Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Life
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Upload your resume securely at https://www.dwsimpson.com
to be contacted when new jobs meet your skills and objectives.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-19-2017, 01:19 PM
Numbers Nerd's Avatar
Numbers Nerd Numbers Nerd is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Midwest
College: University of Wisconsin
Favorite beer: Ale, Lager, you name it
Posts: 1,599
Default

Here is the link to the bill coming out of Conference, along with a cut-and-paste of the Table of Contents page that details the Life Insurance Company changes. Note in particular the 8% tax reserve haircut (#9) and the increase in DAC tax rates and deferral years (#11). Note the house bill had a proposed 8% surtax on Life Insurance Company income, which got dropped in conference.

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...15HRPT-466.pdf

H. Insurance 318
1. Net operating losses of life insurance companies (sec. 3701 of the House bill, sec. 13511 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 810 of the Code) 318

2. Repeal of small life insurance company deduction (sec. 3702 of the House bill, sec. 13512 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 806 of the Code) 319

3. Surtax on life insurance company taxable income (sec. 3703 of the House bill and sec. 801 of the Code) 319

4. Adjustment for change in computing reserves (sec. 3704 of the House bill, sec. 13513 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 807 of the Code) 320

5. Repeal of special rule for distributions to shareholders from pre-1984 policyholders surplus account (sec. 3705 of the House bill, sec. 13514 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 815 of the Code) 321

6. Modification of proration rules for property and casualty insurance companies (sec. 3706 of the House bill, sec. 13515 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 832 of the Code) 323

7. Modification of discounting rules for property and casualty insurance companies (sec. 3707 of the House bill and sec. 832 of the Code) 324

8. Repeal of special estimated tax payments (sec. 3708 of the House bill, sec. 13516 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 847 of the Code) 327

9. Computation of life insurance tax reserves (sec. 13517 of the Senate amendment and sec. 807 of the Code) 330

10. Modification of rules for life insurance proration for purposes of determining the dividends received deduction (sec. 13518 of the Senate amendment and sec. 812 of the Code) 333

11. Capitalization of certain policy acquisition expenses (sec. 13519 of the Senate amendment and sec. 848 of the Code) 336

12. Tax reporting for life settlement transactions, clarification of tax basis of life insurance contracts, and exception to transfer for valuable consideration rules (secs. 13518 through 13520 of the Senate amendment and secs. 101, 1016, and 6050X of the Code) 337
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-19-2017, 01:49 PM
E's Avatar
E E is offline
Eddie Smith
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: May 2003
College: UGA
Posts: 8,999
Default

I think the bigger implication with this round of tax reform isn't so much the immediate impacts. I see it as a signal of tax law instability. I think there's an excellent chance that tax code revisions will begin happening more frequently than they have in the past (years between updates instead of decades), and it will be interesting to see how insurers price that.
__________________


Learn how FSA exams are different from the prelims

We have your exam covered:

LP | LFV-U | LFV-C | LRM | ERM | QFI Core | QFI Adv | QFI IRM | G&H Core | G&H Adv | G&H Sp

Check out our Technical Skills Course and our new R Course!

Connect on Twitter, Facebook, & LinkedIn
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-19-2017, 03:48 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 82,405
Blog Entries: 6
Default

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2017/12/...paign=12182017

Quote:
5 Key Life and Health Sections in Final Tax Bill
Spoiler:
The new, combined version of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act bill, could cost life insurers about $22 billion over the period from 2018 through 2027.

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, originally proposed a version of the tax bill that would raise about $22 billion, by combining a $7 billion change in the tax rules for life insurers' deferred acquisition cost (DAC) expenses, or spending on activities such as marketing, underwriting, and paying agents' and brokers' commissions, with a $14.9 billion change in life insurers' reserving rules.

Over in the Senate, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, proposed generating about $23 billion in revenue by simply changing the DAC rules.

The current version, which was produced by a House-Senate conference committee, appears to be more like the original Brady bill than it is like the Senate bill.

RELATED

Tax Bill May Cut Prudential’s RBC Ratio but Boost Its Profits
The company’s CFO says overall solvency measures could improve, and lead to new thinking about solvency standards.

(Related: GOP Releases Final Tax Cut Bill)

The conference report version would generate $7.2 billion over 10 years with DAC accounting changes, and $15.2 billion over 10 years with life insurance tax reserve changes, according to revenue analyses posted by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Documents

The House Ways and Means Committee has posted links to information about H.R. 1, including the text, here.

The Senate Finance Committee has posted its H.R. 1 documents here.

The PDF that contains the full text of H.R. 1 is 1,101 pages long.

