Casualty Actuaries Society
Tax Issues Associated with
Unpaid Losses
September 12, 2006
Panel
• Dick Bromley-Foley & Lardner
• Craig Pichette-KPMG WNT
• Joseph Long-Internal Revenue Service
Section 832(b)(5)
• A deduction is allowed for “losses
incurred” including “discounted unpaid
losses” as defined in section 846
• “Undiscounted unpaid losses” means
“…the unpaid losses shown on the annual
statement shown in the annual statement
filed by the taxpayer…” (section 846(b)(1))
• Unpaid losses includes LAE
Regs. Sec. 1.832-4
• (a)(5) In computing “losses incurred” the determination of unpaid
losses at the close of each year must represent actual unpaid losses
as nearly as it is possible to ascertain them.
• (b) Losses incurred. Every insurance company to which this
section applies must be prepared to establish to the satisfaction of
the district director that the part of the deduction for “losses incurred”
which represents unpaid losses at the close of the taxable year
comprises only actual unpaid losses…These losses must be stated
in amounts which, based upon the facts in each case and the
company's experience with similar cases, represent a fair and
reasonable estimate of the amount the company will be required to
pay. Amounts included in, or added to, the estimates of unpaid
losses which, in the opinion of the district director, are in excess of a
fair and reasonable estimate will be disallowed as a deduction…
Utah Medical
• Utah Medical Insurance Assn. v. Comm. TC
Memo. 1998-458
• Monoline medical malpractice company
• Tillinghast prepared reserve estimates for years
at issue (1991-1992) using five methods and
complying with actuarial standards
• Unpaid losses were $45.6 M at 12/31/1991 and
$49.4 M at 12/31/1992
• IRS asserted gross undiscounted redundancies
of $13 M for 1991 and $19.3M for 1992
Utah Medical
• Court held for the taxpayer
• Taxpayer’s reserve was within the range,
although at the high end
• Need not use the midpoint of the range
• Need not choose the “best” estimate, only
a “fair and reasonable” estimate
Minnesota Lawyers
• Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Comm., TC Memo. 2000-23
• Primarily wrote professional liability insurance for lawyers during
1993-1995
• Total reserves at EOY’s was approximately $11-12M
• 1993 actuary’s report had a best estimate of $7.8 M v. $11.6 M
booked by company
• 1994 and 1995 actuarial reports developed ranges and point
estimates. Carried reserves were at the high end of the ranges and
in excess of the point estimates.
• Company’s reserve methodology was based upon development of
case reserves with an additional bulk reserve for “adverse
development” of $3-4 M per year.
• IRS disallowed the adverse development reserve and a portion of
the case reserves
Minnesota Lawyers
• Court held for the IRS that reserve for
“adverse development” reserve
• Actuarial methods not used to develop the
reserve, only used to evaluate reserves for
statutory certification
• Court allowed deduction for highest point
estimate determined by an actuary
Physicians Insurance
• Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, TC Memo 2001304
• Medical malpractice writer in Wisconsin
• Tillinghast estimated reserves using five actuarial
methods
• Company used reserves approximately 10 percent
higher than Tillinghasts for years at issue (1993-1994)
• Audit firm held that company’s reserve were reasonable
because of lack of historical experience
• IRS disallowed approximately 40 percent of the reserves
on audit
Physicians Mutual
• Court disallowed the 10 percent excess of
company reserves over Tillinghast point
estimate
• 10 percent excess “not actuarial in nature”
• IRS’ criticism of Tillinghast calculations
was not compelling
TAM 200115002
• “National Office position for the deduction of
‘losses incurred’”
• Taxpayer is not required to use the “most
accurate estimate”, only a “fair and reasonable”
estimate
• Taxpayer’s estimate will be considered “fair and
reasonable” if it is estimated on the basis of a
recognized methodology that is appropriate for
the particular line of business, is in accordance
with actuarial standards, and takes into account
prior experience.
• Use of hindsight is inappropriate
SSAP 55
• 9. Various analytical techniques can be used to estimate
the liability for IBNR claims, future development on
reported losses/claims, and loss/claim adjustment
expenses. These techniques generally consist of
statistical analysis of historical experience and are
commonly referred to as loss reserve projections…The
decision to use a particular projection method and the
results obtained from that method shall be evaluated by
considering the inherint assumptions underlying the
method and the appropriateness of those assumptions to
the circumstances. No single projection method is
inherintly better than any other in all circumstances.
The results of more than one method should be
considered.
SSAP 55
•
10. For each line of business and for all lines of business in the aggregate,
management shall record its best estimate of its liabilities for unpaid claims,
unpaid losses, and loss/claim adjustment expenses. Because the ultimate
settlement of claims is subject to future events, no single claim or loss and
loss/claim adjustment reserve can be considered accurate with certainty.
Management’s analysis of the reasonableness of claim or loss and
loss/claim adjustment expense reserve estimates shall include an analysis
of the amount of variability in the estimate. If, for a particular line of
business, management develops its estimate considering a range of claim
or loss and loss/claim adjustment expense reserve estimates bounded by a
high and a low estimate, management’s best estimate of the liability within
that range shall be recorded. The high and low ends of the range shall not
correspond to an absolute best-and-worst case scenario of ultimate
settlements because such estimates may be the result of unlikely
assumptions. Management’s range shall be realistic and, therefore, shall
not include the set of all possible outcomes but only those outcomes that
are considered reasonable.
SSAP 55
• 12. In the rare circumstance when, for a particular line of business,
after considering the relative probability of the points within
management’s estimated range, it is determined that no point within
management’s estimate of the range is a better estimate than any
other point, the midpoint within management’s estimate of the range
shall be accrued. It is anticipated that using the midpoint in the
range will be applicable only when there is a continuous range of
possible values, and no amount within that range is any more
probable than any other…This guidance is not applicable when
there are several point estimates which have been determined as
equally possible values, but those point estimates do not constitute
a range. If there are several point estimates with equal probabilities,
management should determine its best estimate of the liability.
ASOP 36
• 3.3.2(c) Determination of Redundant or
Excessive Provision-When the stated
reserve amount is greater than the
maximum amount that the actuary
believes is reasonable, the actuary should
issue a statement of actuarial opinion that
the stated reserve amount does not make
a reasonable provision for the liabilities
associated with the specified reserves.
ASOP 36
• 4.6(e)-If the actuary determines that thte
stated reserve amount is redundant or
excessive, the actuary should disclose the
amount by which the stated reserve
amount exceeds the maximum amount
that the actuary believes is reasonable.
SOX 404
• Documentation of procedures around
methodology for determination of reserve
amounts
• Documentation of controls around the
determination of the reserve amount
Current Environment
• Deference to actuarial computations v.
management determinations
• Hindsight
• Importance of ranges
• SSAP 55 requirements
• Documentation and control environment
• Actuarial standards
Current Environment
• Relatively few adjustments on exam
– Cycle of underreserving?
– Taxpayer friendly court decisions?
– Better documentation and controls?
– Appeals Conference experience?
• Current IRS exam approach
– Use of actuaries
– Audit techniques
Questions