be a group of six unrelated roofing companies within a geographical area coming together to form an offshore insurance company.
Reasons for Pooling Arrangements
Two reasons why pooling arrangements may be formed are as follows:
Type of Industry
Pooling arrangements are established along an industry line such as in construction, the legal profession, or petroleum. Each of these industries has its own risks which are specific to that type of industry. For example, petroleum companies are exposed to risks of damage from pollution, wild oil or gas well fires, and the transportation of fuel oil, to name a few.
Refusal of Others to Accept Risk
Based upon the type of risk and the probability that the risk will occur, traditional insurance companies may refuse to insure the risk or set the premiums at such a high amount that it is not economically feasible to insure the risk. By grouping together in a pooling arrangement, the risks can be insured and/or lower premiums can be secured.
In order for a pooling arrangement to be treated as true insurance the following characteristics generally must be present:
Note: The facts and circumstances of the case along with the six characteristics above are to be considered when determining whether a pooling arrangement is true insurance. Also, coordination with the income tax agent on the case is necessary.
A pooling arrangement is established in Bermuda to insure the risks of six unrelated bridge construction companies against the damages incurred should a bridge fail due to faulty construction. Each of the six owns an equal amount of the insurance company, and has provided an equal amount of capitalization for the insurance company.
Premiums for casualty insurance are determined in accordance with regular insurance standards with adjustment for the type of bridges being constructed and other industry risks specific to each company. The insurance company accepts only the risks of the six construction companies.
In this example, as long as the risk of loss is shifted and distributed, the arrangement would be treated as true insurance. Excise tax would be imposed on the premium payment from each of the entities to the Bermuda insurance company.
Risk-shift and Risk-distribution
As discussed in Chapter 6 concerning captive insurance companies, in order for insurance to exist, there must be risk-shift and risk-distribution. If the members of the pool do not commingle the premium funds and share in the losses, there is no risk-shift and no risk-distribution. Essentially, each of the members is self-insuring through their personal capital accounts.
This is brought forth in the case of Helvering v. LeGirse, 312 U.S. 531 (1941), and also in Rev. Rul. 60-275, 1960-2 C.B. 43.
In the case of pooling, as long as the risk of each of the insureds is shifted or distributed amongst the other members of the pool, insurance exists. Insurance would not exist if each of the pooling members paid funds into their own capital account and their loss transactions are paid out of only that member’s capital account.
In this latter case, none of the members bear any risk of loss for another member’s risks. The damage payments would be paid out of the individual member’s capital account; therefore, the risk of loss remains with that member. Therefore, it is important to ensure that there is risk-shift and risk-distribution for all members of the pool. The taxpayer will need to be questioned as to how premium payments are made to the pool (do they go to a commingled account or to the taxpayer’s account?) and how losses are paid out (are they paid out of a commingled account or from the taxpayer’s account?). A copy of the financial statements of the pool should be requested from the taxpayer and reviewed to verify that the funds are commingled.
Effect on Income Tax
When there is a lack of risk-shift and risk-distribution, no insurance is deemed to exist and the taxpayer is allowed a refund of previously paid excise tax on the premiums paid. Although the adjustments are not in favor of the Government on the excise tax side, adjustments on the income tax side include issues such as the disallowance of the insurance premium expense deduction. Again, it is important that the excise agent work closely with the income agents on the case to coordinate the determination of whether true insurance exists.
Pooling as a Form of Captive Insurance
Pooling arrangements for insurance are a form of captive insurance. Although there is more than one insured and the insureds are not related according to stock ownership, the pool will not accept risks outside the type of industry risks being insured. Thus, it is only the risks of the pooling insureds which are accepted. The number of members in the pool can vary from as few as two to an infinite number depending upon the type of industry and the number of insureds interested.
As long as none of the shareholders owns a controlling interest in the entity and the premium funds are commingled, there is a pool. If one entity owns a controlling interest, there is no pool. Instead, there is a partnership or a parent-subsidiary relationship with outside ownership interests.
