Modification of Discounting Rules for Insurance Companies, 27947-27952 [2019-12172]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Such actions are exempt from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of
Executive Order 12866 and the
principles reaffirmed in Executive Order
13563.
This interim final rule is not an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and
OMB guidance.5
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform
This regulation meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize litigation, provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct, and
promote simplification and burden
reduction.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
This rulemaking does not have
federalism implications warranting the
application of Executive Order 13132.
The rule does not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications warranting the application
of Executive Order 13175. It does not
have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603(a),
‘‘[w]henever an agency is required by [5
U.S.C. 553], or any other law, to publish
general notice of proposed rulemaking
for any proposed rule, or publishes a
notice of proposed rulemaking for an
interpretive rule involving the internal
revenue laws of the United States, the
agency shall prepare and make available
for public comment an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.’’ As noted in the
above discussion regarding applicability
of the APA, the DEA has determined
that the notice and comment
requirements of section 553 of the APA,
5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this
5 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of The
President, Interim Guidance Implementing Section
2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 Titled
‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’’ (Feb. 2, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jun 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
scheduling action. Consequently, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act does not
apply to this interim final rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995,
2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., DEA has
determined that this action would not
result in any Federal mandate that may
result ‘‘in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted for
inflation) in any one year.’’ Therefore,
neither a Small Government Agency
Plan nor any other action is required
under UMRA of 1995.
27947
2. Amend § 1308.14 by:
a. Redesignating paragraph (f)(12) as
(f)(13);
■ b. Adding new paragraph (f)(12).
The addition to read as follows:
■
■
§ 1308.14
*
Schedule IV.
*
*
(f) * * *
*
*
(12) Solriamfetol (2-amino-3-phenylpropyl
car-bamate;
benzenepropanol,
betaamino-, carbamate (ester)) ........................
*
*
*
*
1650
*
Dated: June 10, 2019.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–12723 Filed 6–14–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This action does not impose a new
collection of information requirement
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. This action
does not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by the Congressional Review
Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule does
not result in: An annual effect on the
economy of $100,000,000 or more; a
major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of U.S.-based companies to
compete with foreign based companies
in domestic and export markets.
However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA has
submitted a copy of this interim final
rule to both Houses of Congress and to
the Comptroller General.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308
Administrative practice and
procedure, Drug traffic control,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set out above, DEA
amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 1308 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b),
unless otherwise noted.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 9863]
RIN 1545–BO50
Modification of Discounting Rules for
Insurance Companies
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
AGENCY:
This document contains final
regulations on discounting rules for
unpaid losses and estimated salvage
recoverable of insurance companies for
Federal income tax purposes. The final
regulations update and replace existing
regulations to implement recent
legislative changes to the Internal
Revenue Code (Code) and make a
technical improvement to the derivation
of loss payment patterns used for
discounting. The final regulations affect
entities taxable as insurance companies.
DATES:
Effective Date: These regulations are
effective June 17, 2019.
Applicability Date: For dates of
applicability, see § 1.846–1(e)(2).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathryn M. Sneade, (202) 317–6995 (not
a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
This document contains amendments
to 26 CFR part 1 under section 846 of
the Code. Section 846 was added to the
Code by section 1023(c) of the Tax
Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99–514
(100 Stat. 2085, 2399). Final regulations
under section 846 were published in the
Federal Register (57 FR 40841) on
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
27948
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
September 8, 1992 (T.D. 8433). See
§§ 1.846–0 through 1.846–4 (1992 Final
Regulations). The discounting rules
under section 846 were amended for
taxable years beginning after December
31, 2017, by section 13523 of the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115–97
(131 Stat. 2054, 2152) (TCJA). The
discounting rules of section 846, both
prior to and after amendment by the
TCJA, are used to determine discounted
unpaid losses and estimated salvage
recoverable of property and casualty
(P&C) insurance companies and
discounted unearned premiums of title
insurance companies for Federal income
tax purposes under section 832, as well
as discounted unpaid losses of life
insurance companies for Federal income
tax purposes under sections 805(a)(1)
and 807(c)(2).
The Department of the Treasury
(Treasury Department) and the IRS
published proposed regulations under
section 846 (REG–103163–18) in the
Federal Register (83 FR 55646) on
November 7, 2018 (Proposed
Regulations). The Treasury Department
and the IRS received public comments
on the Proposed Regulations and held a
public hearing on December 20, 2018.
On January 7, 2019, the Treasury
Department and the IRS published Rev.
Proc. 2019–06, 2019–02 I.R.B. 284,
which prescribes unpaid loss discount
factors for the 2018 accident year and
earlier accident years for use in
computing discounted unpaid losses
under section 846. The unpaid loss
discount factors also serve as salvage
discount factors for the 2018 accident
year and earlier accident years for use
in computing discounted estimated
salvage recoverable under section 832.
The discount factors prescribed in Rev.
Proc. 2019–06 were determined under
section 846, as amended by section
13523 of the TCJA, and the Proposed
Regulations. In Rev. Proc. 2019–06, the
Treasury Department and the IRS
announced the intent to publish revised
unpaid loss discount factors, if
necessary, following the publication of
the Proposed Regulations as final
regulations. The Treasury Department
and the IRS also announced the intent
to issue guidance on the use of revised
discount factors, including the
adjustment to be taken into account by
certain taxpayers that used the discount
factors prescribed in Rev. Proc. 2019–06
in a taxable year ending before the date
of publication of final regulations. The
Treasury Department and the IRS
requested and received public
comments on Rev. Proc. 2019–06.
After consideration of all of the
comments on the Proposed Regulations
and Rev. Proc. 2019–06, the Proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jun 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
Regulations are adopted as amended by
this Treasury decision (Final
Regulations).
Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions
This section discusses the public
comments received on the Proposed
Regulations and Rev. Proc. 2019–06,
explains the revisions adopted by the
Final Regulations in response to those
comments, and describes guidance the
Treasury Department and the IRS intend
to issue following publication of the
Final Regulations in the Federal
Register.
1. Determination of Applicable Interest
Rate
Under section 846(a)(2) and (c)(1), the
‘‘applicable interest rate’’ used to
determine the discount factors
associated with any accident year and
line of business is the ‘‘annual rate’’
determined under section 846(c)(2).
Before amendment by section
13523(a) of the TCJA, section 846(c)(2)
provided that the annual rate for any
calendar year was a rate equal to the
average of the applicable Federal midterm rates (as defined in section 1274(d)
but based on annual compounding)
effective as of the beginning of each of
the calendar months in the most recent
60-month period ending before the
beginning of the calendar year for which
the determination is made. The
applicable Federal mid-term rate is
determined by the Secretary based on
the average market yield on outstanding
marketable obligations of the United
States with remaining periods of over
three years but not over nine years. See
section 1274(d)(1).
As amended by section 13523(a) of
the TCJA, section 846(c)(2) provides that
the annual rate for any calendar year
will be determined by the Secretary
based on the corporate bond yield curve
(as defined in section 430(h)(2)(D)(i),
determined by substituting ‘‘60-month
period’’ for ‘‘24-month period’’ therein).
The corporate bond yield curve,
commonly referred to as the high
quality market (HQM) corporate bond
yield curve, is published on a monthly
basis by the Treasury Department and
the IRS. It reflects the average of
monthly yields on investment grade
corporate bonds with varying maturities
that are in the top three quality levels
available, and it consists of spot interest
rates for each stated time to maturity.
