Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company and Subsidiaries - Page 42




                                                -42-                                                   
            however, should have alerted petitioner that its prior reserve                             
            estimates were more than adequate.  There is no evidence that                              
            petitioner took this prior experience into account in evaluating                           
            or amending its reserving philosophy and practices, especially                             
            as regards its adverse development reserve.  Cf. Hanover Ins.                              
            Co. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. at 270-271 (taxpayer failed to                                
            prove that it employed any method of testing its reserves on the                           
            basis of prior experience, even though it revised its reserve                              
            estimates from time to time on the basis of developments in                                
            particular cases).                                                                         
                  Petitioner argues that it had competing business concerns–-                          
            such as ensuring solvency and competitiveness--not to overstate                            
            its loss reserves.  Apart from such generalities, however,                                 
            petitioner fails to articulate with particularity how such                                 
            concerns–-which would appear to relate principally to annual                               
            statement reporting–-should govern the determination of fair and                           
            reasonable estimates of unpaid losses for Federal income tax                               
            purposes.  In any event, the record does not indicate that                                 
            petitioner’s solvency was in jeopardy during the years in issue,                           
            when its surplus consistently exceeded $14 million.                                        
                           6.  Conclusion                                                              
                  On the basis of the totality of evidence in the record, we                           
            conclude and hold that petitioner has failed to establish that                             
            its estimates of unpaid losses, as used in computing “losses                               






Page:  Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011