A U.S. Tax Court has ruled against a business owner who used a micro-captive property and casualty insurance arrangement funded with cash, an annuity and a cash-value life insurance policy, agreeing with the Internal Revenue Service that the arrangement "is not insurance for federal income tax purposes."
Judge Christian Weiler found that the taxpayer had not used enough care when picking a tax professional or relied on a sturdy enough authority to defend the arrangement, according to a memorandum describing the ruling.
The judge also found that the taxpayer had underpaid income taxes by too much to avoid facing accuracy penalties.
The ruling calls for the taxpayer to pay a 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty and a 20% accuracy-related penalty.
The judge put off deciding whether the taxpayer should have to pay an extra 40% penalty related to provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 for transactions that have a nondisclosed lack of economic substance.
The case, Kadau v. Commissioner, involves Curtis Kadau, who is the president and owner of Surface Engineering & Alloy Co., a company that produces and sells metal alloy coatings, and his late wife, Lori Kadau.
Lori Kadau died in 2023.
Representatives for Curtis Kadau and the IRS were not immediately available to comment on the ruling.
What it means: Weiler agreed with the Internal Revenue Service position on what counts as "insurance" for income tax purposes in connection with a micro-captive case, and he intends to release another ruling concerning how HCERA provisions regarding an extra 40% penalty apply to micro-captive cases.
Micro-captives: A micro-captive insurance company is a small insurance company that's owned by an individual, a business or a small organization.
The IRS has been expressing skepticism about micro-captives for years, and it has argued that a micro-captive owner should have to provide solid proof that a micro-captive is really providing insurance and does not exist mainly to reduce the owner's taxes.
Micro-captive organizers have argued that well-designed micro-captives provide a good way for the owners to get well-tailored coverage that might be difficult or impossible to get from commercial insurers.
The Kadaus' arrangement: Curtis Kadau started Surface Engineering in 1996.
He began working with a financial advisor who brought up the idea of using a micro-captive in 2012.
Kadau then began working with RMC Group, an advisory firm, to set up the micro-captive arrangement.
A reinsurance pool provided property and casualty insurance for Surface Engineering.
The reinsurance pool helped back a captive insurer, Risk & Asset.
Risk & Asset's investments backed the arrangement, which had its official home in the Caribbean jurisdiction of Nevis, and the assets included cash, a single annuity and a $6 million life insurance policy, according to the memorandum.
The life insurance policy was a "low-commission, high cash-value policy" that "required significant cash outlay at the beginning of the investment" and let the Kadaus borrow against the cash value, according to the taxpayer.
The IRS and Curtis Kadau have been clashing over the micro-captive arrangement for years.
In April 2024, a jury found that the IRS had not proved that RMC affiliates were liable for penalties for promoting micro-captives. The jury ordered the IRS to refund the penalties paid by the RMC affiliates.
The insurance: The IRS found that the arrangement had enough capital to count as insurance in Nevis, but that it was not clear that the captive insurance policies were valid and binding policies.
The premiums appeared to be 2.5 to 3.5 times as high as comparable commercial policies.
"In an arm's-length negotiation, an insurance purchaser would want to negotiate lower instead of higher premiums," the judge wrote in the memorandum.
For the Kaudaus, however, the higher rate led to a bigger tax deduction, and it looks as if "the main advantage of paying higher deductions is to increase deductions," the judge wrote.
Another weakness of the Kadau position is that the claim review committee for the micro-captive arrangement had only two voting members, Kadau and someone from the advisory firm, and Kadau was the only committee member who was actually present and voting when claims were reviewed.
Although the arrangement did pay some claims, "we find the process perfunctory," the judge wrote.
The judge was unimpressed by the arrangement managers' life-insurance-based investment strategy.
"An insurance policy, equal to half of the overall investment portfolio, is simply not the most effective means of investing premiums to hedge against risk," he said.
The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is one of the two federal laws in the Affordable Care Act health insurance law package.
HCERA is the other law in the ACA package.
A "revenue raiser" provision in HCERA imposes an extra 40% penalty on an income tax underpayment that's "attributable to a 'nondisclosed noneconomic substance transaction.'"
The HCERA provision states that a transaction has economic substance only if "the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position" and if "the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction."
"To date, there has been minimal case law addressing these provisions," Weiler wrote in the memorandum. "In none of the micro-captive insurance cases decided to date did this court address whether the transactions lacked economic substance."
Weiler said he has asked for more briefings on the HCERA provisions and would defer ruling on the applicability of the 40% penalty.
Credit: Adobe Stock
© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.