See, for example, Notice 2019–13, 2019–
8 I.R.B. 580. The spot rate for a given
time to maturity represents the yield on
a bond that gives a single payment at
that maturity. For the stated yield curve,
times to maturity are specified at half-
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
year intervals from one-half year
through 100 years. Section 846(c)(2)
does not specify how the Secretary is to
determine the annual rate for any
calendar year based on the corporate
bond yield curve.
Section 1.846–1(c) of the Proposed
Regulations provides that the
‘‘applicable interest rate’’ used to
determine the discount factors
associated with any accident year and
line of business is the ‘‘annual rate’’
determined by the Secretary for any
calendar year on the basis of the
corporate bond yield curve (as defined
in section 430(h)(2)(D)(i), determined by
substituting ‘‘60-month period’’ for ‘‘24month period’’ therein). The annual rate
for any calendar year is the average of
the corporate bond yield curve’s
monthly spot rates with times to
maturity of not more than seventeen and
one-half years (that is, when applied to
the HQM corporate bond yield curve,
times to maturity from one-half year to
seventeen and one-half years),
computed using the most recent 60month period ending before the
beginning of the calendar year for which
the determination is made.
Consistent with the text of section
846, as amended by the TCJA, and the
statutory structure as a whole, the
Proposed Regulations provide for the
use of a single annual rate applicable to
all lines of business, as was the case
under section 846 prior to amendment
by the TCJA. Commenters agreed with
this approach. One commenter asserted
that a single rate approach continues to
be mandated by the statutory language
and Congressional intent. This
commenter also noted that the use of a
single rate is a continuance of
longstanding practice related to the
discounting of insurance loss reserves,
and the TCJA did not specify a change
to this practice.
The preamble to the Proposed
Regulations states that the change from
a rate based on the applicable Federal
mid-term rates to a rate based on the
corporate bond yield curve indicates
that the annual rate should be
determined in a manner that more
closely matches the investments in
bonds used to fund the undiscounted
losses to be paid in the future by
insurance companies. Several
commenters agreed that the annual rate
should be determined in a manner that
more closely matches the investments of
insurance companies.
The maturity range in the Proposed
Regulations (that is, times to maturity
from one-half year to seventeen and
one-half years) was selected to produce
a single discount rate that would
provide approximately the same present
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
value of taxable income, in the
aggregate, as would be obtained by
applying the 60-month average
corporate bond yield curve (forecast
through 2028) directly to the future loss
payments expected for each line of
business (determined using the loss
payment patterns applicable to the 2018
accident year). That is, the selected
maturity range approximates, in terms
of the present value of taxable income,
the overall result of discounting each
projected loss payment using the spot
rate from the corporate bond yield curve
with a time to maturity that matches the
time between the end of the accident
year and the middle of the year of the
projected loss payment.
Several commenters expressed
concern with the selection of the
maturity range used to determine the
single rate applicable to all unpaid
losses for all lines of business under the
Proposed Regulations. A commenter
addressing the application of the
Proposed Regulations to certain non-life
insurance reserves held by life
insurance companies requested a single
section 846 discount rate determined by
reference to shorter maturities than
those specified in the Proposed
Regulations to more clearly reflect the
income of life insurance companies
related to these reserves. Several
commenters addressing the application
of the Proposed Regulations to P&C
insurance companies requested that the
discount rate instead be determined by
reference to the maturity range of three
and one-half to nine years that was used
under section 846 prior to amendment
by the TCJA. Some of the commenters
asserted a lack of clear congressional
intent to use a different maturity range
than the maturity range used under
section 846 prior to amendment by the
TCJA. The commenters also asserted
that the shorter range with a lower
average maturity would more closely
match the maturity of the P&C insurance
industry’s investments and offered
alternative approaches to selecting a
maturity range should a different
maturity range be selected.
Some of the commenters addressing
the application of the Proposed
Regulations to P&C insurance
companies acknowledged that the
annual rate calculated under the
Proposed Regulations approximates the
P&C industry’s current investment yield
in the current bond market. However,
the commenters generally asserted that
an annual rate based on the maturity
range in the Proposed Regulations
would overstate the industry’s
investment yield in other interest rate
environments because the average
maturity and average duration of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jun 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
bonds reflected in that segment of the
HQM corporate bond yield curve are
longer than both the average maturity
and average duration of the industry’s
actual bond investments. The
commenters asserted that the weighted
average maturities of bonds held by P&C
insurance companies are notably lower
than the nine-year average of the
maturity range suggested in the
Proposed Regulations. According to one
commenter, the weighted average
maturities of bonds held by P&C
insurance companies have ranged
between 6.4 and 7.1 years since 2008.
The commenters asserted that P&C
companies generally do not seek to
match the maturities of their
investments with the expected payment
dates of their liabilities. One commenter
stated that P&C insurers’ bond portfolios
are more skewed to the short end of the
curve to ensure sufficient liquidity to
pay claims, especially for catastrophic
events.
The commenters also explained that
the average duration of bond payments
held by P&C insurance companies (five
to six years, according to data from one
commenter) is shorter than the nineyear average payment duration of the
bonds underlying the maturity range in
the Proposed Regulations because P&C
insurance companies typically invest in
coupon bonds. Unlike the zero-coupon
bonds reflected in the HQM corporate
bond yield curve, coupon bonds have an
average payment duration that is less
than their maturity because of the
periodic interest payments. Commenters
asserted that the duration difference
between coupon bonds and zero-coupon
bonds is more pronounced in an
environment with higher interest rates
and a steeper yield curve.
One of the commenters requesting the
use of a shorter maturity range (three
and one-half to nine years) suggested
that the annual rate should be
determined in a manner that more
closely matches the P&C insurance
industry’s investment yield. The
commenter asserted that, in a rising rate
environment, especially if there is a
larger spread between the short-term
and long-term rates, the longer maturity
range in the Proposed Regulations
would overstate the P&C insurance
industry’s investment yield. The
commenter also asserted that the shorter
maturity range would result in a better
approximation of the P&C insurance
industry’s investment yield over a
longer period of time and in different
interest rate environments. The
commenter suggested that if the shorter
maturity range is not adopted, another
approach would be to periodically
adjust the maturity range. Under this
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27949
approach, every five years (that is, for
each determination year under section
846(d)(4)), the Secretary would select
the maturity range that best
approximates the industry’s investment
yield based on publicly available P&C
insurance industry aggregate investment
yield data. However, other commenters
expressed a preference for a fixed range.
