- 10 -
Life Ins. Co. v. Unites States, supra; Alinco Life Ins. Co. v.
United States, supra; Central Reserve Life Corp. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, supra. But see Prudential Ins. Co. v. United
States, 162 Ct. Cl. 55, 319 F.2d 161, 165-166 (1963).
Respondent argues that since Congress did not expressly
distinguish between accrued and unaccrued unpaid losses, the
plain language of section 816 requires that all unpaid losses on
CA&H insurance policies (whether accrued or unaccrued) should be
included in the denominator of the life insurance company
qualifying fraction. Use by Congress of the word “unaccrued” in
section 816(b)(1)(B) does suggest that Congress knew how to
distinguish between accrued and unaccrued losses when it wanted
to, and, while respondent's plain meaning argument has some
appeal, we nevertheless recognize the historical context and the
specialized meaning in the LA&H industry of the terms “unpaid
losses” and “reserves”.
Respondent also argues that under the Golsen rule we should
defer to a statement made in United States v. Occidental Life
Ins. Co., 385 F.2d 1, 6 (9th Cir. 1967), by the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit (to which an appeal herein would lie) to
the effect that the term “unpaid losses” under former section 806
includes accrued unpaid losses. See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54
T.C. 742, 757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011