1. "Reserve funds required by law," as intended by § 203(a)(2)
of the Revenue Act of 1928 permitting the deduction of a percent of
such funds from gross income in computing the net income of a life
insurance company, are reserves which directly pertain to life
insurance.
Helvering v. Insurance Co., 294 U.
S. 686. P.
299 U. S.
90.
2. Such reserves do not include "survivorship investment funds,"
accumulated by setting aside part of the premiums paid the
insurance company on 20-payment life policies, from which funds
stipulated payments will be made to those of the policyholders who
survive the 20-year period.
Id.
80 F.2d 280, reversed.
Certiorari, 298 U.S. 650, to review the affirmance by the court
below of a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, 30 B.T.A. 11662,
which sustained a deduction made by the insurance company in its
income tax return.
Page 299 U. S. 89
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
In its income tax return for 1929, respondent made a deduction
of $133,755.71. The Board of Tax Appeals held the deduction rightly
taken. 30 B.T.A. 1160, 1162. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
80 F.2d 280. Upon on petitioner's insistence that the decision
below conflicts with
Helvering v. Insurance Co.,
294 U. S. 686, we
granted this writ.
The case involves a construction of a clause of § 203(a)(2),
Revenue Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 842, which declares that, in case of
a life insurance company, net income means gross income less, among
other permissible deductions, an amount equal to 4 percent of the
mean of the reserve funds required by law and held at the beginning
and end of the taxable year. That provision is a reenactment of §
245(a)(2), Revenue Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 261, which, in
Helvering v. Insurance Co., we held not to apply to assets
reserved by a life insurance company against matured,
unsurrendered, and unpaid coupons attached to its policies. That
decision rests upon the ground that the reserves in respect of the
coupon liability were not essentially insurance reserves which
alone constitute the base on which deduction is computed. The
question now for decision is whether respondent's assets reserved
in 1929 in respect of its survivorship investment funds are
included in that base.
The reserves in question conveniently may be described by
reference to a typical policy. Applicable to age 35, it contains
the company's agreement, upon death of the insured, to pay $10,000
to the beneficiary; the annual premium is $379.90, payable for 20
years. The company also agrees that, out of each year's premium
after the first, $64.60 will be placed in the survivorship
investment fund applicable to policies on the survivorship
investment plan issued in the same calendar year; that no
Page 299 U. S. 90
deduction shall be made from the fund; that all contributions to
it shall be accumulated at 3 1/2 percent compound interest; that,
if the insured shall survive the twentieth anniversary of the
policy, the company will apportion to the policy as a survivorship
investment a sum bearing the same proportion to the total in the
fund as the contributions from premiums paid on that policy bear to
the aggregate contributions from premiums paid on all policies in
the same class in force at the end of 20 years. Thus, the entire
fund is divided among the persistent surviving contributors. The
policy provides for optional settlements at the end of 20 years:
(A) the insured may continue the policy as one fully paid up and in
addition receive either cash payment of the survivorship investment
apportioned to it or, if then insurable, a fully paid up life
insurance policy for such amount as would be purchased by the
survivorship investment; (B) the insured may surrender the policy
and receive payment of the cash value, $6,100, and in addition the
survivorship investment.
The mean of petitioner's liabilities in respect of the
survivorship investment funds at the beginning and end of 1929 was
$3,343,982.67, 4 percent of which is the item in controversy.
The phrase "required by law" includes only reserves that
directly pertain to life insurance. Other reserves, even though
required by state statutes regulatory of the business authorized to
be carried on by life insurance companies, are not included. Under
these policies the company's liabilities on account of the
investment funds are independent of those attributable to life
insurance risks. The right to participate in the investment funds
is not dependent upon death of the insured. The company's liability
is the total of contributions to the fund plus the interest agreed
to be paid. It is bound to discharge
Page 299 U. S. 91
this liability at the end of 20 years. Its life insurance
liability arises upon the death of the insured. Ascertainment of
the reserves attributable to that liability involves consideration
of the amount contributed to them out of premiums plus interest for
a period estimated on the basis of mortality.
* The survivorship
investment fund feature of these policies has no relation to life
insurance risks. Under our decision in
Helvering v. Insurance
Co., supra, reserves in respect of that feature are not
covered.
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE STONE took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.
* The laws of Illinois, under which respondent was organized,
declares:
"All valuations made by it [the Department of Trade and
Commerce] or by its authority shall be made upon the net premium
basis. The legal minimum standard for valuation of contracts . . .
shall be the American Experience Table of Mortality with interest
at 3 1/2 percentum per annum."
Cahill's Illinois Revised Statutes (1929), c. 73, par. 331.
It is also declared:
"that, if any company shall issue any nonparticipating policy
under the terms of which any stipulated part of premiums received
is to be placed in a separate fund for subsequent apportionment,
such company shall furnish the Department of Trade and Commerce
each year . . . a statement"
concerning the fund so provided for
"and the amount of said fund at the end of the year, which shall
be carried as a distinct and separate reserve liability of the
company for the benefit of the classes of policies from the premium
payments on which the sum was accumulated. No part of said fund
prior to the time of distribution stipulated in the contract shall
be considered in determining the loan and cash and other surrender
values provided for by this Act. . . . No such policy shall be
issued which, by its terms, shall provide that more than
twenty-five percent of the annual premium shall be placed in such
fund."
Idem., par. 375, § 5-5.