Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

When the ACA’s mandate and SRP were still in effect, a husband and wife (“Taxpayers”) did not maintain the minimum insurance coverage required by the ACA. The taxpayers did not include their $2409 SRP when they filed their 2018 federal tax return. The Taxpayers filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The IRS filed a proof of claim for the unpaid SRP and asserted that its claim was entitled to priority as an income or excise tax under Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Taxpayers objected to the government’s claim of priority. The bankruptcy court granted the objection, concluding that, for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, the SRP is a penalty, not a tax, and therefore is not entitled to priority under Section 507(a)(8). The government appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The district court held that even if the SRP was generally a tax, it did not qualify as a tax measured by income or an excise tax and thus was not entitled to priority. The government thereafter appealed.   The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court concluded that that the SRP qualifies as a tax under the functional approach that has consistently been applied in bankruptcy cases and that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB requires the court to abandon that functional approach. Because the SRP is a tax that is measured by income, the government’s claim is entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. Section 507(a)(8)(A). View "US v. Fabio Alicea" on Justia Law

The Fox and Puchlak filed purported class actions, alleging that Michigan counties seized property to satisfy property-tax delinquencies, sold the properties, and kept the difference between the sales proceeds and the tax debts.. The suits assert that the counties committed takings without just compensation or imposed excessive fines in violation of the Michigan and federal constitutions. Genesee County’s insurance, through Safety, precludes coverage for claims “[a]rising out of . . . [t]ax collection, or the improper administration of taxes or loss that reflects any tax obligation” and claims “[a]rising out of eminent domain, condemnation, inverse condemnation, temporary or permanent taking, adverse possession, or dedication by adverse use.”Safety sought a ruling that it owed no duty to defend or to indemnify. The district court entered summary judgment, finding no Article III case or controversy between Safety and Fox and Puchlak. The court also held that Safety owes Genesee County no duty to defend. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Safety lacks standing to sue Fox and Puchlak over its duty to defend and its claim for the duty to indemnify lacks ripeness. Safety owes no duty to defend; the alleged tax-collection process directly caused the injuries underlying each of Fox’s and Puchlak’s claims. View "Safety Specialty Insurance Co. v. Genesee County Board of Commissioners" on Justia Law

Reserve Mechanical Corp. appealed a Tax Court judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that it did not qualify for an exemption from income tax as a small insurance company and that the purported insurance premiums it received must therefore be taxed at a 30% rate under I.R.C. section 881(a). After review, the Tenth Circuit held that the record supported the Tax Court’s decision that the company was not engaged in the business of insurance. The court had two grounds for deciding that Reserve was not an insurance company: (1) Reserve had not adequately distributed risk among a large number of independent insureds; and (2) the policies issued by Reserve were not insurance in the commonly accepted sense. In addition, Reserve argued that if it was not an insurance company, the premiums it received should have been treated as nontaxable capital contributions. The Tenth Circuit also rejected that argument. View "Reserve Mechanical Corp. v. CIR" on Justia Law

Under the “individual mandate” within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, non-exempt individuals must either maintain a minimum level of health insurance or pay a “penalty,” 26 U.S.C. 5000A, the “shared responsibility payment” (SRP). The McPhersons did not maintain health insurance for part of 2017, and Juntoff did not maintain health insurance in any month in 2018. They did not pay their SRP obligations. In each of their Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, the IRS filed proofs of claim and sought priority treatment as an “excise/income tax”: for Juntoff, $1,042.39, and for the McPhersons, $1,564.The bankruptcy court confirmed their plans, declining to give the IRS claims priority as a tax measured by income. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed. DIstinguishing the Sebelius decision in which the Supreme Court determined that the SRP constituted a “penalty” for purposes of an Anti-Injunction Act analysis and a “tax” under a constitutionality analysis, the Panel concluded that the SRP is not a penalty but a tax measured by income. It is “calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance.” View "In re: Juntoff" on Justia Law

The primary issue in this case was whether imposing sales tax on in-state lessors of business equipment to a title insurer violated Article XIII, section 28(f) of the California Constitution. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) contended it did not because the lessor, not the title insurer/lessee, was the taxpayer. In the Department’s view, whether the lessee reimburses the lessor for its sales tax obligation was strictly a matter of contract and did not implicate the constitutional limit on taxing insurers. Conversely, First American Title Insurance Company (First American) pointed out that in equipment leases not involving an insurer, the state assesses a use tax, not a sales tax. But where, as here, the lessee is constitutionally exempt from paying use tax, Regulation 1660(c)(1) solved that problem by providing that the sales tax applied instead. First American argued that as a result, Regulation 1660(c)(1) imposed a de facto use tax on title insurers in violation of Article XIII, section 28(f). The trial court agreed with First American and ordered the Department to “remove, strike out and otherwise give no force or effect to that portion of Regulation 1660(c)” providing that when the lessee is not subject to use tax, the sales tax applies. The Court of Appeal reversed: “Article XIII, section 28(f) does not prohibit a sales tax whose legal incidence is on a lessor, even though the economic burden of the tax is ultimately borne by the title insurer/lessee.” View "First American Title Insurance Co. v. Cal. Dept. of Tax and Fee Admin." on Justia Law

