In three recent cases, the U.S. Tax Court found related-party insurance companies (captive insurance companies) didn’t sufficiently distribute risk to allow the insured parties to deduct their premium payments. In an article recently published by Bloomberg Tax, Laurie Bizzell of Bennett Thrasher LLP analyzes the cases, the court’s historical view and the IRS’ position to find there is no conclusive definition of risk distribution.
In an article published in the June 2019 issue of Captive Review, Laurie Bizzell discusses best practices for captive insurance companies as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) focuses on aggressive examination and focus of captive insurance arrangements.
It is critical for clients and practitioners to appreciate the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) historic positions and analysis regarding captive insurance companies, in order to fully understand the current captive insurance tax environment. The following discussion focuses on the relevant authorities contained in the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations, the current views of the IRS as set forth in administrative rulings and pronouncements and decisions dealing with what transactions qualified as insurance, and whether the activities of a related captive insurance company are those of a company primarily and predominately engaged in the insurance business.
Bennett Thrasher’s Senior Manager, Alana Mueller, was featured in an article in Insurance Journal that highlights the July 1 enactment of several business-friendly amendments to Georgia’s captive insurance law.
Alana Mueller, a senior manager in Bennett Thrasher’s Captive Insurance practice, authored a May 29 Viewpoint article for the Atlanta Business Chronicle. The article highlights the key changes to Georgia’s captive insurance laws taking effect July 1, 2015. “Under Georgia’s new law,” she notes, “the premium tax on captive insurance companies drop to 0.4 percent […]
Bennett Thrasher partner, Anton Hayward, was featured on May 28, 2015 in an article about recent changes in Georgia’s captive insurance laws and Bennett Thrasher’s leadership in reviving the Georgia Captive Insurance Association.
Best’s Insurance News & Analysis turned to Alana Mueller, Senior Manager at Bennett Thrasher, for expert commentary in its article, “Georgia Passes Bill to Improve Climate for Captive Insurers.”
Late last night, Georgia took yet another step toward becoming one of the most business-friendly states in the nation with the passage of HB 552.
As stated in a previous article, a captive insurance company is first and foremost in the insurance business and should not be viewed as purely a tax planning vehicle. However, tax saving opportunities can exist with captive insurance companies and these benefits should be enjoyed when the arrangement is properly structured. The following is one example of how this might work.
Bennett Thrasher is proud to be a sponsor of the Vermont Captive Insurance Association Road Show in Atlanta on October 16 where shareholder Anton Hayward will provide the opening remarks. The day-long seminar, entitled “Strategic Advantages of Captives,” focuses on the basics of captive insurance companies; the reasons for formation; the feasibility process; and key issues in putting a successful captive program together.
Over the last several years there has been significant growth in the utilization of captive insurance companies. There are several types of captives including pure or single-parent captives, group captives and other structures, including association captives, segregated cell captives and risk retention groups. A pure captive can be either a large or a small captive. Small captives are sometimes also referred to as micro captives.
Over the past decade captive insurance companies have gained significant exposure both domestically and abroad, but lately it seems that everyone is talking about captives. It is likely that you have heard your colleagues or business associates discussing the pros and cons of forming a captive.