American Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
267 F.3d 1344 (2001)
Under the tax-benefit rule, codified in § 111 of the Internal Revenue Code, if a taxpayer took a deduction attributable to a specific event and then later recovered the deducted amount, the income-tax treatment of the recovery depended on how the original deduction was treated. If the deduction and recovery occurred in different years, there were two possibilities: (1) the inclusionary aspect of the rule might have required including the recovery in the taxpayer’s taxable income if the alternative would be a windfall to the taxpayer, or (2) the exclusionary aspect of the rule might have allowed the taxpayer to exclude the recovery from taxable income if the original deduction resulted in no tax benefit to the taxpayer. When a life-insurance company issued a policy, state law required the company to allocate sufficient money to a reserve to pay the policy’s benefits if the policy were to come due. The company’s additions to reserves contributed to tax deductions available to the company, and annual decreases in the reserves (i.e., reserve releases) were added to the company’s income. For certain tax years from 1962 to 1981, American Mutual Life Insurance Company (American Mutual) (plaintiff) experienced net aggregate increases in its reserves and deducted those increases as permitted by the Internal Revenue Code. American Mutual asserted that in subsequent years, when it released money from the reserves, an amount of the decrease in the reserves equal to the amount for which the previous increases in the reserves had not resulted in a tax benefit should be excluded from American Mutual’s income. The Court of Federal Claims heard the dispute between American Mutual and the government (defendant) over American Mutual’s asserted entitlement to the exclusions. The court concluded that American Mutual had taken full deductions for its reserve increases, which had reduced American Mutual’s taxable income and resulted in a tax benefit to American Mutual. The court thus held that the tax-benefit rule did not apply to American Mutual’s subsequent reserve increases. American Mutual appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gajarsa, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 709,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.