Captive insurance remains one of the most closely examined tax planning strategies in use today, not because it is inherently flawed, but because small missteps can carry outsized consequences. Many taxpayers assume that careful formation and proper documentation are enough to protect the intended tax outcome. A recent Tax Court decision, Kadau v. Commissioner, serves as a reminder that those assumptions deserve closer scrutiny. The court’s analysis did not hinge on whether captive insurance can work, but on how a specific arrangement actually functioned in practice. For tax professionals advising clients who rely on micro-captives, the case raises important questions about where structures tend to break down, why some arrangements attract IRS attention while others do not, and what really separates a defensible captive from one that invites challenge.
Assessment Statutes and Document Retention Best Practices
When it comes to document retention, my guiding policy is “If I don’t keep it, it can’t be stolen or subpoenaed.” That sounds cynical, but there’s truth in it. The smaller your data “surface area,” the less you have to manage in the event of a data breach (or, if you hold paper documents, in the event of a fire or break in). And, if a client or former client gets really sideways in divorce or criminal court, being able to say “I have a policy in place and I don’t keep records longer than three years” can provide you with a measure of peace. But what should your policy be? It depends, but relevant assessment statutes are a good place to start. This article reviews the IRS rules for assessing tax and provides some best practices for developing document retention policies for return preparation documents in your practice.
