Oxford Life Ins. Co. v. United States
Decision Date | 03 October 1983 |
Docket Number | No. CIV 81-1176 PHX CAM.,CIV 81-1176 PHX CAM. |
Citation | 574 F. Supp. 1417 |
Parties | OXFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Stephen E. Silver, Burch & Cracchiolo, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff.
James P. Loss, U.S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., Nancy Morgan, Trial Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
This case involves a claim for recovery of taxes paid in connection with a reinsurance transaction entered into between Oxford Insurance Company, plaintiff herein, and Pioneer Insurance Company.
The dispute herein involves the computation of premium income reported by Oxford on its 1973 income tax return, the deductibility of an acquisition cost on a reinsurance transaction, and the timeliness of an election made pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 818(a).
Defendant, United States, filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff filed a cross-motion. In addition, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike portions of the plaintiff's cross-motion. In making the following findings of fact, the Court considered all of the motions filed, together with the pertinent responses and replies, as well as the oral arguments of the parties, which were made in open court on June 13, 1983.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
(1) Oxford Life Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff, was incorporated in 1965, with its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona.
(2) In December of 1973, Plaintiff learned that it would acquire from the Pioneer Insurance Company of Lincoln, Nebraska, hereinafter referred to as Pioneer, a block of insurance business, consisting of approximately ten thousand 20-payment whole life policies, written since 1968.
(3) Pursuant to certain documents, entitled Reinsurance Agreement and Amendment to Reinsurance Agreement, dated December 28, 1973, Oxford assumed liability for Pioneer's life insurance policies.
(4) The provisions of the Reinsurance Agreement are not disputed by the parties, and are as follows:
(4) Plaintiff contends that during negotiations held prior to entering into the Reinsurance Agreement with Pioneer, certain inherent problems of the policies were revealed, including:
(5) Nevertheless, Defendant contends, and Plaintiff does not deny, that several tax advantages to Plaintiff would result from the acquisition of the block of subject policies from Pioneer.
(6) In any event, in accordance with the Reinsurance Agreement mentioned above, a block of policies with a face amount of $58,672,232.00 was assumed by Plaintiff.
(7) Plaintiff was on a preliminary term basis of computing reserves for state insurance department regulatory purposes.
(8) Pursuant to the preliminary term basis, Plaintiff was required to set aside $3,952,531.00 as reserves to cover this particular block of business and also assumed liabilities of Pioneer on the policies, totalling $262,400.23; Pioneer then transferred tangible property consisting of debt instruments owed by outside parties to it in the total amount of $1,714,931.23.
(9) On its 1973 federal income tax return, Plaintiff deducted assumed liabilities in the amount of $262,400.23 and the reserve it was required to set aside to cover the Pioneer policies, but elected to recompute those reserves on a net level premium basis, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 818(c), thereby increasing the deduction for increase in reserves from $3,952,531.00 to $5,101,677.00.
(10) On its 1973 federal income tax return, Plaintiff reported as income the $1,714,931.23 tangible property it had received from Pioneer, and also filed its Annual Statement with the Insurance Department for the State of Arizona, indicating net consideration in the same amount.
(11) The Annual Statement was audited by the Insurance Department of the State of Arizona and approved, and the 1973 and 1974 federal income tax returns were also audited by the Internal Revenue Service, hereinafter referred to as IRS.
(12) Pursuant to the IRS audit, a Statutory Notice of Deficiency for the 1973 and 1974 tax years was issued to Plaintiff for federal corporate income tax deficiencies of $770,205.62 and $351,898.61 plus interest and penalties.
(13) On November 5, 1976, Plaintiff filed a protest with the IRS regarding the proposed adjustments for 1973 and 1974.
(14) However, on or about March 4, 1979, Plaintiff paid the assessments in full.
(15) On March 21, 1980, Plaintiff filed a refund claim with the IRS for the 1974 tax year, claiming a refund for the amount of $351,898.61 contained in the Statutory Notice of Deficiency.
(16) As grounds for its claim, Plaintiff noted that "Recalculations of reserves and of tax should be made due to allowance of Taxpayer's § 818(c) election made on 1973 Income Tax Return and appropriate corresponding adjustments for calculations of Taxpayer's 1974 Income Tax liability will result in a refund of at least the amount claimed hereon."
(17) On or about May 26, 1980, the IRS refunded the tax, penalties and interest in the amount of $487,713.97 to Plaintiff for the 1974 tax year.
(18) On or about November 12, 1980, Plaintiff filed a claim for refund of its 1973 income taxes, penalties and interest in the amount of $1,132,600.41, which claim was disallowed by the IRS by its letter dated October 16, 1981.
(19) On October 26, 1981, Plaintiff then filed its Amended Complaint for refund of its 1973 income taxes, penalties and interest, and Defendant counterclaimed, seeking a repayment of Plaintiff's 1974 income taxes, penalties and interest erroneously refunded.
Defendant has moved the Court to strike portions of the Affidavit of Mr. Ted Wilkins, which was appended to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, served on Defendant on March 6, 1983.
The statement made by Mr. Wilkins which is objectionable to Defendant concerns his characterization of the interpretation of Mr. Werner Marwitz of the definition for the useful life of an insurance policy. Defendant denies that the purported interpretative statement was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beynon v. Montgomery Cablevision Ltd. Partnership
... ... United States, 456 F.Supp. 127 (D.Del.1978), aff'd, 605 F.2d 1194 ... Page 482 ... moments of [the decedent's] life for their finding and award." Id. at 238. The court ... ...
-
O'Gilvie v. U.S.
...passed on the report, we see no constitutional or statutory impediment to judicial review of refunds. Cf. Oxford Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 574 F.Supp. 1417, 1428 (D.Ariz.1983), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 790 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that it could not ru......
-
Oxford Life Ins. Co. v. U.S., 84-2835
...taxes paid in 1973 and grant of summary judgment for the government on Oxford's erroneous refund counterclaim for 1974. See 574 F.Supp. 1417 (D.Ariz.1983). Oxford sought to recover federal income taxes paid in connection with an assumption reinsurance transaction in which it acquired a bloc......
-
United States v. Town of Lowell, Ind.
...of Mr. Olsen's affidavit which may contain inadmissible evidence or otherwise violate Rule 56. See Oxford Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 574 F.Supp. 1417, 1422 (D.Ariz.1985); Chambless v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan, 571 F.Supp. 1430, 1459 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Cohen v. Ayers, 449 F.Sup......