Two of the commenters requesting the
use of a shorter maturity range (three
and one-half to nine years) suggested
that the maturity range selected should
more closely match the average maturity
of the P&C insurance industry’s bond
investments. The commenters asserted
that the average maturity of a range
consisting of three and one-half to nine
years more closely matches the six to
seven-year average maturity of the
industry’s bond investments over the
past decade than the nine-year average
of the longer range in the Proposed
Regulations. One commenter suggested
that if the shorter maturity range is not
adopted, an alternative could be to use
the maturity range from one-half to
thirteen years because that range also
reflects average maturities that more
closely match the investments in bonds
used to fund the undiscounted losses of
P&C insurance companies. Both
commenters suggested that if the range
in the Proposed Regulations is retained,
a ‘‘guardrail’’ should place an upper
limit on the maturities that are used
when the bond yield curve is unusually
steep. The commenters assert that use of
the maturity range in the Proposed
Regulations in such conditions would
result in an annual rate that overstates
the P&C insurance industry’s
investment yield due to the duration
and maturity differences between the
industry’s bond investments and the
bonds reflected in the HQM corporate
bond yield curve segment selected in
the Proposed Regulations. The
commenters expressed particular
concern that use of the maturity range
in the Proposed Regulations would pose
a threat to the industry’s financial
viability in times of economic stress
because steep yield curves historically
have occurred during or immediately
after a recession and often coincide with
a downturn in the underwriting cycle.
One commenter provided
recommendations regarding the
‘‘guardrail’’ adjustment to be made to
the annual rate and the circumstances in
which it would apply. The commenter
suggested that a guardrail adjustment
should be made when the spread
between the HQM corporate bond yields
at the lower end (one-half year to
maturity) and upper end (seventeen and
one-half years to maturity) of the
maturity range proposed in the
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
27950
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Proposed Regulations, measured on the
basis of the 12-month average, is greater
than 2.75 percentage points. The
commenter explained that this ‘‘trigger’’
was selected because, compared to the
other possible triggers considered by the
commenter, it has the highest
correlation to recession-related stress
periods, it is simple to implement, and
it does not result in undue volatility.
The commenter suggested that the
‘‘guardrail’’ be an annual interest rate
based on the 60-month average of a
narrower range of bond maturities of
one-half year to thirteen years. The
commenter asserted that this trigger and
guardrail adjustment proposal is
reasonably simple, easily administrable,
and predictable (for both the IRS and
taxpayers) in its application.
After consideration of the comments
received on the Proposed Regulations,
the Treasury Department and the IRS
have determined to use a single annual
rate based on a narrower range of
maturities. Specifically, the annual rate
for any calendar year is the average of
the corporate bond yield curve’s
monthly spot rates with times to
maturity from four and one-half years to
ten years, computed using the most
recent 60-month period ending before
the beginning of the calendar year for
which the determination is made. In
response to comments expressing a
preference for a fixed range, the Final
Regulations do not provide for periodic
redetermination of the maturity range
used to determine the annual rate.
The maturity range of four and onehalf years to ten years was selected in
response to comments requesting the
adoption of a narrower maturity range
with an average maturity that more
closely matches the six- to seven-year
average maturity of the P&C insurance
industry’s bond investments.
Commenters expressed concern about
the inclusion of the times-to-maturity at
the upper end of the range in the
Proposed Regulations, particularly
when the bond yield curve is unusually
steep. Therefore, the Final Regulations
provide for a narrower maturity range
than in the Proposed Regulations (from
one-half year to seventeen and one-half
years). Use of the narrower range
eliminates yields for times-to-maturity
at the lower and upper ends of the range
in the Proposed Regulations from the
calculation of an average annual rate.
The selected maturity range has an
average maturity of seven and onequarter years, which is closer to the
average maturity of the industry’s bond
investments than the nine-year average
maturity of the maturity range in the
Proposed Regulations. The Final
Regulations do not adopt either of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jun 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
maturity ranges suggested by
commenters (three and one-half to nine
years and one-half to thirteen years)
because the suggested ranges would
typically understate the P&C industry’s
investment yield as compared to the
range adopted in the Final Regulations.
P&C industry investment portfolios
include assets other than high quality
bonds, and the higher returns on those
other assets typically result in the
industry earning a higher rate of return.
Therefore, the Final Regulations adopt a
maturity range that has an average
maturity that is slightly greater than the
average maturity of the industry’s bond
investments.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
intend to publish guidance in the
Internal Revenue Bulletin that will
provide revised unpaid loss discount
factors based on the Final Regulations
for each property and casualty line of
business for all accident years ending
with or before calendar year 2018. The
guidance will also provide that
taxpayers may use either the revised
discount factors or the discount factors
published in Rev. Proc. 2019–06 for
taxable years beginning after December
31, 2017, and ending before June 17,
2019. The guidance will describe the
adjustment to be taken into account by
any taxpayer that uses the discount
factors prescribed in Rev. Proc. 2019–06
in a taxable year. See Rev. Proc. 2019–
06. Taxpayers must use the revised
discount factors in taxable years ending
on or after June 17, 2019.
2. Discontinuance of Composite Method
The Treasury Department and the IRS
proposed, in the preamble to the
Proposed Regulations, to discontinue
the use of the ‘‘composite method’’
described in section 3.01 of Rev. Proc.
2002–74, 2002–2 C.B. 980, and section
V of Notice 88–100, 1988–2 C.B. 439.
Commenters suggested that the
current rules permitting use of the
composite method should be retained.
The commenters explained that if the
composite method were discontinued,
compiling the data required to compute
discounted unpaid losses with respect
to accident years not separately reported
on the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
annual statement would prove to be
difficult for some insurers given the
limitations of company data for older
accident years and legacy information
technology systems. One of the
commenters added that discontinuance
of the composite method would cause
burdensome reporting requirements for
insurers.
In response to these comments, the
Treasury Department and the IRS have
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
determined to continue to permit the
use of the composite method and to
continue to publish composite discount
factors annually.
3. Smoothing Adjustments
Section 1.846–1(d)(1) of the Proposed
Regulations provides that the loss
payment pattern determined by the
Secretary for each line of business
generally is determined by reference to
the historical loss payment pattern
applicable to such line of business.
However, under § 1.846–1(d)(1) and (2)
of the Proposed Regulations, the
Secretary may adjust the loss payment
pattern for any line of business using a
methodology described by the Secretary
in other published guidance if necessary
to avoid negative payment amounts and
otherwise produce a stable pattern of
positive discount factors less than one.
As explained in section 2.03(4) of Rev.
Proc. 2019–06, for the 2017
determination year, one line of business
required adjustments under the
Proposed Regulations.
Commenters expressed support for
the smoothing adjustments described in
the Proposed Regulations and Rev. Proc.
2019–06. Accordingly, the Final
Regulations adopt § 1.846–1(d) as
proposed.
4. Determination of Estimated
Discounted Salvage Recoverable
Section 1.832–4(c) provides that,
except as otherwise provided in
guidance published by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(Commissioner) in the Internal Revenue
Bulletin, estimated salvage recoverable
must be discounted either (1) by using
the applicable discount factors
published by the Commissioner for
estimated salvage recoverable; or (2) by
using the loss payment pattern for a line
of business as the salvage recovery
pattern for that line of business and by
using the applicable interest rate for
calculating unpaid losses under section
846(c). The Treasury Department and
the IRS proposed, in the preamble to the
Proposed Regulations, that estimated
salvage recoverable be discounted by
using the published discount factors
applicable to unpaid losses. Section
4.02 of Rev. Proc. 2019–06 provides that
the unpaid loss discount factors set
forth therein also serve as salvage
discount factors for the 2018 accident
year and all prior accident years for use
in computing discounted estimated
salvage recoverable under section 832.
