- 32 -
but asserts that the regulations' “broad language certainly
includes the accrued unpaid losses at issue herein”. We
disagree. These regulations have no direct bearing on the issue
at hand. In addition to the fact that respondent concedes that
they do not contemplate a distinction between accrued and
unaccrued losses on CA&H insurance, the regulations were issued
one year after Congress added the parenthetical “(whether or not
ascertained)” to the Code. See Harco Holdings, Inc. v. United
States, supra at 1034-1035.
We hold that Central Life’s accrued unpaid losses on CA&H
insurance are not unpaid losses under section 816(c)(2), and,
hence, that it is a life insurance company for Federal income tax
purposes. In so holding, we have carefully considered all
arguments by respondent for a contrary holding, and, to the
extent not discussed above, find them to be irrelevant or without
merit.10 To reflect the parties' concessions,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
10 Respondent argued in his reply brief for the first time
that United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 481 U.S. 239,
246-247 (1987), may apply to some of Central Life's accrued
unpaid losses to deny their deductibility. This argument raises
a new issue and does so untimely. Accordingly, we do not
consider it. See Palmer v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 684, 698
(1974), and the cases cited therein, affd. 523 F.2d 1308 (8th
Cir. 1975); see also Estate of Horvath v. Commissioner, 59 T.C.
551, 555 (1973).
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Last modified: May 25, 2011