June 17, 2019

June 14, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

When US Taxation and Reinsurance Collide

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently affirmed a district court decision holding that the excise tax imposed under 26 USC § 4371 does not apply to wholly foreign retrocession contracts. The term “retrocession” refers to transactions in which one reinsurer buys or sells reinsurance to another reinsurer, and is sometimes referred to as “second-level” reinsurance (in contrast to the provision of reinsurance to an insurance company). The case, Validus Reinsurance, Ltd. v. U.S., No. 1:13-cv-00109, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8602 (D.C. Cir. May 26, 2015), is a relief to the industry because it excludes wholly foreign retrocession contracts from U.S. excise taxes even if risks are assumed from U.S. insurers. It also prevents the possibility of a “cascading” tax where each additional level of reinsurance would result in an additional excise tax.

The 19 page court opinion noted that the relevant language in the statute is ambiguous, and found that each party had raised a reasonable interpretation of what the statute meant. A focus of the court’s analysis was on what the term “covered” meant in the context of reinsurance.  In considering the meaning of “covered,” the court looked to dictionary definitions, statutory materials and case law in considering what meaning would be most appropriate in the insurance context. Ultimately, however, the court was unable to determine if the term was intended to include both direct and indirect coverage of U.S. risks.

The court resolved the ambiguity by applying a presumption against extraterritoriality. This presumption against extraterritoriality is consistent with U.S. federal income taxation as a whole, which imposes taxes on worldwide income only on U.S. persons. Non-U.S. persons are generally only subject to taxation on income for which there is a U.S. connection.

By basing its decision on the presumption against extraterritoriality, the court narrowed the possible scope of the lower court’s decision that it affirmed.  The district court holding would have prevented the application of the excise tax to retrocession transactions between U.S. reinsurance companies and non-U.S. reinsurance companies.

The decision of the appeals court related to only retrocession transactions between nonadmitted non-U.S reinsurers, but some commentators have asserted that it could also be read to apply to reinsurance transactions involving non-U.S. counterparties where U.S. risks are involved.  By statute, there is also an exemption from the excise tax for amounts received by non-U.S. insurers that are effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S. unless such amounts are exempt from tax under a treaty.

The government could move for a rehearing of the case by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or petition the Supreme Court for certiorari.   The IRS is not likely to begin processing refund claims for the excise tax before it decides Whether to appeal.  Nevertheless, reinsurers that have paid the excise tax in transactions that may be covered by the decision and that have not sought refunds should seek to file refund claims sooner rather than later, so that the claims are not barred by the statute of limitations.

© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

George J. Schutzer, Squire Patton Boggs, Tax Matters Lawyer, Corporations
Partner

George Schutzer helps business and nonprofit clients on tax matters, focusing on financing transactions, tax-exempt organizations, partnerships, limited liability companies, leasing, mergers and acquisitions and tax provisions relating to energy, the environment and education. Mr. Schutzer assists tax-exempt organizations in preparing applications for recognition of tax-exempt status and counsels them on limitations on political activity and lobbying, excess benefit transactions, asset sales, unrelated business taxable income, public charity status and deductibility of...

202 457 5273
Mitchell S. Thompson attorney from Squire Patton Boggs
Partner

Mitchell S. Thompson focuses his practice on general corporate taxation and international tax matters. He has extensive experience advising clients on US, non-US and cross-border mergers, acquisitions, dispositions and restructuring transactions as well as structured tax credit transactions including New Markets Tax Credits.

216-479-8794
Alexios S. Hadji Tax Lawyer Squire Patton Boggs
Associate

Alexios Hadji’s practice focuses on tax issues.

Alexios graduated from the New York University School of Law with an LL.M. in Taxation. He had previously earned his J.D. at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

While attending the Moritz College of Law, Alexios served as a judicial extern for The Honorable Jeffrey Sutton of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and was a managing editor of the Ohio State Law Journal.

Prior to law school, Alexios worked in the...

614-365-2705
Larry P. Schiffer Commercial Insurance Reinsurance Litigation Lawyer
Partner

Larry Schiffer practices in the areas of commercial, insurance and reinsurance litigation, arbitration and mediation. He also provides advice on coverage, insurance insolvency, and contract wording issues for a wide variety of insurance and reinsurance relationships. 

Larry is active in legal and insurance industry associations where he has held various leadership positions. He has lectured in the US, Bermuda and the UK, and has been widely published on reinsurance and other insurance, litigation and technology topics in various national and...

646 557 5194