Commenters expressed support for
the proposed use of the discount factors
applicable to unpaid losses as the
discount factors for salvage. This
method is permitted under section
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
832(b)(5)(A) and § 1.832–4(c), and it
should reduce compliance complexity
and costs. Accordingly, future guidance
published in the Internal Revenue
Bulletin will continue to provide that
estimated salvage recoverable is to be
discounted using the published
discount factors applicable to unpaid
losses.
In the preamble to the Proposed
Regulations, the Treasury Department
and the IRS requested comments on
whether net payment data (loss
payments less salvage recovered) and
net losses incurred data (losses incurred
less salvage recoverable) should be used
to compute loss discount factors. No
commenters responded to this request.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
will continue to use payment data
unreduced by salvage recovered and
losses incurred data unreduced by
salvage recoverable to compute loss
discount factors.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
5. Reinsurance and International Lines
of Business
As described in the preamble to the
Proposed Regulations, as a result of the
repeal of former section 846(d)(3)(E) and
(F) by section 13523 of the TCJA,
section 846 no longer explicitly
provides for the determination of loss
payment patterns for non-proportional
reinsurance and international lines of
business extending beyond three
calendar years following the accident
year. The Proposed Regulations would
remove § 1.846–1(b)(3)(iv) (applicable to
non-proportional reinsurance business)
and (b)(4) (applicable to international
business) of the 1992 Final Regulations
due to the repeal of former section
846(d)(3)(E) and (F). The Proposed
Regulations would retain § 1.846–
1(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii)(A) (applicable to
proportional and non-proportional
reinsurance, respectively) of the 1992
Final Regulations, however, because
these rules are not affected by the repeal
of former section 846(d)(3)(E) and (F).
Commenters agreed that the repeal of
former section 846(d)(3)(E) and (F)
means that the statute requires nonproportional reinsurance and
international lines of business to be
treated as short-tail lines of business
with three-year loss payment patterns.
The treatment of the non-proportional
reinsurance and international lines of
business as short-tail lines of business
in Rev. Proc. 2019–06 is consistent with
these comments.
Accordingly, § 1.846–1(b)(3)(iv) and
(b)(4) of the 1992 Final Regulations are
removed as proposed in the Proposed
Regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jun 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
27951
6. Other Changes
Special Analyses
The Proposed Regulations would (1)
remove § 1.846–1(a)(2) of the 1992 Final
Regulations because the examples are
no longer relevant; (2) remove § 1.846–
1(b)(3)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(iii) of the 1992
Final Regulations because these
provisions apply only to accident years
before 1992; (3) remove § 1.846–2 of the
1992 Final Regulations because section
13523 of the TCJA repealed the section
846(e) election; (4) remove § 1.846–3
because the ‘‘fresh start’’ and reserve
strengthening rules therein are no longer
applicable; (5) make conforming
changes to § 1.846–1(a) and (b) of the
1992 Final Regulations to reflect the
removal of various § 1.846–1 provisions,
as well as the removal of §§ 1.846–2 and
1.846–3 of the 1992 Final Regulations;
(6) remove § 1.846–4 of the 1992 Final
Regulations, which provides
applicability dates for §§ 1.846–1
through 1.846–3 of the 1992 Final
Regulations, and adopt proposed
§ 1.846–1(e), which provides
applicability dates for § 1.846–1; and (7)
remove § 1.846–0 of the 1992 Final
Regulations, which provides a list of the
headings in §§ 1.846–1 through 1.846–4
of the 1992 Final Regulations.
Additionally, the Proposed
Regulations would remove §§ 1.846–2T
and 1.846–4T from the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) because they are
obsolete. On April 10, 2006, the
Treasury Department and the IRS
published in the Federal Register (71
FR 17990) a Treasury decision (T.D.
9257) containing §§ 1.846–2T and
1.846–4T. On January 23, 2008, the
Treasury Department and the IRS
published in the Federal Register (73
FR 3868) a Treasury decision (T.D.
9377) that finalized the rules contained
in § 1.846–2T in § 1.846–2 and finalized
the rules contained in § 1.846–4T in
§ 1.846–4. T.D. 9377, however, did not
remove §§ 1.846–2T and 1.846–4T from
the CFR.
No comments were received regarding
any of these changes in the Proposed
Regulations. Accordingly, these changes
are adopted as proposed.
I. Regulatory Planning and Review and
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This regulation is not subject to
review under section 6(b) of Executive
Order 12866 pursuant to the
Memorandum of Agreement (April 11,
2018) between the Treasury Department
and the Office of Management and
Budget regarding review of tax
regulations.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby
certified that these final regulations will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
that are directly affected by the final
regulations. These final regulations
update the 1992 Final Regulations to
reflect statutory changes made by the
TCJA, including the applicable interest
rate to be used for purposes of section
846(c) based on a statutorily prescribed
corporate bond yield curve. In addition,
these final regulations do not impose a
collection of information on any
taxpayers, including small entities.
Accordingly, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the
Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking
preceding this regulation was submitted
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for
comment on its impact on small
business, and no comments were
received.
7. Change in Method of Accounting
The Treasury Department and the IRS
plan to publish guidance in the Internal
Revenue Bulletin that provides
simplified procedures under section 446
and § 1.446–1(e) for an insurance
company to obtain automatic consent of
the Commissioner to change its method
of accounting to comply with section
846, as amended by the TCJA, for the
first taxable year beginning after
December 31, 2017.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
II. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires that agencies assess anticipated
costs and benefits and take certain other
actions before issuing a final rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures in any one year
by a state, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million in 1995 dollars, updated
annually for inflation. In 2018, that
threshold is approximately $150
million. This rule does not include any
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures by state, local, or tribal
governments, or by the private sector in
excess of that threshold.
III. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (titled
‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits an agency from
publishing any rule that has federalism
implications if the rule either imposes
substantial, direct compliance costs on
state and local governments, and is not
required by statute, or preempts state
law, unless the agency meets the
consultation and funding requirements
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
27952
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This
final rule does not have federalism
implications and does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments or preempt
state law within the meaning of the
Executive Order.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these
regulations is Kathryn M. Sneade, Office
of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial
Institutions and Products), IRS.
However, other personnel from the
Treasury Department and the IRS
participated in their development.
Statement of Availability of IRS
Documents
The IRS notices and revenue
procedures cited in this preamble are
published in the Internal Revenue
Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and
are available from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government
Publishing Office, Washington, DC
20402, or by visiting the IRS website at
https://www.irs.gov.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Adoption of Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
amended as follows:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 is amended by removing the
entry for § 1.846–2(d), removing the
entry for §§ 1.846–1 through 1.846–4,
and adding an entry in numerical order
for § 1.846–1. The addition reads in part
as follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
*
*
*
*
*
Section 1.846–1 also issued under 26
U.S.C. 846.
*
*
§ 1.846–0
*
*
*
[Removed]
Par. 2. Section 1.846–0 is removed.
■ Par. 3. Section 1.846–1 is amended
by:
■ 1. In the first sentence of paragraph
(a)(1) removing ‘‘section 846(f)(3)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘section 846(e)(3)’’.
■ 2. In the third sentence of paragraph
(a)(1), removing the phrase ‘‘and
§ 1.846–3(b) contains guidance relating
to discount factors applicable to
accident years prior to the 1987 accident
year’’.
■ 3. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the
last sentence.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jun 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
4. Removing paragraph (a)(2) and
redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) and (4)
as paragraphs (a)(2) and (3),
respectively.
