§803 — Life insurance gross income
41 cases·1 followed·3 distinguished·37 cited—2% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §803
For purposes of this part, the term “life insurance gross income” means the sum of the following amounts:
The gross amount of premiums and other consideration on insurance and annuity contracts, less
return premiums, and premiums and other consideration arising out of indemnity reinsurance.
Each net decrease in reserves which is required by section 807(a) to be taken into account under this paragraph.
All amounts not includible under paragraph (1) or (2) which under this subtitle are includible in gross income.
For purposes of subsection (a)(1)(A), the term “gross amount of premiums and other consideration” includes—
advance premiums,
deposits,
fees,
assessments,
consideration in respect of assuming liabilities under contracts not issued by the taxpayer, and
the amount of policyholder dividends reimbursable to the taxpayer by a reinsurer in respect of reinsured policies,
on insurance and annuity contracts.
For purposes of subsection (a)(1)(B)—
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term “return premiums” does not include any policyholder dividends.
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to amounts of premiums or other consideration returned to another life insurance company in respect of indemnity reinsurance.
41 Citing Cases
Petitioner attempts to distinguish this law by arguing that, as of its first taxable year beginning in 1987, TRA section 803(d)(2) changed its method of accounting to conform to - 23 - the UNICAP rules as an operation of law.10 We find that argument unpersuasive.
The UNICAP rules, which generally require capitalization of expenses related to tangible property, were added to the Internal Revenue Code as part of section 803 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (tra), Pub.
§ 803.5(b), petitioner executed a notarized Affidavit of Acquired Person on behalf of CSTC, representing that CSTC had “a good faith intention of completing the transaction.” On June 1, Mr. Bear emailed to Kurt Chisholm, a representative of Fidelity Charitable, a Letter of Understanding signed by petitioner which described the planned donation as b
P) rules under section 263A raised the possibility that traffickers ofcontrolled substances could capitalize indirect inventory costs that section 280E prevented them from deducting as expenses. See Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L. No. 99-514, sec. 803, 100 Stat. at 2350. But in 1988 Congress amended section 263A(a)(2) to say that taxpayers couldn't capitalize costs that were otherwise nondeductible. S_e_e Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (TAMRA), Pub. L. No. 100-647, sec. 10
P) rules under section 263A raised the possibility that traffickers ofcontrolled substances could capitalize indirect inventory costs that section 280E prevented them from deducting as expenses. See Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L. No. 99-514, sec. 803, 100 Stat. at 2350. But in 1988 Congress amended section 263A(a)(2) to say that taxpayers couldn't capitalize costs that were otherwise nondeductible. S_e_e Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (TAMRA), Pub. L. No. 100-647, sec. 10
P) rules under section 263A raised the possibility that traffickers ofcontrolled substances could capitalize indirect inventory costs that section 280E prevented them from deducting as expenses. See Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L. No. 99-514, sec. 803, 100 Stat. at 2350. But in 1988 Congress amended section 263A(a)(2) to say that taxpayers couldn't capitalize costs that were otherwise nondeductible. S_e_e Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (TAMRA), Pub. L. No. 100-647, sec. 10
production costs. Id. at 126-128. 8Former sec. 189 was repealed by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-514, sec. 803(b)(1), 100 Stat. at 2355. - 23 - [*23] Section 263A was included in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 86), Pub. L. No. 99-514, sec. 803, 100 Stat. at 2350, to address, among other things, the expressed concerns ofmismatching and lack ofuniformity. See, e.g., S. Rept. No. 99-313, at 140 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 140. Section 263A generally requires taxpayers who produce
production costs. Id. at 126-128. 8Former sec. 189 was repealed by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-514, sec. 803(b)(1), 100 Stat. at 2355. - 23 - [*23] Section 263A was included in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 86), Pub. L. No. 99-514, sec. 803, 100 Stat. at 2350, to address, among other things, the expressed concerns ofmismatching and lack ofuniformity. See, e.g., S. Rept. No. 99-313, at 140 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 140. Section 263A generally requires taxpayers who produce
production costs. Id. at 126-128. 8Former sec. 189 was repealed by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-514, sec. 803(b)(1), 100 Stat. at 2355. - 23 - [*23] Section 263A was included in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 86), Pub. L. No. 99-514, sec. 803, 100 Stat. at 2350, to address, among other things, the expressed concerns ofmismatching and lack ofuniformity. See, e.g., S. Rept. No. 99-313, at 140 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 140. Section 263A generally requires taxpayers who produce
that Wood v. United States, 377 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1967), and J. Strickland & Co. v. United States, 352 F.2d 1016 (6th Cir. 1965), were decided approximately 20 years before Congress enacted sec. 263A in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 803, 100 Stat. 2350. Petitioner also cited the following cases which concerned the research and experimental expenditures deduction under sec. 174 and years in issue from 1976 through 1984: Harris v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-80 (tax years 19
hould be given collateral estoppel or other preclusive effect. See Rule 39 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner does not contend that those findings should be excluded. See generally 5 Weinstein, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence sec. 803.28 [2] (2d Ed. 1997); 1 Weinstein, sec. 201.12 [3]. Thus, we are presented with a record that includes the California Court’s findings and testimony before this Court from petitioner and DiLeonardo. At trial, we explained our role vis-a-vis t