District court finds that insurance premium excise tax does not apply to retrocession transactions
By Bruce J Wein, Gerald Rokoff, David D Luce and Michael Greenberg
On 5 February 2014, the US District Court for the District of Columbia held that the federal excise tax (FET) on insurance and reinsurance premiums does not apply to retrocession insurance transactions.
Under a plain reading of the statute, the court reasoned, premiums with respect to such retrocession policies are not subject to the FET. Of note, the court specifically declined to rule on whether the FET could be applied with respect to foreign-to-foreign reinsurance transactions (as opposed to retrocession transactions) for US-situs risks.
Retrocession agreements are essentially reinsurance agreements between reinsurers. Clients who have paid such amounts on (or had such amounts deducted or withheld from) retrocession premiums are urged to file refund claims in order to preserve their right to such refunds…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the DLA Piper briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from DLA Piper
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from DLA Piper
This is an Australian-specific alternative chapter on data protection, which was designed to assist organisations operating in Australia with their new privacy responsibilities.
Health Alert — Lane v Northern NSW Local Health District (No 3); Psychology Board of Australia v Tubara; and more
DLA Piper has released the 28 July 2014 issue of its Health Alert, which focuses on judgments, legislation and reports in the health sector.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Shearman & Sterling is making its presence felt in the City, squaring up to magic circle firms and looking to muscle in on key relationships. Private equity house Bridgepoint is one outfit that has had its head turned by the US firm.
A new breed of lawyer is smoothing the path for companies entering emerging or unstable jurisdictions