Further Guidance for Employers Providing Benefits Through Captives


On May 8, 2014, the IRS released Rev. Rul. 2014-15 (available here). The ruling provides guidance to the growing number of employers electing to insure or re-insure employee benefits through captive insurance arrangement. The ruling considers an arrangement by a corporation (CORP-X) to provide health insurance benefits to CORP-X’s retirees through a captive arrangement. The benefits are provided on a voluntary basis (CORP-X has no obligation to provide the benefits) through a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) plan funded by CORP-X. The VEBA acquires insurance coverage for the retiree health benefits from an unrelated insurance company. The IRS ruling states that the  participation of the unrelated insurance company in the arrangement is a condition of an exemption from certain prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA. The unrelated insurance company reinsures 100% of the risk with a captive insurance company wholly-owned by CORP-X. The re-insurance contract is the captive’s only contract.
While the IRS has never defined “insurance” in its code or regulations, the IRS follows the definition of insurance set forth in the US Supreme Court case of Helvering v. Le Gierse, 312 U.S. 531, 539 (1941). In that case, the court held that in order for an arrangement to constitute  insurance for federal income tax purposes, the arrangement must include risk shifting and risk distribution. In the most recent ruling, the IRS takes the position that the risk being insured is a benefit provided to the retired employees and their dependents; specifically, the risk being insured is not CORP-X’s risk. Therefore, the risk being insured by the captive is considered to be 100% “unrelated” to the risk of CORP-X (the captive’s parent). As 100% of the risk in the captive is unrelated, the arrangement satisfies the test for risk distribution. As a result of such risk distribution and other facts set forth in the ruling, the IRS concludes that (i) the reinsurance contract between the captive and the unrelated insurance company is an insurance contract, and (ii) the captive is an insurance company.

Written by:

Published In:


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.