William Coach v. Insurance Company of North America
| Citation | 244 U.S. 585,61 L.Ed. 1333,37 S.Ct. 709 |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 475,475 |
| Parties | WILLIAM McCOACH, Collector of Internal Revenue, Petitioner, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Assistant Attorney General Wallace for petitioner.
Messrs. B. F. Pepper, G. W. Pepper, and Bayard Henry for respondent.
This was an action brought by respondent, a fire and marine insurance company of the state of Pennsylvania, to recover a part of the excise taxes exacted of it for the years 1910 and 1911 under the Act of August 5, 1909, chap. 6, § 38, 36 Stat. at L. 11, 112. As the case comes here, only two items are in dispute, one for each of the years mentioned, representing the tax upon amounts added in each of those years to that part of what are called its 'reserve funds' that is held against accrued but unpaid losses.
The act imposed upon every insurance company organ- ized under the laws of the United States or of any state an annual excise tax with respect to the carrying on or doing business, equivalent to 1 per centum upon its entire net income over and above $5,000, with exceptions not here pertinent. The second paragraph of § 38 provided: 'Such net income shall be ascertained by deducting from the gross amount of the income of such . . . insurance company . . . (second) all losses actually sustained within the year and not compensated by insurance or otherwise, including a reasonable allowance for depreciation of property, if any, and in the case of insurance companies the sums other than dividends, paid within the year on policy and annuity contracts and the net addition, if any, required by law to be made within the year to reserve funds.'
The italics indicate the particular words upon which the controversy turns; the question being whether, within the meaning of the act of Congress, 'reserve funds,' with annual or occasional additions, are 'required by law' in Pennsylvania to be maintained by fire and marine insurance companies, other than the 'unearned premium' or 'reinsurance reserve,' known to the general law of insurance.
The district court rendered a judgment in plaintiff's favor, excluding, however, the disputed items (218 Fed. 905); on plaintiff's writ of error the circuit court of appeals reversed this judgment, with instructions to allow the claim in full (140 C. C. A. 167, 224 Fed. 657); and the case was brought here by writ of certiorari.
Plaintiff was chartered by a special act, but is subject to the state insurance law. Its business is confined to fire and marine insurance.
The law of Pennsylvania (Act of June 1, 1911, P. L. 607, 608) creates a state insurance commissioner with supervisory control over the companies; provides in § 4 that he shall see that all the laws of the commonwealth respecting insurance companies are faithfully executed, authorizing him to make examinations, to have access to all the books and papers of any company, to examine witnesses relative to its affairs, transactions, and condition, to publish the result of his examination when he deems it for the interest of the policy-holders to do so, and to suspend the entire business of any company during its noncompliance with any provision of law obligatory upon it, or whenever he shall find that its assets are insufficient to justify its continuance in business; and whenever he finds any company to be insolvent or fraudulently conducted, or its assets insufficient for the carrying on of its business, he is to communicate the facts to the attorney general. By § 15 every insurance company is required to file annual statements with the commissioner, upon blank forms to be furnished by him, such as shall seem to him best adapted to elicit a true exhibit of their financial condition. Sections 7, 8, and 9, set forth in the margin,1 make specific provisions for ascertaining the reserve for different classes of companies other than life insurance companies. Another act of the same date (P. L. 1911, p. 599) provides for judicial proceedings at the instance of the insurance commissioner looking to the dissolution of insolvent and delinquent companies. Its provisions need not be quoted.
A previous act (April 4, 1873, P. L. 20, 22) required a specified reinsurance reserve against unexpired risks on fire, marine, and inland...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Life Ins Co v. United States, 228
...receipts.1 See New York Life Insurance Co. v. Edwards, 271 U. S. 109, 46 S. Ct. 436, 70 L. Ed. 859; McCoach v. Insurance Co. of North America, 244 U. S. 585, 37 S. Ct. 709, 61 L. Ed. 1333. Compare Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Lederer, 252 U. S. 523, 40 S. Ct. 397, 64 L. Ed. 698. The in......
-
United States v. Consumer Life Insurance Company First Railroad Banking Company of Georgia v. United States United States v. Penn Security Life Insurance Company
...suggests that state regulatory practice cannot be deemed controlling under the doctrine of McCoach v. Insurance Co. of North America, 244 U.S. 585, 37 S.Ct. 709, 61 L.Ed. 1333 (1917) and the many cases in this Court that followed it. See, e. g., United States v. Boston Ins. Co., 269 U.S. 19......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...of Federal income taxation. State insurance regulators are concerned with the solvency of the insurer. McCoach v. Insurance Company of North America, 244 U.S. 585, 589 (1917). Petitioner's expert, Blood, testified that “The primary concern of the [insurance] regulator is really on behalf of......
-
Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 31993-87.
...Life Insurance Co., 294 U.S. 686 (1935); Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 342 (1920); McCoach v. Insurance Co. of North America, 244 U.S. 585 (1917); Monarch Life Insurance Co. v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 716, 723-724 (1938), affd. 114 F.2d 314 (1st Cir. 1940); Art. 203(a)(2)......