■ 5. In the first sentence of paragraph
(b)(1), removing ‘‘section 846(f)(6)’’ and
adding ‘‘section 846(e)(6)’’ in its place;
and removing ‘‘, in § 1.846–2 (relating to
a taxpayer’s election to use its own
historical loss payment pattern)’’.
■ 6. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), removing ‘‘for
accident years after 1987’’ from the
heading.
■ 7. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), removing the
designation ‘‘—(A)’’ and the paragraph
heading ‘‘Accident years after 1991’’.
■ 8. Removing paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(B),
and (b)(3)(iii) and (iv).
■ 9. Removing paragraph (b)(4) and
redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as
paragraph (b)(4).
■ 10. Adding paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
The additions read as follows:
■
§ 1.846–1
Application of discount factors.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Determination of annual rate. The
applicable interest rate is the annual
rate determined by the Secretary for any
calendar year on the basis of the
corporate bond yield curve (as defined
in section 430(h)(2)(D)(i), determined by
substituting ‘‘60-month period’’ for ‘‘24month period’’ therein). The annual rate
for any calendar year is determined on
the basis of a yield curve that reflects
the average, for the most recent 60month period ending before the
beginning of the calendar year, of
monthly yields on corporate bonds
described in section 430(h)(2)(D)(i). The
annual rate is the average of that yield
curve’s monthly spot rates with times to
maturity from four and one-half years to
ten years.
(d) Determination of loss payment
pattern—(1) In general. Under section
846(d)(1), the loss payment pattern
determined by the Secretary for each
line of business is determined by
reference to the historical loss payment
pattern applicable to such line of
business determined in accordance with
the method of determination set forth in
section 846(d)(2) and the computational
rules prescribed in section 846(d)(3) on
the basis of the annual statement data
from annual statements described in
section 846(d)(2)(A) and (B). However,
the Secretary may adjust the loss
payment pattern for any line of business
as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
(2) Smoothing adjustments. The
Secretary may adjust the loss payment
pattern for any line of business using a
methodology described by the Secretary
in other published guidance if necessary
to avoid negative payment amounts and
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
otherwise produce a stable pattern of
positive discount factors less than one.
(e) Applicability dates. (1) Except as
provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, this section applies to taxable
years beginning after December 31,
1986.
(2) Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section apply to taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2017.
§ 1.846–2
■
Par. 4. Section 1.846–2 is removed.
§ 1.846–2T
■
[Removed]
Par. 7. Section 1.846–4 is removed.
§ 1.846–4T
■
[Removed]
Par. 6. Section 1.846–3 is removed.
§ 1.846–4
■
[Removed]
Par. 5. Section 1.846–2T is removed.
§ 1.846–3
■
[Removed]
[Removed]
Par. 8. Section 1.846–4T is removed.
Kirsten Wielobob,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: May 21, 2019.
David J. Kautter,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 2019–12172 Filed 6–13–19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
29 CFR Part 2520
RIN 1210–AB62
Electronic Filing of Notices for
Apprenticeship and Training Plans and
Statements for Pension Plans for
Certain Select Employees
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This document contains final
regulations that revise the procedures
for filing apprenticeship and training
plan notices and ‘‘top hat’’ plan
statements with the Secretary of Labor.
The final regulations require electronic
submission of these notices and
statements, as opposed to paper filings.
The final regulations will make filing
these notices and statements easier and
lower regulatory burdens on these
plans. The final regulations also will
enable the Department of Labor to make
reported data more readily available to
participants and beneficiaries and other
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27947-27952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12172]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 9863]
RIN 1545-BO50
Modification of Discounting Rules for Insurance Companies
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations on discounting rules
for unpaid losses and estimated salvage recoverable of insurance
companies for Federal income tax purposes. The final regulations update
and replace existing regulations to implement recent legislative
changes to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and make a technical
improvement to the derivation of loss payment patterns used for
discounting. The final regulations affect entities taxable as insurance
companies.
DATES:
Effective Date: These regulations are effective June 17, 2019.
Applicability Date: For dates of applicability, see Sec. 1.846-
1(e)(2).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn M. Sneade, (202) 317-6995 (not
a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section
846 of the Code. Section 846 was added to the Code by section 1023(c)
of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514 (100 Stat. 2085,
2399). Final regulations under section 846 were published in the
Federal Register (57 FR 40841) on
[[Page 27948]]
September 8, 1992 (T.D. 8433). See Sec. Sec. 1.846-0 through 1.846-4
(1992 Final Regulations). The discounting rules under section 846 were
amended for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, by section
13523 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115-97 (131 Stat. 2054,
2152) (TCJA). The discounting rules of section 846, both prior to and
after amendment by the TCJA, are used to determine discounted unpaid
losses and estimated salvage recoverable of property and casualty (P&C)
insurance companies and discounted unearned premiums of title insurance
companies for Federal income tax purposes under section 832, as well as
discounted unpaid losses of life insurance companies for Federal income
tax purposes under sections 805(a)(1) and 807(c)(2).
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS
published proposed regulations under section 846 (REG-103163-18) in the
Federal Register (83 FR 55646) on November 7, 2018 (Proposed
Regulations). The Treasury Department and the IRS received public
comments on the Proposed Regulations and held a public hearing on
December 20, 2018.
On January 7, 2019, the Treasury Department and the IRS published
Rev. Proc. 2019-06, 2019-02 I.R.B. 284, which prescribes unpaid loss
discount factors for the 2018 accident year and earlier accident years
for use in computing discounted unpaid losses under section 846. The
unpaid loss discount factors also serve as salvage discount factors for
the 2018 accident year and earlier accident years for use in computing
discounted estimated salvage recoverable under section 832. The
discount factors prescribed in Rev. Proc. 2019-06 were determined under
section 846, as amended by section 13523 of the TCJA, and the Proposed
Regulations. In Rev. Proc. 2019-06, the Treasury Department and the IRS
announced the intent to publish revised unpaid loss discount factors,
if necessary, following the publication of the Proposed Regulations as
final regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS also announced
the intent to issue guidance on the use of revised discount factors,
including the adjustment to be taken into account by certain taxpayers
that used the discount factors prescribed in Rev. Proc. 2019-06 in a
taxable year ending before the date of publication of final
regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS requested and received
public comments on Rev. Proc. 2019-06.
After consideration of all of the comments on the Proposed
Regulations and Rev. Proc. 2019-06, the Proposed Regulations are
adopted as amended by this Treasury decision (Final Regulations).
Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions
This section discusses the public comments received on the Proposed
Regulations and Rev. Proc. 2019-06, explains the revisions adopted by
the Final Regulations in response to those comments, and describes
guidance the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to issue following
publication of the Final Regulations in the Federal Register.
1. Determination of Applicable Interest Rate
Under section 846(a)(2) and (c)(1), the ``applicable interest
rate'' used to determine the discount factors associated with any
accident year and line of business is the ``annual rate'' determined
under section 846(c)(2).
Before amendment by section 13523(a) of the TCJA, section 846(c)(2)
provided that the annual rate for any calendar year was a rate equal to
the average of the applicable Federal mid-term rates (as defined in
section 1274(d) but based on annual compounding) effective as of the
beginning of each of the calendar months in the most recent 60-month
period ending before the beginning of the calendar year for which the
determination is made. The applicable Federal mid-term rate is
determined by the Secretary based on the average market yield on
outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with remaining
periods of over three years but not over nine years. See section
1274(d)(1).
