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.
Reassessing R&D Structures After the Section 174 Changes
Ted Stotzer
Recent changes to the tax treatment of research and experimental (“R&E”) expenditures may warrant a fresh look at existing intellectual property (“IP”) and research and development (“R&D”) structures. This article examines whether taxpayers should revisit decisions regarding the location of R&D activities, IP ownership, contract R&D arrangements, and related transfer pricing policies in light of the evolving legislative landscape, and how the interaction of Sections 174, 168(k), 59(e), and 163(j) can be used to calibrate a tax-efficient result.
