It further stated that the ambiguity in the NRRA’s wording, if not clarified, likely will result in unnecessary litigation, inconsistent rulings, and waste of both private and public resources. The independent white paper recently was published in the Bloomberg BNA Daily Tax Report.
According to the release, AKO’s assessment of the legislation is clear and direct. "A strong case can be made that the NRRA does not apply to captive insurance and an even stronger case can be made that the NRRA was not intended to apply," said Phil England, Esq. and Head of the Alternative Risk and Captive Insurance Services Practice group at AKO. "Bottom line, captives should not have to move from a domicile because of the NRRA. Congress should amend the law to make clear that the NRAA does not apply to captive insurance companies. In the meantime, the prudent course is to wait for further clarification and not redomesticate from one state to another solely based on this statute."
For more information, please contact:
Carol A. Ueckerman