As amended by section 13523(a) of the TCJA, section 846(c)(2)
provides that the annual rate for any calendar year will be determined
by the Secretary based on the corporate bond yield curve (as defined in
section 430(h)(2)(D)(i), determined by substituting ``60-month period''
for ``24-month period'' therein). The corporate bond yield curve,
commonly referred to as the high quality market (HQM) corporate bond
yield curve, is published on a monthly basis by the Treasury Department
and the IRS. It reflects the average of monthly yields on investment
grade corporate bonds with varying maturities that are in the top three
quality levels available, and it consists of spot interest rates for
each stated time to maturity. See, for example, Notice 2019-13, 2019-8
I.R.B. 580. The spot rate for a given time to maturity represents the
yield on a bond that gives a single payment at that maturity. For the
stated yield curve, times to maturity are specified at half-year
intervals from one-half year through 100 years. Section 846(c)(2) does
not specify how the Secretary is to determine the annual rate for any
calendar year based on the corporate bond yield curve.
Section 1.846-1(c) of the Proposed Regulations provides that the
``applicable interest rate'' used to determine the discount factors
associated with any accident year and line of business is the ``annual
rate'' determined by the Secretary for any calendar year on the basis
of the corporate bond yield curve (as defined in section
430(h)(2)(D)(i), determined by substituting ``60-month period'' for
``24-month period'' therein). The annual rate for any calendar year is
the average of the corporate bond yield curve's monthly spot rates with
times to maturity of not more than seventeen and one-half years (that
is, when applied to the HQM corporate bond yield curve, times to
maturity from one-half year to seventeen and one-half years), computed
using the most recent 60-month period ending before the beginning of
the calendar year for which the determination is made.
Consistent with the text of section 846, as amended by the TCJA,
and the statutory structure as a whole, the Proposed Regulations
provide for the use of a single annual rate applicable to all lines of
business, as was the case under section 846 prior to amendment by the
TCJA. Commenters agreed with this approach. One commenter asserted that
a single rate approach continues to be mandated by the statutory
language and Congressional intent. This commenter also noted that the
use of a single rate is a continuance of longstanding practice related
to the discounting of insurance loss reserves, and the TCJA did not
specify a change to this practice.
The preamble to the Proposed Regulations states that the change
from a rate based on the applicable Federal mid-term rates to a rate
based on the corporate bond yield curve indicates that the annual rate
should be determined in a manner that more closely matches the
investments in bonds used to fund the undiscounted losses to be paid in
the future by insurance companies. Several commenters agreed that the
annual rate should be determined in a manner that more closely matches
the investments of insurance companies.
The maturity range in the Proposed Regulations (that is, times to
maturity from one-half year to seventeen and one-half years) was
selected to produce a single discount rate that would provide
approximately the same present
[[Page 27949]]
value of taxable income, in the aggregate, as would be obtained by
applying the 60-month average corporate bond yield curve (forecast
through 2028) directly to the future loss payments expected for each
line of business (determined using the loss payment patterns applicable
to the 2018 accident year). That is, the selected maturity range
approximates, in terms of the present value of taxable income, the
overall result of discounting each projected loss payment using the
spot rate from the corporate bond yield curve with a time to maturity
that matches the time between the end of the accident year and the
middle of the year of the projected loss payment.
Several commenters expressed concern with the selection of the
maturity range used to determine the single rate applicable to all
unpaid losses for all lines of business under the Proposed Regulations.
A commenter addressing the application of the Proposed Regulations to
certain non-life insurance reserves held by life insurance companies
requested a single section 846 discount rate determined by reference to
shorter maturities than those specified in the Proposed Regulations to
more clearly reflect the income of life insurance companies related to
these reserves. Several commenters addressing the application of the
Proposed Regulations to P&C insurance companies requested that the
discount rate instead be determined by reference to the maturity range
of three and one-half to nine years that was used under section 846
prior to amendment by the TCJA. Some of the commenters asserted a lack
of clear congressional intent to use a different maturity range than
the maturity range used under section 846 prior to amendment by the
TCJA. The commenters also asserted that the shorter range with a lower
average maturity would more closely match the maturity of the P&C
insurance industry's investments and offered alternative approaches to
selecting a maturity range should a different maturity range be
selected.
Some of the commenters addressing the application of the Proposed
Regulations to P&C insurance companies acknowledged that the annual
rate calculated under the Proposed Regulations approximates the P&C
industry's current investment yield in the current bond market.
However, the commenters generally asserted that an annual rate based on
the maturity range in the Proposed Regulations would overstate the
industry's investment yield in other interest rate environments because
the average maturity and average duration of the bonds reflected in
that segment of the HQM corporate bond yield curve are longer than both
the average maturity and average duration of the industry's actual bond
investments. The commenters asserted that the weighted average
maturities of bonds held by P&C insurance companies are notably lower
than the nine-year average of the maturity range suggested in the
Proposed Regulations. According to one commenter, the weighted average
maturities of bonds held by P&C insurance companies have ranged between
6.4 and 7.1 years since 2008. The commenters asserted that P&C
companies generally do not seek to match the maturities of their
investments with the expected payment dates of their liabilities. One
commenter stated that P&C insurers' bond portfolios are more skewed to
the short end of the curve to ensure sufficient liquidity to pay
claims, especially for catastrophic events.
The commenters also explained that the average duration of bond
payments held by P&C insurance companies (five to six years, according
to data from one commenter) is shorter than the nine-year average
payment duration of the bonds underlying the maturity range in the
Proposed Regulations because P&C insurance companies typically invest
in coupon bonds. Unlike the zero-coupon bonds reflected in the HQM
corporate bond yield curve, coupon bonds have an average payment
duration that is less than their maturity because of the periodic
interest payments. Commenters asserted that the duration difference
between coupon bonds and zero-coupon bonds is more pronounced in an
environment with higher interest rates and a steeper yield curve.
One of the commenters requesting the use of a shorter maturity
range (three and one-half to nine years) suggested that the annual rate
should be determined in a manner that more closely matches the P&C
insurance industry's investment yield. The commenter asserted that, in
a rising rate environment, especially if there is a larger spread
between the short-term and long-term rates, the longer maturity range
in the Proposed Regulations would overstate the P&C insurance
industry's investment yield. The commenter also asserted that the
shorter maturity range would result in a better approximation of the
P&C insurance industry's investment yield over a longer period of time
and in different interest rate environments. The commenter suggested
that if the shorter maturity range is not adopted, another approach
would be to periodically adjust the maturity range. Under this
approach, every five years (that is, for each determination year under
section 846(d)(4)), the Secretary would select the maturity range that
best approximates the industry's investment yield based on publicly
available P&C insurance industry aggregate investment yield data.
However, other commenters expressed a preference for a fixed range.
