The Internal Revenue Service has made no secret of its increased scrutiny of captive insurance arrangements, particularly those involving the small insurance company election. For taxpayers and their advisors, this has created understandable concern and, in some cases, hesitation about whether captive insurance remains a viable risk management and tax planning tool. Yet heightened scrutiny does not mean prohibition. The Internal Revenue Code continues to recognize captive insurance, Congress has refined it, and courts evaluate it based on well-established insurance principles. The real issue is not whether captives are allowed, but whether a specific taxpayer has a legitimate business need for insurance, has structured the arrangement properly, and has implemented it in a manner consistent with both tax law and insurance fundamentals. Understanding where scrutiny arises, how elections function, and what separates compliant captives from problematic ones is critical for CPAs advising closely held businesses today.
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.