“Covered persons” as used in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176I, 11 refers solely to natural persons who, as employees, receive insurance coverage for health care services under a group insurance plan, rather than employer entities.At issue in this case was whether, when an employer purchases insurance on behalf of its employees, the insurer owes tax on premiums paid by on or behalf of only those individuals who live in Massachusetts or whether the insurer owes tax on all premiums received from the Massachusetts-based employer regardless of where its individual employees reside. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Tax Board, holding that the term “covered persons” in section 11 refers to the natural person receiving health care coverage under a preferred provider arrangement policy, including his or her spouse and additional dependents, not the employer-organization with whom the insurer contracts. View "Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue" on Justia Law

Pennsylvania statute, prohibiting payment of fire insurance proceeds to named insured when there are delinquent property taxes, is not limited to situations where the named insured is also responsible for those taxes. Conneaut Lake Park, in Crawford County, included a historic venue, “the Beach Club,” owned by the Trustees. Restoration operated the Club under contract with the Trustees. Restoration insured the Club against fire loss through Erie. When the Club was destroyed by fire, Restoration submitted a claim. In accordance with 40 Pa. Stat 638, Erie required Restoration to obtain a statement of whether back taxes were owed on the property. The statement showed $478,260.75 in delinquent taxes, dating back to 1996, before Restoration’s contract, and owed on the entire 55.33-acre parcel, not just the single acre that included the Club. Erie notified Restoration that it would transfer to the taxing authorities $478,260.75 of the $611,000 insurance proceeds. Erie’s interpleader action was transferred after the Trustees filed for bankruptcy. Restoration argued that Section 638 applied only to situations where the owner of the property is insured and where the tax liabilities are the financial responsibility of the owner. The Third Circuit reinstated the bankruptcy court holding, rejecting Restoration’s argument. The statute does not include any qualifications. When Restoration insured the Club, its rights to any insurance proceeds were subject to the claim of the taxing authorities. Without a legally cognizable property interest, Restoration has no cognizable takings claim. View "In re: Trustees of Conneaut Lake Park, Inc." on Justia Law

Vee’s is a Subchapter S corporation wholly owned by Vee, who reports its income on his own tax returns. Vee sought a refund of $40,000 in penalties that the IRS had assessed because he took deductions for contributions to a benefit plan from 2004-2007 but did not file a Form 8886. In a separate Tax Court suit, the government is arguing that the deductions were improper. Contributions to multi-employer benefit plan, like the Vee's, are deductible unless the plan “maintains experience-rating arrangements with respect to individual employers,” 26 U.S.C. 419A(f)(6). Experience rating means that rather than pooling the risks and contributions of all the employees of the different employer-members to determine benefits, benefits are determined separately for each employer according to that employer’s contributions. If contributions go to purchase life insurance policies that accumulate cash value, the contributions are not tax deductible; such a plan is mainly an investment vehicle rather than insurance. Vee’s plan included no medical benefits. Vee’s contribution in ithe first year was $165,000, but the cost of the term life insurance purchased was only $5,400. The difference was invested to earn interest for and is the property of Vee. The district judge denied a refund. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Vee’s plan was enough like the plan described in the IRS notice to require lForm 8886. View "Vee's Mktg., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Authority faced a funding shortfall for at least the period immediately after its opening in 2014. To cover the shortfall, the Authority, with emergency authorization from the District’s Council, levied a charge on all insurance policies above a certain premium threshold sold by health carriers in the District. American Council raised statutory and constitutional challenges to that charge and the district court rejected Council's arguments, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court agreed with the District that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case because the charge levied by the Authority was a tax rather than a fee. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment for lack of jurisdiction and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because the assessment is a tax. View "American Council of Life Ins. v. District of Columbia Health" on Justia Law

Five separate groups of Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies (collectively, “Claimants”) were authorized to provide workers’ compensation coverage in Tennessee. As a result of an audit conducted by the State of Tennessee, Claimants were required, under Tennessee’s retaliatory tax statute, to recalculate their Tennessee taxes to include certain Pennsylvania workers’ compensation charges, file amended tax returns, and remit payment of the additional taxes totaling over $16 million. Claimants paid the taxes under protest. Each Claimant subsequently filed a complaint with the Tennessee Claims Commission (the “Commissioner”) seeking a refund of the retaliatory taxes paid under protest. The Commissioner issued five identical judgments, each granting summary judgment in favor of the State. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation assessments were no longer paid by the insurance companies but were imposed on the employer-policyholders in conjunction with their premium payments, the administrative task of collecting and remitting those payments did not qualify as a burden on the insurance companies for purposes of the retaliatory tax. View "Chartis Casualty Co. v. State" on Justia Law