Two of the commenters requesting the use of a shorter maturity
range (three and one-half to nine years) suggested that the maturity
range selected should more closely match the average maturity of the
P&C insurance industry's bond investments. The commenters asserted that
the average maturity of a range consisting of three and one-half to
nine years more closely matches the six to seven-year average maturity
of the industry's bond investments over the past decade than the nine-
year average of the longer range in the Proposed Regulations. One
commenter suggested that if the shorter maturity range is not adopted,
an alternative could be to use the maturity range from one-half to
thirteen years because that range also reflects average maturities that
more closely match the investments in bonds used to fund the
undiscounted losses of P&C insurance companies. Both commenters
suggested that if the range in the Proposed Regulations is retained, a
``guardrail'' should place an upper limit on the maturities that are
used when the bond yield curve is unusually steep. The commenters
assert that use of the maturity range in the Proposed Regulations in
such conditions would result in an annual rate that overstates the P&C
insurance industry's investment yield due to the duration and maturity
differences between the industry's bond investments and the bonds
reflected in the HQM corporate bond yield curve segment selected in the
Proposed Regulations. The commenters expressed particular concern that
use of the maturity range in the Proposed Regulations would pose a
threat to the industry's financial viability in times of economic
stress because steep yield curves historically have occurred during or
immediately after a recession and often coincide with a downturn in the
underwriting cycle.
One commenter provided recommendations regarding the ``guardrail''
adjustment to be made to the annual rate and the circumstances in which
it would apply. The commenter suggested that a guardrail adjustment
should be made when the spread between the HQM corporate bond yields at
the lower end (one-half year to maturity) and upper end (seventeen and
one-half years to maturity) of the maturity range proposed in the
[[Page 27950]]
Proposed Regulations, measured on the basis of the 12-month average, is
greater than 2.75 percentage points. The commenter explained that this
``trigger'' was selected because, compared to the other possible
triggers considered by the commenter, it has the highest correlation to
recession-related stress periods, it is simple to implement, and it
does not result in undue volatility. The commenter suggested that the
``guardrail'' be an annual interest rate based on the 60-month average
of a narrower range of bond maturities of one-half year to thirteen
years. The commenter asserted that this trigger and guardrail
adjustment proposal is reasonably simple, easily administrable, and
predictable (for both the IRS and taxpayers) in its application.
After consideration of the comments received on the Proposed
Regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined to use
a single annual rate based on a narrower range of maturities.
Specifically, the annual rate for any calendar year is the average of
the corporate bond yield curve's monthly spot rates with times to
maturity from four and one-half years to ten years, computed using the
most recent 60-month period ending before the beginning of the calendar
year for which the determination is made. In response to comments
expressing a preference for a fixed range, the Final Regulations do not
provide for periodic redetermination of the maturity range used to
determine the annual rate.
The maturity range of four and one-half years to ten years was
selected in response to comments requesting the adoption of a narrower
maturity range with an average maturity that more closely matches the
six- to seven-year average maturity of the P&C insurance industry's
bond investments. Commenters expressed concern about the inclusion of
the times-to-maturity at the upper end of the range in the Proposed
Regulations, particularly when the bond yield curve is unusually steep.
Therefore, the Final Regulations provide for a narrower maturity range
than in the Proposed Regulations (from one-half year to seventeen and
one-half years). Use of the narrower range eliminates yields for times-
to-maturity at the lower and upper ends of the range in the Proposed
Regulations from the calculation of an average annual rate.
The selected maturity range has an average maturity of seven and
one-quarter years, which is closer to the average maturity of the
industry's bond investments than the nine-year average maturity of the
maturity range in the Proposed Regulations. The Final Regulations do
not adopt either of the maturity ranges suggested by commenters (three
and one-half to nine years and one-half to thirteen years) because the
suggested ranges would typically understate the P&C industry's
investment yield as compared to the range adopted in the Final
Regulations. P&C industry investment portfolios include assets other
than high quality bonds, and the higher returns on those other assets
typically result in the industry earning a higher rate of return.
Therefore, the Final Regulations adopt a maturity range that has an
average maturity that is slightly greater than the average maturity of
the industry's bond investments.
The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to publish guidance in
the Internal Revenue Bulletin that will provide revised unpaid loss
discount factors based on the Final Regulations for each property and
casualty line of business for all accident years ending with or before
calendar year 2018. The guidance will also provide that taxpayers may
use either the revised discount factors or the discount factors
published in Rev. Proc. 2019-06 for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2017, and ending before June 17, 2019. The guidance will
describe the adjustment to be taken into account by any taxpayer that
uses the discount factors prescribed in Rev. Proc. 2019-06 in a taxable
year. See Rev. Proc. 2019-06. Taxpayers must use the revised discount
factors in taxable years ending on or after June 17, 2019.
2. Discontinuance of Composite Method
The Treasury Department and the IRS proposed, in the preamble to
the Proposed Regulations, to discontinue the use of the ``composite
method'' described in section 3.01 of Rev. Proc. 2002-74, 2002-2 C.B.
980, and section V of Notice 88-100, 1988-2 C.B. 439.
Commenters suggested that the current rules permitting use of the
composite method should be retained. The commenters explained that if
the composite method were discontinued, compiling the data required to
compute discounted unpaid losses with respect to accident years not
separately reported on the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners (NAIC) annual statement would prove to be difficult for
some insurers given the limitations of company data for older accident
years and legacy information technology systems. One of the commenters
added that discontinuance of the composite method would cause
burdensome reporting requirements for insurers.
In response to these comments, the Treasury Department and the IRS
have determined to continue to permit the use of the composite method
and to continue to publish composite discount factors annually.
3. Smoothing Adjustments
Section 1.846-1(d)(1) of the Proposed Regulations provides that the
loss payment pattern determined by the Secretary for each line of
business generally is determined by reference to the historical loss
payment pattern applicable to such line of business. However, under
Sec. 1.846-1(d)(1) and (2) of the Proposed Regulations, the Secretary
may adjust the loss payment pattern for any line of business using a
methodology described by the Secretary in other published guidance if
necessary to avoid negative payment amounts and otherwise produce a
stable pattern of positive discount factors less than one. As explained
in section 2.03(4) of Rev. Proc. 2019-06, for the 2017 determination
year, one line of business required adjustments under the Proposed
Regulations.
Commenters expressed support for the smoothing adjustments
described in the Proposed Regulations and Rev. Proc. 2019-06.
Accordingly, the Final Regulations adopt Sec. 1.846-1(d) as proposed.
4. Determination of Estimated Discounted Salvage Recoverable
Section 1.832-4(c) provides that, except as otherwise provided in
guidance published by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(Commissioner) in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, estimated salvage
recoverable must be discounted either (1) by using the applicable
discount factors published by the Commissioner for estimated salvage
recoverable; or (2) by using the loss payment pattern for a line of
business as the salvage recovery pattern for that line of business and
by using the applicable interest rate for calculating unpaid losses
under section 846(c). The Treasury Department and the IRS proposed, in
the preamble to the Proposed Regulations, that estimated salvage
recoverable be discounted by using the published discount factors
applicable to unpaid losses. Section 4.02 of Rev. Proc. 2019-06
provides that the unpaid loss discount factors set forth therein also
serve as salvage discount factors for the 2018 accident year and all
prior accident years for use in computing discounted estimated salvage
recoverable under section 832.
Commenters expressed support for the proposed use of the discount
factors applicable to unpaid losses as the discount factors for
salvage. This method is permitted under section
[[Page 27951]]
832(b)(5)(A) and Sec. 1.832-4(c), and it should reduce compliance
complexity and costs. Accordingly, future guidance published in the
Internal Revenue Bulletin will continue to provide that estimated
salvage recoverable is to be discounted using the published discount
factors applicable to unpaid losses.