For laypeople, the easiest way to start to understand the bill may be to look at the "estimated revenue" tables posted by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).

In the revenue tables, JCT analysts try to predict how each H.R. 1 provision is likely to affect federal government revenue.

The section for the life insurance provisions takes up less than half of a page in each revenue report.

Even if the JCT revenue forecasts turn out to be wrong, the estimates can help show which provisions seem to likely to have a big effect on insurers' finances.

Here, for example, is the JCT revenue table for the version of H.R. 1 that Brady posted on the House Ways and Means website on Nov. 2.

Here's a JCT revenue table for the first version of H.R. 1 that Hatch posted on the Senate Finance Committee website on Nov. 9.

Here's the JCT revenue table for the new conference report version of H.R. 1, which reconciles the differences between the House version of the bill and the Senate version.

Floor Action

The House Rules Committee will be meeting to package H.R. 1 for House floor action at 5 p.m. Eastern time Monday. House leaders say they hope to vote on the bill Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not yet said when the Senate might vote. For McConnell, one obstacle is that both Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., have been battling health problems that kept them off work.

In theory, lawmakers could send the bill back to the conference committee for further work, but they cannot amend the bill on the House or Senate floor.

Insurance Provisions

Of course, any section in the bill could turn out to be of critical importance to some agents.

Provisions of interest to anyone who pays taxes include the ones that would nearly double the standard deduction, eliminate personal exemptions, keep the medical expense deduction, and expand the medical expense deduction for two years.

Another change that looks as if it might be critical to agents, but probably would not affect many agents in a significant way, would eliminate the Archer medical savings account. That's a type of personal health account that existed before the health savings account (HSA). No new MSAs have opened since 2007. Elimination of the MSA may lead to paperwork for holders of MSAs, but it will have no effect on HSAs.

Here's a look at five other H.R. 1 provisions that may be of interest to life and health agents.

1. Affordable Care Act individual major medical mandate (Page 103)

The ACA now requires many people to have what the government classifies as solid health coverage, or minimum essential coverage, or else pay a penalty. It now amounts to 2.5% of modified adjusted gross income over the income tax filing threshold,

RELATED

Tax Bill May Cut Prudential’s RBC Ratio but Boost Its Profits
The company’s CFO says overall solvency measures could improve, and lead to new thinking about solvency standards.

The House left the penalty alone.

The Senate version of H.R. 1 cut the penalty to 0%.

The House-Senate conference committee kept the Senate version of the provision.

Note that the provision would simply set the penalty amount at 0%, not repeal it. In the future, a Congress controlled by Democrats could just as easily increase the penalty amount back to 2.5%, or to 5%.

The provision would apply only to months beginning after Dec. 31, 2018. The delay could give Congress time to increase the penalty above 0% before the 0% rate ever takes effect.


2. Life Insurance Reserves (Page 247)

Life insurers can now keep their tax reserves, or reserves computed using federal tax rules, out of taxable income.

The original House version of H.R. 1, which Brady posted on the House Ways and Means Committee website, would have let life insurers shield either 76.5% of their tax reserves, or the net surrender value of the contract, whichever was greater, when computing their taxes.

JCT analysts estimated that provision could have raised $14.9 billion over 10 years.

Hatch and the Senate Finance Committee did not put a similar provision in their versions of the bill text, but they appeared to be discussing a life tax tax reserve proposal.

When Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., proposed a package of life insurance amendments for the Hatch version of the bill, he suggested letting a life insurer shield either 92.87% of its tax reserves, or the net surrender value of the contract, if the net surrender value was larger, when computing its taxes.

The House-Senate conference committee ended up adopting a provision similar to the House life reserve provision.

The version adopted would let a life insurer shield just 92.81% of its tax reserves when computing its taxes.

The provision would apply to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017.

The conference report life reserve provision could transfer $15.2 billion from life insurers to the federal government over 10 years, according to JCT analysts.


3. Prevailing Commissioners' Standard Tables (Page 253)

Like the Senate versions of H.R. 1, the conference report version would set rules for what happens when the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' standard reserving tables change. An issuer could use the old table for up to three years after the year of change.

4. Deferred Acquisition Costs (Page 258)

The term "deferred acquisition costs" refers to the money a life insurer spends on acquiring new business. The DAC amount can include the cost of marketing, underwriting, and life insurance producer fees and commissions.

Complicated rules govern how life insurers put DAC costs in their taxes.

The original House version of H.R. 1 could have led to $7 billion in DAC rule change costs for life insurers over a 10-year period. The version of the bill the House approved left the DAC rule change section out.

RELATED

Tax Bill May Cut Prudential’s RBC Ratio but Boost Its Profits
The company’s CFO says overall solvency measures could improve, and lead to new thinking about solvency standards.

The Senate version could have led to $23 billion in DAC rule change costs for life insurers.

The House-Senate conference committee agreed to go with a provision similar to the Senate version, with different numbers. The provision would apply to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017.

The new JCT analysis shows the provision could pull $7 billion out of life insurers over 10 years.


5. Life Settlement Provisions (Page 261)

The Senate Finance Committee versions of H.R. 1 added three sections missing from the House versions: three life settlement provisions.

One would establish tax reporting rules for life settlement transactions, a second would specify how the parties involved in life settlement transactions should calculate the tax basis, and a third would set the tax rules for the death benefits coming from a life insurance policy sold to someone other than the original policyholder.

The House-Senate conference committee kept the Senate versions. The provisions would take effect after Dec. 31, 2017.

The JCT revenue table for the conference committee version says the provision would raise about $200 million over 10 years.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-19-2017, 03:50 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 82,405
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Estimated budget effects:
https://waysandmeansforms.house.gov/..._jct_score.pdf

The insurance-specific lines are on page 5
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-19-2017, 04:43 PM
azpnwgolfer azpnwgolfer is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: May 2015
College: University of Washington
Posts: 14
Default

How does everyone interpret: "9. Computation of life insurance tax reserves" for companies without variable business?
Is the order of operations (A) or (B) below?

(A):
1a. calculate the reserve without regard to stat using tax prescribed discount rates
2a. multiply by 92.81%
3a. the tax reserve is: min(stat reserve, max(calculated reserve using 1a. and 2a., cash surrender value))

or is it (B):
1b. calculate the reserve as it is calculated today: min(stat reserve, reserve in 1a)
2b. multiply by 92.81%
3b. the tax reserve is: max(calculated reserve using 1b. and 2b., cash surrender value)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-19-2017, 05:06 PM
urysohn's Avatar
urysohn urysohn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,848
Default

The insurance-specific lines are a bit misleading, since insurers will also benefit from the reduction in the corporate tax rate (35% --> 21%) which should more than offset the ~8% tax reserve change and the DAC tax changes.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-19-2017, 05:19 PM
urysohn's Avatar
urysohn urysohn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by azpnwgolfer View Post
How does everyone interpret: "9. Computation of life insurance tax reserves" for companies without variable business?
Is the order of operations (A) or (B) below?

(A):
1a. calculate the reserve without regard to stat using tax prescribed discount rates
2a. multiply by 92.81%
3a. the tax reserve is: min(stat reserve, max(calculated reserve using 1a. and 2a., cash surrender value))

or is it (B):
1b. calculate the reserve as it is calculated today: min(stat reserve, reserve in 1a)
2b. multiply by 92.81%
3b. the tax reserve is: max(calculated reserve using 1b. and 2b., cash surrender value)
Based on the wording choices and the current structure of Section 807 (note especially where "tax reserve method" appears in relation to the calculations), I'd say it's (A).
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-19-2017, 05:33 PM
azpnwgolfer azpnwgolfer is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: May 2015
College: University of Washington
Posts: 14
Default

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/tax-servic...&elq_cid=33163
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-19-2017, 07:32 PM
A2TRM A2TRM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by azpnwgolfer View Post
How does everyone interpret: "9. Computation of life insurance tax reserves" for companies without variable business?
Is the order of operations (A) or (B) below?

(A):
1a. calculate the reserve without regard to stat using tax prescribed discount rates
2a. multiply by 92.81%
3a. the tax reserve is: min(stat reserve, max(calculated reserve using 1a. and 2a., cash surrender value))

or is it (B):
1b. calculate the reserve as it is calculated today: min(stat reserve, reserve in 1a)
2b. multiply by 92.81%
3b. the tax reserve is: max(calculated reserve using 1b. and 2b., cash surrender value)
Quote:
Originally Posted by urysohn View Post
Based on the wording choices and the current structure of Section 807 (note especially where "tax reserve method" appears in relation to the calculations), I'd say it's (A).
Our interpretation is method (A).

However, our valuation software vendor has told us that their clients are taking a range of interpretations (including differences for whether the Due & Deferred Premiums should be adjusted before/after the scaling %, CV floor, stat cap, etc). Therefore, the vendor will not be making a systematic change in the software - instead opting to let their clients implement their own interpretation(s) outside the system.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-20-2017, 09:25 AM
urysohn's Avatar
urysohn urysohn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,848
Default

Upon reading PWC's summary (linked above), I see it is simply 92.81% of the stat reserve, which I'd not realized before.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.31698 seconds with 9 queries