Unum Life Ins. Co. v. US, Civ. No. 87-0354 P.

Decision Date02 March 1989
Docket NumberCiv. No. 87-0354 P.
Citation709 F. Supp. 13
PartiesUNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maine

Barbara H. Furey, Asst. Counsel, UNUM Life Ins. Co., Portland, Me., for plaintiff.

David R. Collins, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Me., and Chris Kleifoth, Trial Atty. Tax Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

GENE CARTER, District Judge.

Plaintiff UNUM1 is a life insurance company organized under the laws of the State of Maine. UNUM brings this action challenging the collection of federal income tax deficiencies from UNUM for the calendar years 1977 and 1978, in the amounts of $2,630,303 and $2,747,840, respectively, as a result of an audit by the Internal Revenue Service. UNUM is subject to taxation under sections 801-820 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code), 26 U.S.C. §§ 801-820 (1970), which sections were added to the Code by the Life Insurance Company Income Tax Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 112. See Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 420 F.Supp. 1181 (D.Me.1976), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 570 F.2d 382 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 821, 99 S.Ct. 87, 58 L.Ed.2d 113 (1978).

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(1). The case was tried before the Court, sitting without a jury, and counsel has briefed and argued this action fully. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. INTRODUCTION

The 1959 Act divides the calculation of an insurance company's taxable income into three distinct phases. Phase I computes the taxable portion of the company's investment income, its "taxable investment income." Code sections 804-806. Phase II computes the "underwriting gain," focusing on the company's gain or loss. Code sections 809-812. Phase III computes the company's taxable income as it concerns certain distributions to stockholders. Code section 815. After each phase's computation is complete, taxable income is computed under Code section 802(b) to be the sum of (1) the lesser of Phase I or Phase II income; (2) 50% of the excess, if any, of Phase II income over Phase I income; and (3) Phase III taxable income, if any. The sum thus calculated is then taxed at the normal corporate rate. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 420 F.Supp. at 1185.

The issues presented in this case relate solely to the calculations required for the Phase I determination of taxable investment income. The Phase I computations are intended to divide the company's investment income into two parts, one of which is nontaxable and the other taxable. The nontaxable portion of investment income is that which is allocable to reserves held to meet the company's obligations to policyholders. The balance is the taxable portion available to the company for other purposes. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 420 F.Supp. at 1185.

The Phase I computation of nontaxable policyholder share of investment income begins with a calculation of "policy and other contract liability requirements." Code section 804(a). Section 805(a) defines "policy and other contract liability requirements" as the sum of (1) the adjusted life insurance reserves, multiplied by the adjusted reserves rate, (2) the mean of the pension plan reserves at the beginning and end of the taxable year, multiplied by the current earnings rate, and (3) the interest paid. To arrive at the nontaxable policyholder share of investment income, the "policy and other contract liability requirements," calculated as the sum of life insurance reserves, pension plan reserves, and interest paid, are divided by the taxpayer's investment income after expenses. The result is the percentage of the company's net investment income to be set aside as the nontaxable policyholder's share. Section 804(a).

The dispute now before the Court centers around UNUM's calculation of its "policy and other contract liability requirements" under Code section 805(a).2 Specifically, UNUM claims that a certain Deposit Fund Liability, described infra, should not be considered a "pension plan reserve" as this term is defined in Code section 805(d). If the Deposit Fund Liability is determined to be a pension plan reserve, then interest UNUM paid to that Fund will be determined by multiplying the average amount of that Fund during the year in question by the average rate of return UNUM earned on its assets during that year. Code section 805(a)(2). If, on the other hand, the Deposit Fund Liability is not considered a pension plan reserve, then UNUM can deduct all amounts actually paid in interest to the Deposit Funds in the determination of its nontaxable investment income under Code section 805(a)(3). In arguing that the Deposit Fund Liability is not a pension plan reserve, UNUM is seeking a full deduction for the interest it actually paid to the Fund in the calculation of its nontaxable investment income, rather than a deduction based on UNUM's average rate of return earned and the Fund's average balance for the years in question.

The Code section 805(d) definition of a pension plan reserve begins by saying that the term means "that portion of the life insurance reserves" which is allocable to specific types of contracts. Thus, according to the Code, in order for a specific fund to be a pension plan reserve, it must first be a life insurance reserve. It is UNUM's position that the Deposit Fund Liability is not a life insurance reserve, and is, therefore, not a pension plan reserve.

