Steere Tank Lines, Inc. v. U.S., 76-3543

Citation577 F.2d 279
Decision Date28 July 1978
Docket NumberNo. 76-3543,76-3543
Parties78-2 USTC P 9605 STEERE TANK LINES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Charles M. Meadows, Jr., Ronald M. Mankoff, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Michael P. Carnes, U. S. Atty., Martha Joe Stroud, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., Gilbert E. Andrews, Chief, Appellate Section, Ann B. Durney, Aaron P. Rosenfeld, Attys., Tax Div. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Steere Tank Lines, Inc., which transports petroleum products in Texas and in interstate commerce, is required by the Interstate Commerce Commission and state regulatory agencies to show evidence of financial responsibility for payment of accident claims. The sole issue in this case is whether the $222,000 paid by Steere in 1972, the tax year in question, was an insurance premium and hence a deductible business expense under § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 162(a), or essentially a nondeductible reserve for accident claims. Holding it to be in the nature of a reserve payment, and not an insurance premium, we affirm the district court.

In 1964, Steere entered into an agreement with Tri-State Insurance Company, which denominates Steere as the "principal" and Tri-State as the "surety." Under that agreement, Tri-State provides Steere with an evidence of financial responsibility bond, but Steere agrees to indemnify Tri-State for all claims against it. The terms of the agreement are such that, effectively, the only risk Tri-State has is if Steere becomes insolvent.

Steere is obligated to pay two premiums to Tri-State each year. Steere paid a premium based upon a percentage of its gross revenues, with the minimum annual premium to be $6,000, for Tri-State's providing the evidence of financial responsibility. This premium was nonrefundable. In addition Steere agreed to make payments into the "contract premium account." These payments, based upon a larger percentage of its gross revenues, amounted to $222,000 for 1972. It was from the contract premium account that claims against Steere were to be paid. Any excess amounts paid into the account over amounts paid out for claims and administrative costs are returned to Steere after six years (representing the maximum statute of limitations period for tort claims). Thus, every cent paid into the contract premium account could be returned to Steere if no claims were brought against it.

After a bench trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, District Judge Robert Hill ruled that the agreement "failed to demonstrate the ordinary indicia of a legitimate insurance arrangement," since it neither shifted the risk of loss to Tri-State nor involved a genuine pooling of risk. He therefore held that the $222,000 paid into the contract premium account by Steere was not deductible as an expense in 1972. He did, however, allow Steere to deduct the $114,000 paid out of that account in 1972 to settle claims against Steere.

We affirm on the basis of Judge Hill's opinion, annexed hereto as an appendix, which sets out the facts of this case in greater detail.

In its briefs and oral argument before this Court, Steere has relied heavily on the Eighth Circuit opinion in United States v. Weber Paper Co., 320 F.2d 199 (8th Cir. 1963). In that case, several businesses which were unable to get flood insurance set up a reciprocal, inter-insurance plan, under which they paid yearly premiums to a corporation they set up for that purpose. Payments for losses were made, pro rata, from the fund composed of all subscribers' premiums. If a subscriber withdrew from the plan, up to 99% of its premium payments could be returned if no losses had been paid out of the common fund. The Eighth Circuit held the premiums paid under this plan to be deductible business expenses.

The Government asserts that Weber was wrongly decided. Compare Rev.Rule 60-275, 1960-2 Cum.Bull. 43. We need not decide whether we would follow Weber, because we find it to be distinguishable from the present case. In Weber, a subscriber's premium payment would be used to pay flood losses suffered by other subscribers. Thus, there was an element of risk shifting to the insurer, which in turn distributed that risk of loss among all subscribers. Risk shifting or risk distribution is one of the requisites of a true insurance contract. In the present case, there was no shifting of the risk, since Steere was obligated to pay all losses. The premium contract account could be used only to pay losses suffered by Steere or its owner-lessors, but Steere was obligated to pay premiums for its owner-lessors, so in effect, Steere's losses were to be paid only out of a fund made up of premiums Steere had paid. Thus, there was no risk distribution by Steere either.