Pooling and Section 953(d) Elections
Under the requirements of making a section 953(d) election, the foreign corporation (foreign insurance company) must be a controlled foreign corporation with ownership by a United States shareholder equal to or more than 25 percent. There must be a controlling interest. However, in a pool situation, none of the shareholders can own a controlling interest. Therefore, pools can not obtain and hold a section 953(d) election. Premiums paid to a pool located in a country not holding and meeting the requirements of an exemption under a treaty with the United States are taxable.
Adkisson's Captive Insurance Companies available at Amazon.com
2020.12.31 ... U.S. District Judge Denies Blanket Assertion Of Attorney-Client Privilege In Moore Ingram Microcaptive Promoter Audit Case
2020.10.22 ... IRS Announces A Second Settlement Initiative For Abusive Microcaptive Tax Shelters But With Much Stricter Compliance Requirements Requiring Independent Counsel
2020.10.02 ... IRS Warns Microcaptive Shelter Penalties To Get Much Worse, Taking On The Puerto Rico Deal And Other Next-Generative Captive Shelters
2020.09.23 ... U.S. Tax Court Affirms Most Penalties In Patel Microcaptive Shelter Case But Kicks Out Some For IRS Procedural Errors
2020.09.12 ... Microcaptive Manager Artex And Related Professionals Dodge The Class Action Bullet In Shivkov
2020.09.10 ... GAO Report To Grassley At Senate Finance Slams Offshore Microcaptive And Variable Life Insurance Transactions
2020.08.24 ... Buyers Of Jade Risk Get Taken To Woodshed In Litigation Arising From Merger Of Captive Insurance Managers
2020.08.08 ... IRS Sends Second Wave Of Soft Letter Warnings To Certain Captive Owners For A busive Microcaptive Transactions
2020.07.27 ... Microcaptive Tax Shelter Promoter Investigation Of Moore Ingram Law Firm Leads To Attorney-Client Privilege Issues With Client Documents
2020.07.22 ... U.S. Tax Court Approves Penalties For Microcaptive Transaction In Oropeza
2020.06.24 ... The U.S. Department Of Justice Files Suit To Enforce An IRS Summons Against The Delaware Department Of Insurance For Artex Transactions
U.S. Tax Considerations For Captive Arrangements
§ 831(b) Captives
Expert ... Expert witness and available for consultation as an expert regarding captive insurance company matters
Evaluation & Formation ... Jay has been involved with the formation of well over 100 captive insurance companies since 1998, and now assist prospective captive owners in evaluating their suitability for a captive, and in forming the captive and obtaining its insurance license
Litigation ... Frequently serves as counsel in disputes involving insurance companies
Remediation & Closing ... Remediation and termination of defective captive arrangements, and consulting and second-opinion reviews of existing captives
MORE INFORMATIONAL WEBSITES BY JAY ADKISSON
Adkisson's Captive Insurance Companies (2006) available at Amazon.com
Contact Jay Adkisson:
Phone: 702-953-9617 Fax: 877-698-0678 jay [at] jayad.com
Unless a dire emergency, please send me an e-mail first in lieu of calling to set up a telephone appointment for a date and time certain.
Las Vegas Office: 6671 S. Las Vegas Blvd., Suite 210, Las Vegas, NV 89119, Ph: 702-953-9617, Fax: 877-698-0678. By appointment only.
Newport Beach Office: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 210, Newport Beach, California 92660. Ph: 949-200-7773, Fax: 877-698-0678. By appointment only.
Admitted to practice law in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas.
Jay is a Managing Partner of Adkisson Pitet LLP.
© 2021 Jay D. Adkisson. All Rights Reserved. No claim to original government works. The information contained in this website is for general educational purposes only, does not constitute any legal advice or opinion, and should not be relied upon in relation to particular cases. Use this information at your own peril; it is no substitute for the legal advice or opinion of an attorney licensed to practice law in the appropriate jurisdiction. This site is https://captiveinsurancecompanies.com