§

Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Comm'r

38 B.T.A. 1430 (B.T.A. 1938)
Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Comm'r

9 Cited authorities

  1. Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States

    251 U.S. 342 (1920)   Cited 295 times
    Approving liability reserve for accrued indefinite liabilities and loss claim reserve for other accrued losses

  2. Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. U.S.

    288 U.S. 269 (1933)   Cited 94 times
    Holding reenactment adopted Treasury interpretation of tax code

  3. Helvering v. Insurance Co.

    294 U.S. 686 (1935)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that deductions must be plainly authorized, not derived from ambiguities

  4. New York Ins. Co. v. Edwards

    271 U.S. 109 (1926)   Cited 52 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Nos. 712, 804. Argued March 2, 3, 1926. Decided April 19, 1926. 1. The proviso of the Revenue Act of 1913, § II G (b), "That . . . life insurance companies shall not include as income in any year such portion of any actual premium received from any individual policyholder as shall have been paid back or credited to such individual policyholder, or treated as an abatement of premium of such individual policyholder, within such year

  5. Helvering v. Illinois Ins. Co.

    299 U.S. 88 (1936)   Cited 15 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 27. Argued October 16, 1936. Decided November 9, 1936. 1. "Reserve funds required by law," — as intended by § 203(a) (2) of the Revenue Act of 1928 permitting the deduction of a percent. of such funds from gross income in computing the net income of a life insurance company — are reserves which directly pertain to life insurance. Helvering v. Insurance Co., 294 U.S. 686. P. 90. 2. Such reserves do not include "survivorship investment

  6. McCoach v. Insurance Co. of N. Amer

    244 U.S. 585 (1917)   Cited 33 times
    In McCoach, the Supreme Court said that a reserve maintained for accrued but unpaid losses was not a reserve within the scope of the federal statute.

  7. United States v. Boston Insurance Co.

    269 U.S. 197 (1925)   Cited 17 times

    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 29. Argued October 9, 1925. Decided November 23, 1925. The Revenue Act of 1916, § 12, Par. "First," subdiv. (c), in defining deductions from gross income allowable in ascertaining the net income of domestic corporations, included, in the case of insurance companies, "the net addition, if any, required by law to reserve funds." Held, that "reserve funds" does not embrace funds held by a fire and marine insurance company, as required by the New York Superintendent

  8. Continental Assur. Co. v. United States, (1934)

    8 F. Supp. 474 (Fed. Cl. 1934)   Cited 11 times

    No. 42523. October 15, 1934. Jay C. Halls, of Chicago, Ill. (Albert L. Hopkins, Stephen M. Reynolds, and Hopkins, Sutter, Halls De Wolfe, all of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for plaintiff. Guy Patten and Edward H. Horton, both of Washington, D.C., and Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States. Before BOOTH, Chief Justice, and GREEN, LITTLETON, WILLIAMS, and WHALEY, Judges. LITTLETON, Judge. The question presented in this case is whether the amounts of $107,620 and $127,407.73 held

  9. In re Oklahoma Nat. Life Ins. Co.

    173 P. 376 (Okla. 1918)   Cited 9 times

    No. 7962 Opinion Filed February 12, 1918. Rehearing Denied June 11, 1918. (Syllabus.) 1. Taxation — Property of Domestic Life Insurance Company — Reserve — Statute. The property and securities in which the reserve of a domestic life insurance company, computed and carried as required by law, is invested, are for the purpose of taxation the property of the insurance company. 2. "Taxation — Property of Corporation — Moneyed Capital, Surplus, and Undivided Profits" — Statutes. An assessment for taxation