In addition, we note one additional fact which indicates that this was not an insurance arrangement. ICC regulations provide that in order to engage in interstate commerce within a state which requires a motor carrier to maintain evidence of bodily injury and property damage liability security, the carrier must file with that state either "(1) a currently effective certificate of insurance or (2) surety bond." 49 C.F.R. § 1023.51 (1976). The regulations require the certificate or bond to follow the forms set out in the regulations. See 49 C.F.R. §§ 1023.52-.53 & Forms E & F (certificate of insurance); id. § 1023.54 & Form G (surety bond). Steere filed a surety bond and not a certificate of insurance with the ICC and the appropriate Texas state agency. This lends additional support to the conclusion that the $6,000 payment was the premium required for the evidence of financial security (surety bond), and the $222,000 payment was in the nature of a reserve for payment of any claims against Steere.

AFFIRMED.

APPENDIX

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

(Number and title omitted)

(Filed: June 15, 1976)

This cause came on for hearing before the Court without a jury, the Honorable Robert M. Hill, United States District Judge, presiding. After considering the evidence and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

1. The plaintiff, Steere Tank Lines, Inc. (Steere) seeks a tax refund of $50,197.32 from the defendant, United States of America (government) for Steere's fiscal year ending February 29, 1972.

2. Steere is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas which is engaged in the business of transporting petroleum products in Texas and other states and in interstate commerce.

3. The issue before the court is whether $222,092.07 Steere allegedly paid for insurance expenses in fiscal year 1972 is a deductible business expense as that term is defined in § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 162(a). The issue of deductibility in this case turns on whether Steere's insurance arrangement and payments pursuant to that arrangement are characterized as fixed and definite payments or deposits to a reserve account. The government characterizes Steere's insurance arrangement as essentially self-insurance. Steere characterizes this arrangement as a form of retrospective insurance policy. Steere further argues that this arrangement was the only means available to it to obtain adequate and necessary insurance protection. Steere therefore says a valid business necessity or purpose justifies the unusual nature of its insurance arrangement.

4. Proper characterization of Steere's insurance arrangement is controlled by its agreements with a company called Adjustment and Inspection Company (A & I) and the ostensible insurer, Tri-State Insurance Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma (Tri-State). The parties have stipulated that these agreements governed the parties' rights and their actions conformed to the agreements.

5. The Interstate Commerce Commission and state regulatory agencies require Steere to be properly insured against accident claims arising from the operation of its trucks in such states and in interstate commerce.

6. Prior to 1959 Markel Insurance Company carried Steere's liability insurance coverage. Markel cancelled Steere's coverage in 1959 due to Steere's continued adverse claims experience.

7. Tri-State agreed to provide the I.C.C. and other agencies with the evidence of financial responsibility required by those agencies pursuant to an agreement executed between Tri-State and Steere on March 1,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Comm'r
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • January 14, 2014
    ...... (the "Liabilities") not to exceed Twenty-Five Million US dollars (US $25,000,000). Accordingly, Rent-A-Center DOES ... Steere Tank Lines, Inc. v. United States , 577 F.2d 279, 280 (5th ......
  • Gulf Oil Corp.. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 22499-82
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • November 24, 1987
    ...are absent from an insurance contract, the fundamental aspects of an insurance agreement are lacking. See Steere Tank Lines, Inc. v. U.S., 577 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 946, 99 S.Ct. 1424, 59 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979). In that case, the Court stated that ‘a taxpayer who esta......
  • Malone & Hyde, Inc. v. Commissioner, Docket No. 5901-85.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • December 14, 1993
    ...funds are monitored by an independent agent or insurance company. See Steere Tank Lines. Inc. v. United States [78-2 USTC ¶ 9605], 577 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1978); Spring Canyon Coal Co. v. Commissioner, supra. The Internal Revenue Code does not define the term "insurance". Moreover, the regul......
  • Wright v. Commissioner, Docket No. 1000-90.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • July 26, 1993
    ...v. Le Gierse [41-1 USTC ¶ 10,029], 312 U.S. 531, 539 (1941); Steere Tank Lines Inc. v. United States [78-2 USTC ¶ 9605], 577 F.2d 279, 280 (5th Cir. 1978). Petitioners argue that FIR was a legitimate reinsurer and that it assumed full risk for the insurance policies ceded to The purchase of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Captive insurance companies: opportunities and pitfalls.
    • United States
    • The Tax Adviser Vol. 38 No. 5, May 2007
    • May 1, 2007
    ...of risk, there is no insurance. The mere appearance of shifting and spreading risk is not sufficient; see Steere Tank Lines, Inc., 577 F2d 279 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. den. An element of "fortuitousness" is required (i.e., an arrangement that hedges a simple business or investment risk does n......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT