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

2017 ACTUARIAL SALARY SURVEYS
Contact DW Simpson for a Personalized Salary Survey

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-21-2017, 01:09 PM
urysohn's Avatar
urysohn urysohn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,880
Default

It's inforce and new business. But there's an additional paragraph that says the change in the inforce tax reserve is to be spread over an 8-year period. i.e. that you can include 1/8 of the difference as a deduction for the next 8 years.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-21-2017, 04:35 PM
am_vanquish am_vanquish is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Studying for the zombie apocalpyse
Favorite beer: Smithwick's
Posts: 724
Default

I'd be curious to hear how others are handling the impact of tax reform for asset adequacy analysis & RBC C3P1 modeling at 12/31/2017. From what I can tell, it's not required or prohibited to include the new tax reserve methodology & tax rate in modeling at 12/31/2017. (Please correct me if I'm missing something obvious there.)

We're currently leaning toward leaving tax reform items out of our 12/31/2017 models:
1. On the surface, it seems to be the more conservative approach to ignore the tax reform items.
2. The RBC blank for 12/31/2017 will not have updated factors to reflect the new tax scheme. Obviously the tax effect factors will need to change, but we have differing opinions on what other factors throughout RBC might also get updates (especially whether or not the factor-based minimum for C3P1 might be revised for 2018 & beyond).
3. (Half-joking): I don't want to code/validate the changes in our models on such short notice.
__________________
Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, amirite?

Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-PTANG-Zoom-Boing. Z’nourrwringmm
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:55 AM
elleminopee's Avatar
elleminopee elleminopee is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the project
Posts: 283
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by am_vanquish View Post
I'd be curious to hear how others are handling the impact of tax reform for asset adequacy analysis & RBC C3P1 modeling at 12/31/2017. From what I can tell, it's not required or prohibited to include the new tax reserve methodology & tax rate in modeling at 12/31/2017. (Please correct me if I'm missing something obvious there.)

We're currently leaning toward leaving tax reform items out of our 12/31/2017 models:
1. On the surface, it seems to be the more conservative approach to ignore the tax reform items.
3. (Half-joking): I don't want to code/validate the changes in our models on such short notice.
Totally agree. If you believe the PV of tax reform is a benefit, you can leave it out this year end with no harm done.
__________________
"A new tree had grown from the stump and its trunk had grown along the ground until it reached a place where there were no wash lines above it. Then it had started to grow towards the sky again. Annie, the fir tree, that the Nolans had cherished with waterings and manurings, had long since sickened and died. But this tree in the yard--this tree that men chopped down...this tree that they built a bonfire around, trying to burn up its stump--this tree had lived!" - Betty Smith, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-19-2018, 10:30 AM
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: 85,069
Blog Entries: 6
Default

dropping some links for later reference:

KPMG - comprehensive doc on tax changes (not insurance specific, but it does go into it)
https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kp...dec22-2017.pdf

a few other remarks (again, not insurance specific)
http://www.kpmg-institutes.com/conte...tax-reform.pdf


EY page:
http://www.ey.com/us/en/services/tax...-us-tax-reform
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-19-2018, 03:29 PM
Sleeping Dragon Sleeping Dragon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by am_vanquish View Post
I'd be curious to hear how others are handling the impact of tax reform for asset adequacy analysis & RBC C3P1 modeling at 12/31/2017. From what I can tell, it's not required or prohibited to include the new tax reserve methodology & tax rate in modeling at 12/31/2017. (Please correct me if I'm missing something obvious there.)

We're currently leaning toward leaving tax reform items out of our 12/31/2017 models:
1. On the surface, it seems to be the more conservative approach to ignore the tax reform items.
2. The RBC blank for 12/31/2017 will not have updated factors to reflect the new tax scheme. Obviously the tax effect factors will need to change, but we have differing opinions on what other factors throughout RBC might also get updates (especially whether or not the factor-based minimum for C3P1 might be revised for 2018 & beyond).
3. (Half-joking): I don't want to code/validate the changes in our models on such short notice.
I know that NY state is requiring that the new tax law be reflected in the Asset Adequacy Analysis for 2017. I am not sure about other states. Also, if you are holding a reserve, the reserve might be greater under the new tax law since you would get less of a tax benefit from the future losses.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-22-2018, 06:32 PM
dunnigan dunnigan is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 135
Default

I was reading what is apparently the actual bill passed: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...se-bill/1/text

Does anyone have a "stitched together" version? You know, after all the striking and inserting of paragraphs and such is all said and done?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-24-2018, 12:45 PM
am_vanquish am_vanquish is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Studying for the zombie apocalpyse
Favorite beer: Smithwick's
Posts: 724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeping Dragon View Post
I know that NY state is requiring that the new tax law be reflected in the Asset Adequacy Analysis for 2017. I am not sure about other states. Also, if you are holding a reserve, the reserve might be greater under the new tax law since you would get less of a tax benefit from the future losses.
Any chance someone could provide a link related to the comment above for NY?
__________________
Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, amirite?

Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-PTANG-Zoom-Boing. Z’nourrwringmm
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-24-2018, 01:28 PM
Steve Grondin Steve Grondin is online now
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,451
Default

I've seen it, but can't find it. Basically, they are reminding you that this is an event that should be considered in forming the opinion, which I believe applies in every state. How you consider it is up to you, since certain situations can make determining the impact on your opinion a trivial exercise.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-24-2018, 01:42 PM
Sleeping Dragon Sleeping Dragon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by am_vanquish View Post
Any chance someone could provide a link related to the comment above for NY?
All I know is that there was an email sent to all appointed actuaries by one of the NYS life actuaries. It was sent a couple of weeks ago. The email just said that the new tax act should be reflected in the 2017 asset adequacy analysis and that there should a brief summary and quantification of the impact.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-25-2018, 09:13 AM
elleminopee's Avatar
elleminopee elleminopee is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the project
Posts: 283
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeping Dragon View Post
Also, if you are holding a reserve, the reserve might be greater under the new tax law since you would get less of a tax benefit from the future losses.
That assumes you were taking the tax benefit from future losses in the model. I know for us, if the model is a "stand alone" model we don't take the tax benefit (negative taxes) for the losses in the later years because there's no income (positive taxes) to offset.
__________________
"A new tree had grown from the stump and its trunk had grown along the ground until it reached a place where there were no wash lines above it. Then it had started to grow towards the sky again. Annie, the fir tree, that the Nolans had cherished with waterings and manurings, had long since sickened and died. But this tree in the yard--this tree that men chopped down...this tree that they built a bonfire around, trying to burn up its stump--this tree had lived!" - Betty Smith, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
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 08:51 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 0.47328 seconds with 9 queries