New York Life Ins Co v. Bowers Bowers v. New York Life Ins Co

Citation75 L.Ed. 1005,283 U.S. 242,51 S.Ct. 399
Decision Date13 April 1931
Docket Number160,Nos. 93,s. 93
PartiesNEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. BOWERS. BOWERS v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. James H. McIntosh, of New York City, for New York Life ins. co.

The Attorney General and Mr. Claude R. Branch, of Providence, R. I., for Bowers.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

The company sued the collector in the District Court, Southern District of New York, to recover capital stock taxes exacted under section 1000(c) of the Revenue Act of 19181 for four years ending June 30, 1922. A jury was waived, and the case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts. The court held the taxes for the first three years were rightly collected, and as to the causes of action alleged on account of them dismissed the complaint. It held that by reason of the Revene Ac t of 1921, 42 Stat. 227, 261, the capital stock tax did not apply to the last year, and gave plaintiff judgment for the amount paid for that period. 34 F.(2d) 60. On the company's appeal (No. 93 here) and the collector's cross-appeal (No. 160) the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 39 F.(2d) 556.

The company is a New York corporation without capital stock engaged in mutual life insurance on the level premium plan. It made a return for each of the years showing no tax. After auditing the returns, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed the taxes in question.

By means of an accepted mortality table and an assumed rate of interest, the company calculates the amount that would be required to be paid by the insured each year in advance to cover policy claims if deaths occur as indicated by the table and if that rate of interest is realized on the investments. The amount so ascertained is called the net or mathematical premium. There is added loading to cover expenses and unforeseen contingencies such as excess mortality, diminished taxes. The premium so built up is named in takes. The premium so built up is named in the policy and constitutes the maximum that the company may require the insured to pay.

The amount by which the premium exceeds the company's actual cost must be returned to the policyholder. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Lederer, 252 U. S. 523, 525, 40 S. Ct. 397, 64 L. Ed. 698. Some of the company's policies are on the annual dividend plan, which requires it to account for divisible surplus and to make yearly distribution to the policyholders. The other policies are on the deferred dividend plan and provide for holding the overpayments to the credit of the deferred dividend policyholders as a class, accumulating them at interest and paying to each holder of a policy in force at the time designated therein his share of the accumulated sum.

As soon as practicable after the expiration of each calendar year, the company takes an account of its business, ascertains the surplus earned that year, and determines the amount which safely may be distributed out of the surplus for that and prior years. By the laws of New York and of other states, where the company does business, it is required annually to file a statement showing, among other things, income and disbursements in, and its assets and liabilities at the end of, the preceding year. Item 35 on the form used shows dividends apportioned and payable to annual dividend policyholders to and including December 31 following. Item 36 covers dividends apportioned and payable to deferred dividend policies in the same period. Item 37 shows the amounts set apart, apportioned, provisionally ascertained, calculated, declared, or held awaiting apportionment upon deferred dividend policies not included in item 36.

Section 1000(c) imposes a tax on each mutual insurance company's 'surplus or contingent reserves maintained for the general use of the business.' The Commissioner based the capital stock taxes for each year on the total of items 35, 36, and 37 as disclosed by the company's annual statements filed for the years ending respectively December 31, 1917, 1918, 1919, and 1920.

1. These items represent surplus within the meaning of subdivision (c).

The sums to be paid as dividends are not a part of the insurance specified in the policies. They are derived from amounts which, from abundant caution, are included in the advance premiums over and above hat is found by actual experience to be necessary to pay the cost of the insurance and the expenses of carrying on the business. They indicate a 'surplus,' i. e., assets in excess of what is deemed necessary to provide for the payment when due of the amounts specifically covered by the policies.

No money or property is set aside on account of such dividends. The items in question do not constitute liabilities. They are merely accounting entries to show the amounts presently available for dividends currently payable and as well the fund accumulated in respect of deferred dividends. Such entries are analogous to those in ballance sheets of business corporations which show capital stock as a liability. And until actually paid out as dividends the money or securities used for that purpose properly may be deemed to be maintained for 'the general use of the business.'

Under the company's construction of subdivision (c) it was not liable for the tax for any year while the 1918 act was in force. According to its returns it had no 'surplus or contingent reserves.' The company does not suggest, and there is no reason to suppose, that, in respect of assets properly so to be classed, it is not typical of mutual insurance companies generally. When regard is had to the well-known and necessary practice of mutual insurance companies to collect in advance premiums in excess of total costs and to pay dividends out of the resulting surplus, it is clear that the company's construction is unreasonable. It would operate to defeat the plainly expressed purpose of Congress to impose a capital stock tax on mutual insurance companies.

2. The company contends that in any event subdivision (b) of section 1000 requires that item 37 be excluded from the amount used to measure the excise.

That provision is: 'In computing the tax in the case of insurance companies such deposits and reserve funds as they are required by law or contract to maintain or hold for the protection of or payment to or apportionment among policyholders shall not be included.' The legislative history of section 1000 goes far to make its meaning clear. Section 407 of the 1916 act imposed upon corporations a special excise measured by the value of their capital stock. 39 Stat. 789. Its scope was not clear. At first the Treasury Department ruled that, as mutual insurance companies have no capital stock, the section did not apply to them. Regulations 38, art. 2(b). That construction was later reversed. Regulations 38 (Revised) art. 3. And see Lumber Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Malley (D. C.) 44 F.(2d) 553.

In the bill for the Revenue Act of 1918 as it passed the House, section 1000 was substantially the same as section 407 of the 1916 act. The Senate substituted provisions to tax the incomes of insurance companies. In conference, the original section 1000 was restored, and there was added to it the provision in paragraph (c) which specifically declares that the taxes imposed by that section shall apply to mutual insurance companies. The provision added was complete in itself. It specified the rate and indicated the basis on which the tax was to be calculated; it was adequate to govern the ascertainmet of the amount, and there is nothing to indicate an intention that the language there used should be modified by anything in subdivision (b). It is clear that (c) was intended exclusively to govern mutual insurance companies, and that (b) applies only to stock insurance companies.

3. The company insists that section 1000 of the 1918 act did not impose a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Guiseppi v. Walling
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 27, 1944
    ...R. Co., 91 U.S. 72, 85, 23 L.Ed. 224; L. Hand, J., in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bowers, 2 Cir., 39 F.2d 556, 559, affirmed 283 U.S. 242, 51 S.Ct. 399, 75 L.Ed. 1005. 9 Addison v. Holly Products, Inc., 64 S.Ct. 1215, 10 When, pursuant to statute, courts make rules governing practice and proc......
  • Geller v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • October 8, 2002
    ...shall be returned to the policy holder." Lederer, 252 U.S. at 525, 40 S.Ct. 397; see also New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bowers, 283 U.S. 242, 244, 51 S.Ct. 399, 75 L.Ed. 1005 (1931) (referring to excess premium paybacks of mutual insurance company as dividends). This process has been aptly expl......
  • Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1963
    ...York Life Ins. Co., 273 N.Y. 1, 6 N.E.2d 74, 108 A.L.R. 1197; Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lederer, supra; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bowers, 283 U.S. 242, 51 S.Ct. 399, 75 L.Ed. 1005; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 3 Cir., 198 F. Since a mutual company is operated wholly for the ben......
  • Omaha Nat. Bank v. O'MALLEY, Civ. No. 495.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • October 29, 1946
    ... ... consideration of her own convenience during life rather than of the bestowal of her substance on ... v. Bowers, 2 Cir., 68 F.2d 916. Its recent study has also ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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