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.
Lessons Learned from the Tax Court: What’s at Stake?
Matt Metras, EA
Astute readers of this publication may recognize that I frequently write on Cryptocurrency and also on Tax Court cases. It feels like Christmas to me to be able to write about a tax court case about crypto. This is only the Third Tax court case to even mention crypto, and the first to look at the underlying principles of taxation. (The other two were about including crypto assets in a CDP hearing and a frivolous tax protester argument). Today’s case, Paschall v. Commissioner, is about the taxation of staking income.
