National Protective Ins. Co. v. Commissioner

44 B.T.A. 978, 1941 BTA LEXIS 1251
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedJuly 10, 1941
DocketDocket No. 101709.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 44 B.T.A. 978 (National Protective Ins. Co. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
National Protective Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 44 B.T.A. 978, 1941 BTA LEXIS 1251 (bta 1941).

Opinion

[982]*982OPINION.

Mellott :

Respondent has determined that petitioner is taxable as an insurance company other than life or mutual under section 204 of the Revenue Acts of 1934 and 1936. Petitioner contends that it is a life insurance company within the meaning of section 201 (a) of these acts and entitled to be taxed as such. The section relied upon by petitioner, which is the same under each act, is shown in the margin.1

Petitioner contends that the only reserve it maintained during the taxable years was for the fulfillment of its life contracts; that it had no reserve for its health and accident coverage and none was required by the laws of the state of its incorporation; and that any designation of its unearned premium account as a “reserve” by the Missouri Superintendent of Insurance is immaterial. Respondent argues that petitioner’s unearned premium account is a reserve within the meaning of the phrase “total reserve”, used in .section 201 (a), supra. Petitioner concedes that if this is true then it is taxable as an insurance company other than life or mutual.

Petitioner places its chief reliance upon Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 342, quoting from the Court’s opinion the following:

The term “reserve” or “reserves” has a special meaning in the law of insurance. While its scope varies under different laws, in general it means a sum of money, variously computed or estimated, which, with accretions from interest, is set aside, “reserved”, as a fund with which to mature or liquidate, either by payment or reinsurance with other companies, future unacerued and contingent claims, and claims accrued, but contingent and indefinite as to amount or time of payment.
****** *
Reserves, as we have seen, are funds set apart as a liability in the accounts of a company to provide for the payment or reinsurance of specific, contingent liabilities. They are held not only as security for the payment of claims, but also as funds from which payments are made.

Petitioner contends that in the light of the above definition three essentials of a reserve are lacking in its unearned premium account— first, it is not calculated upon any table of experience or eontin-[983]*983gencies; second, it is not calculated -with reference to accretions from interest; and, third, it can not be used to pay the claim when the contingency forming the basis of the insurance occurs.

The quoted portion of the opinion might indicate that the Court would have held, if such an issue had been before it, that a reserve for unearned premiums was not an insurance reserve. That no such holding would have been made, however, is indicated by the following language: “Unearned premium reserve and special reserve for unpaid liability losses are familiar types of insurance reserves * ⅝

Under date of October 4, 1935, petitioner entered into an agreement with the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of Missouri wherein it agreed to maintain “unearned premium reserves” in the amounts specified in the agreement. The reserve here involved was set aside pursuant to the terms of this agreement. The evidence does not convince us that it differs in any material respect from the unearned premium reserve usually maintained by insurance companies in connection with health, accident, fire, and other kinds of insurance, except life insurance. Its “chief purpose is to enable the company to rid itself of liability for future possible claims when continued excessive losses threaten to use up its surplus and impair its capital to such an extent as may endanger the security of the policyholders, either by paying back the unearned premiums and canceling the policies, or by paying them over to a new insurer to assume and carry out the policy risks.” State ex rel Missouri Life Insurance Co. v. Gehner, 320 Mo. 691; 8 S. W. (2d) 1068; Trenton v. Insurance Co., 77 N. J. Law 757; 73 Atl. 606. State laws usually require that the unearned premium reserve fund consist of the unearned portion of the gross premiums on unexpired and unterminated risks and policies. McKinney’s Consolidated Laws of New York, Annotated, Book 27, sec. 73, p. 104; Page’s Ohio General Code, Annotated, vol. 6, sec. 9362; Michigan Statutes, Annotated, vol. 17, sec. 24.218; Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, ch. 175, sec. 10. Because of the difficulties incident to examining a large number of policies to determine the unearned portion of the premiums, however, some state statutes provide that the reserve be calculated by taking a certain portion of the gross premiums collected. Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes, Annotated, title 40, sec. 91; Heubner-Property Insurance. That, apparently, was what the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of Missouri was doing when he prevailed upon petitioner to set aside the portion of the gross premiums referred to in the stipulation shown in our findings.

In considering the definition of a reserve in Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, supra, it should he kept in mind that the Court [984]*984recognized that the scope of the word varied and it prefaced its definition with the words “in general it means.” The unearned premium reserve of an insurance company other than life or mutual differs from a life insurance reserve in that it ordinarily does not involve a calculation based upon a table of contingency or experience, or take into consideration earnings or interest on the fund, and is not usually used to pay contingent claims when the contingency insured against occurs. It is, however, a basic insurance reserve, a fund set apart to meet certain contingencies, one being the possibility that certain policyholders might cancel their policies and demand the unearned portion of premiums, and the other being that excessive losses and consequent impairment of capital might require the company to cancel the policies and return the unearned premiums to the policyholders, or, in the alternative, pay them over to a new insurer to assume and carry out the policy risks.

In Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 34 Fed. (2d) 185, 197, Circuit Judge Stone, speaking for a statutory court of three judges sitting in the Western District of Missouri, described the unearned premium reserve of a fire insurance company in the following language:

As to the reserve: This has to do with losses under the policies. Although such losses are the exception, they occur. They may happen at any time upon any of such contracts and should, under the contract, he promptly paid. The insurer must be always in a financial position to make such payment. Good business intelligence and integrity would require the maintenance of a liquid fund proportioned to the existing risks. When an insurance business starts, this fund is provided by the capital stock. State statutes usually require a minimum capitalization. As the business grows and the total of assumed risks increases, the fund must be correspondingly increased. Well managed companies carry such “surplus” as seems advisable for such purposes. Naturally, the management of companies would differ as to how much of its income (including premiums) should be thus reserved and how much paid out in dividends. To assure a sufficient reservation for the protection of the policy-holder, the States have enacted laws.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Central Reserve Life Corp. v. Commissioner
113 T.C. No. 19 (U.S. Tax Court, 1999)
National Protective Ins. v. Commissioner
128 F.2d 948 (Eighth Circuit, 1942)
National Protective Ins. Co. v. Commissioner
44 B.T.A. 978 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 B.T.A. 978, 1941 BTA LEXIS 1251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-protective-ins-co-v-commissioner-bta-1941.