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.
When Your Client’s World Is Bigger Than the U.S.
Manasa Nadig, EA
A lot of client meetings still start with the same assumptions: W-2 in a U.S. state, mortgage nearby, a 401(k), maybe some RSUs, and a college-savings plan. Yet many of those “simple” clients now own an apartment in another country, freelance for a foreign company, or have parents wiring money from overseas. The tax code does not see those details as background color; it treats them as organizing facts. This is where citizenship, residency, and domicile quietly step onto center stage. For planners, the challenge is not memorizing every cross-border rule. It is knowing when a client is no longer “just domestic” and shifting your planning framework before you stumble into penalties, double taxation, or blown opportunities.
