Page 4 - CLT061421

4 ■ JUNE 14, 2021 CONNECTICUT MOVERS

■ From CAPTIVE INSURANCE on PAGE 3 The amicus brief focused on three key argu-
ing that mandate is likely to involve significant ments at issue in the case: First, that the court
time and expense.” The justices reasoned that consider the heavy regulatory burden and harm
CIC’s lawsuit “attempts to get out from under being caused to taxpayers; second, that the Ad-
the (non-tax) burdens of a (non-tax) reporting ministrative Procedures Act requires federal
obligation.” agencies to allow for a meaningful opportunity
“As part of our growth in the captive insur- for public comment on proposed rules; and third,
ance industry, Connecticut has stepped up and that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibition should
become a leading policy and market leader in not extend to IRS reporting requirements.
the world insurance market,” said P.J. Cimini, “Justice Kagan’s well written decision on be-
president of the Connecticut Captive Insurance half of the court did an excellent job of working
Association. “We are working through the issues in the case,”
hard every day to ensure captive said attorney Bachman. “The
insurance companies are treated time and expense in the devel-
fairly and regulated appropri- opment of amicus brief by the
ately and joining this Amicus many state captive trade as-
brief was a good example of our sociations were well spent and
efforts and focus.” have created a positive national
“We are very pleased to be part network of committed captive
of this important industry coali- professionals.”
tion that ensured all legal rights, Students from the The Supreme Court has now
currently allowed under federal University of Connecticut remanded the case back to the
law for Connecticut captive in- School of Law and Yale District Court for a determina-
surance companies, continue to Law School assisted in tion on whether or not Notice
be protected,” said Cassie Bach- filing an amicus curiae 2016-66 should be formally en-
man of Elevate Risk Solutions, brief in support of captive joined. Under section 831(b) of
a national captive consult- the US tax code, captive insurers
ing company with an office in insurance companies that qualify as small insurance
Connecticut. “Connecticut con- companies can elect to exclude
tinues to play an important role limited amounts of annual net
in the development and growth premiums from income, so that
of the captive industry and in the captive pays tax only on its
filing this amicus brief with the investment income.
U.S. Supreme Court, we helped “Now that the case has been
to highlight the importance of remanded back to the District
captive insurance as a needed Court, we look forward to moni-
risk management tool for busi- toring the judicial proceedings
ness owners in Connecticut and throughout the closely,” said Cimini. “Our proactive industry ad-
United States.” vocacy and education will continue to be our top
Captive insurance has existed for more than 50 priority here in Connecticut and with our fellow
years, offering an option for companies, or groups of state associations throughout the country.” ■
companies, to self-insure. A captive is an insurance
company owned by the Insured(s); i.e.: Apple owns Michael Marciano is bureau chief of the
Apple Care. Today, there are 5,000 captive insurance Connecticut Law Tribune. He can be reached at mmar-
companies and related cells located in and regulated [email protected] or call 646-957-3022. On Twitter:
by at least 35 states, including Connecticut. @BreakingCTLaw

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune