- 15 -
of TAMRA makes clear that Congress’ purpose in exempting such
church plans from the “applicable law” requirement was to ensure
that they were treated as life insurance contracts “even if the
arrangements do not constitute life insurance under applicable
State law.” H. Conf. Rept. 100-1104 (Vol. II), at 169 (1988),
1988-3 C.B. 473, 659.
Since petitioner’s insurance activities took place in North
Dakota, the applicable law for determining whether the products
he sold were life insurance contracts is the law of North Dakota.
Petitioners argue that what petitioner sold was life insurance
because every policy he sold or supervised the sale of contained
a death benefit if death occurred as a result of an accident
covered by the policy. In sum, petitioners' argument is that
accident policies that contain death benefits constitute life
5(...continued)
individuals covered under such plan or
arrangement, and
(B) such plan or arrangement is provided by a
church for the benefit of its employees and their
beneficiaries, directly or through an organization
described in section 414(e)(3)(A) or an
organization described in section
414(e)(3)(B)(ii).
(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection
--
(A) Church.--The term “church” means a church
or a convention or association of churches.
(B) Employee.--The term “employee” includes
an employee described in section 414(e)(3)(B).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011