Code section 801(b) sets forth the definition of a life insurance reserve. To meet the definition of a life insurance reserve, an amount must be (a) computed or estimated on the basis of recognized mortality or morbidity tables and assumed rates of interests, and (b) set aside to mature or liquidate future unaccrued claims.3 Unless the Deposit Fund Liability meets both of the Code section 801(b) requirements, the Fund is not a life insurance reserve. And, unless the Fund is a life insurance reserve, it cannot be a pension plan reserve for purposes of calculating UNUM's taxable and nontaxable investment income.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS

During the years 1977 and 1978, UNUM had in force certain group annuity contracts which were issued to employers and other qualified pension plans to fund retirement benefits for their employees and other participants. While these contracts varied somewhat in their terms, they are similar in that the contract holder could deposit sums of money with UNUM in an account termed the "Deposit Fund" or the "Fund." The contracts gave the contract holder the right to withdraw sums of money from the Deposit Fund at its discretion, to be applied by UNUM to certain specified purposes. Among these purposes could be to pay a lump sum benefit directly to plan participants or employees, or to purchase an annuity for a retired plan participant or employee.

The Deposit Fund functioned, in fact, very much like a simple bank savings account. The terms of the contracts determined the amount of interest that UNUM would pay on the Deposit Fund balance. Interest was paid periodically, either monthly or daily, at the rate established in the individual contract. The contract also permitted UNUM to deduct established administration costs and certain expense charges. The balance of the Deposit Fund was determined on a periodic basis by taking the sum of all deposits made by the contract holder, adding all interest credits earned, and deducting all administration charges and withdrawals. The contract holder received periodic written statements reflecting these changes in the Deposit Fund balance. The aggregate of each of these contract Deposit Fund balances is known as the Deposit Fund Liability.

The Deposit Fund served as an account out of which contract holders could purchase benefits or annuities for its plan participants or employees. The Deposit Fund's balance was entirely discretionary to the contract holder. The contract holders could direct a lump sum payment out of the Fund to plan participants or employees, or could direct the use of Fund monies to purchase an annuity for a retired participant or employee. In addition, the contract holders had discretion in determining the amount of the deposits to the Deposit Fund. Some contracts obligated the contract holders to deposit all Fund contributions within a minimum to maximum range, while others left the contributions entirely to the contract holders' discretion. In most cases, UNUM made no representations regarding the sufficiency of the Fund to provide the benefits the pension plan might be required to provide.4

In addition, the contract holder was entitled to terminate the contract and demand a distribution of the Deposit Fund. In such circumstances, the contracts provided that UNUM could retain a certain amount of the disbursement of the Fund balance. This charge, which varied according to the contract and manner of disbursement in range up to 6% of the Fund balance, was known as the "load."5 The load, in effect, is profit retained by UNUM in the event that the contract holder withdraws funds from the Deposit Fund.

It is the Government's argument that the aggregate of these Deposit Funds, known as the Deposit Fund Liability, meets the requirements of the definition of "life insurance reserve" under Code section 801(b), which are that the reserve must be computed or estimated on the basis of recognized mortality or morbidity tables and assumed rates of interest, and also must be set aside to mature or liquidate future unaccrued claims. As stated above, a failure to meet the Code section 801(b) definition of life insurance reserves means that the Deposit Fund Liability cannot be a pension plan reserve, thus permitting UNUM to deduct all amounts actually paid as interest to the Deposit Funds in the determination of its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • USAA Life Ins. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • March 26, 1990
    ...Cir. 1978); Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 408 F.2d 842, 844-845 (4th Cir. 1969); UNUM Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 709 F. Supp. 13, 14 (D. Me. 1989), affd. in part, vacated in part ___ F.2d ___ (1st Cir., March 6, 1990). This Court, however, regards each of......
  • UNUM Life Ins. Co. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 4, 1989
    ...rate that UNUM itself earned, on average, on its own investments--an amount that turns out to be somewhat smaller. The district court, 709 F.Supp. 13, held, on the basis of the factual record, that the relevant amounts did not meet the statutory definition of "pension plan reserves." See IR......
  • US v. Brundage, Crim. No. 87-0209.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • April 3, 1989

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