In the preamble to the Proposed Regulations, the Treasury
Department and the IRS requested comments on whether net payment data
(loss payments less salvage recovered) and net losses incurred data
(losses incurred less salvage recoverable) should be used to compute
loss discount factors. No commenters responded to this request. The
Treasury Department and the IRS will continue to use payment data
unreduced by salvage recovered and losses incurred data unreduced by
salvage recoverable to compute loss discount factors.
5. Reinsurance and International Lines of Business
As described in the preamble to the Proposed Regulations, as a
result of the repeal of former section 846(d)(3)(E) and (F) by section
13523 of the TCJA, section 846 no longer explicitly provides for the
determination of loss payment patterns for non-proportional reinsurance
and international lines of business extending beyond three calendar
years following the accident year. The Proposed Regulations would
remove Sec. 1.846-1(b)(3)(iv) (applicable to non-proportional
reinsurance business) and (b)(4) (applicable to international business)
of the 1992 Final Regulations due to the repeal of former section
846(d)(3)(E) and (F). The Proposed Regulations would retain Sec.
1.846-1(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii)(A) (applicable to proportional and non-
proportional reinsurance, respectively) of the 1992 Final Regulations,
however, because these rules are not affected by the repeal of former
section 846(d)(3)(E) and (F).
Commenters agreed that the repeal of former section 846(d)(3)(E)
and (F) means that the statute requires non-proportional reinsurance
and international lines of business to be treated as short-tail lines
of business with three-year loss payment patterns. The treatment of the
non-proportional reinsurance and international lines of business as
short-tail lines of business in Rev. Proc. 2019-06 is consistent with
these comments.
Accordingly, Sec. 1.846-1(b)(3)(iv) and (b)(4) of the 1992 Final
Regulations are removed as proposed in the Proposed Regulations.
6. Other Changes
The Proposed Regulations would (1) remove Sec. 1.846-1(a)(2) of
the 1992 Final Regulations because the examples are no longer relevant;
(2) remove Sec. 1.846-1(b)(3)(ii)(B) and (b)(3)(iii) of the 1992 Final
Regulations because these provisions apply only to accident years
before 1992; (3) remove Sec. 1.846-2 of the 1992 Final Regulations
because section 13523 of the TCJA repealed the section 846(e) election;
(4) remove Sec. 1.846-3 because the ``fresh start'' and reserve
strengthening rules therein are no longer applicable; (5) make
conforming changes to Sec. 1.846-1(a) and (b) of the 1992 Final
Regulations to reflect the removal of various Sec. 1.846-1 provisions,
as well as the removal of Sec. Sec. 1.846-2 and 1.846-3 of the 1992
Final Regulations; (6) remove Sec. 1.846-4 of the 1992 Final
Regulations, which provides applicability dates for Sec. Sec. 1.846-1
through 1.846-3 of the 1992 Final Regulations, and adopt proposed Sec.
1.846-1(e), which provides applicability dates for Sec. 1.846-1; and
(7) remove Sec. 1.846-0 of the 1992 Final Regulations, which provides
a list of the headings in Sec. Sec. 1.846-1 through 1.846-4 of the
1992 Final Regulations.
Additionally, the Proposed Regulations would remove Sec. Sec.
1.846-2T and 1.846-4T from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
because they are obsolete. On April 10, 2006, the Treasury Department
and the IRS published in the Federal Register (71 FR 17990) a Treasury
decision (T.D. 9257) containing Sec. Sec. 1.846-2T and 1.846-4T. On
January 23, 2008, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the
Federal Register (73 FR 3868) a Treasury decision (T.D. 9377) that
finalized the rules contained in Sec. 1.846-2T in Sec. 1.846-2 and
finalized the rules contained in Sec. 1.846-4T in Sec. 1.846-4. T.D.
9377, however, did not remove Sec. Sec. 1.846-2T and 1.846-4T from the
CFR.
No comments were received regarding any of these changes in the
Proposed Regulations. Accordingly, these changes are adopted as
proposed.
7. Change in Method of Accounting
The Treasury Department and the IRS plan to publish guidance in the
Internal Revenue Bulletin that provides simplified procedures under
section 446 and Sec. 1.446-1(e) for an insurance company to obtain
automatic consent of the Commissioner to change its method of
accounting to comply with section 846, as amended by the TCJA, for the
first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017.
Special Analyses
I. Regulatory Planning and Review and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This regulation is not subject to review under section 6(b) of
Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April
11, 2018) between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management
and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it
is hereby certified that these final regulations will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
that are directly affected by the final regulations. These final
regulations update the 1992 Final Regulations to reflect statutory
changes made by the TCJA, including the applicable interest rate to be
used for purposes of section 846(c) based on a statutorily prescribed
corporate bond yield curve. In addition, these final regulations do not
impose a collection of information on any taxpayers, including small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed
rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its
impact on small business, and no comments were received.
II. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take
certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a
state, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for
inflation. In 2018, that threshold is approximately $150 million. This
rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private
sector in excess of that threshold.
III. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (titled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency
from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule
either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on state and local
governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts state law,
unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements
[[Page 27952]]
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This final rule does not have
federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law
within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these regulations is Kathryn M. Sneade,
Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and
Products), IRS. However, other personnel from the Treasury Department
and the IRS participated in their development.
Statement of Availability of IRS Documents
The IRS notices and revenue procedures cited in this preamble are
published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and
are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website
at https://www.irs.gov.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by removing
the entry for Sec. 1.846-2(d), removing the entry for Sec. Sec.
1.846-1 through 1.846-4, and adding an entry in numerical order for
Sec. 1.846-1. The addition reads in part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
* * * * *
Section 1.846-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 846.
* * * * *
Sec. 1.846-0 [Removed]
0
Par. 2. Section 1.846-0 is removed.
0
Par. 3. Section 1.846-1 is amended by:
0
1. In the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1) removing ``section
846(f)(3)'' and adding in its place ``section 846(e)(3)''.
0
2. In the third sentence of paragraph (a)(1), removing the phrase ``and
Sec. 1.846-3(b) contains guidance relating to discount factors
applicable to accident years prior to the 1987 accident year''.
0
3. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the last sentence.
0
4. Removing paragraph (a)(2) and redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) and
(4) as paragraphs (a)(2) and (3), respectively.
0
5. In the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1), removing ``section
846(f)(6)'' and adding ``section 846(e)(6)'' in its place; and removing
``, in Sec. 1.846-2 (relating to a taxpayer's election to use its own
historical loss payment pattern)''.
0
6. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), removing ``for accident years after 1987''
from the heading.
0
7. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), removing the designation ``--(A)'' and the
paragraph heading ``Accident years after 1991''.
0
8. Removing paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(B), and (b)(3)(iii) and (iv).
0
9. Removing paragraph (b)(4) and redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as
paragraph (b)(4).
0
10. Adding paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 1.846-1 Application of discount factors.
* * * * *
(c) Determination of annual rate. The applicable interest rate is
the annual rate determined by the Secretary for any calendar year on
the basis of the corporate bond yield curve (as defined in section
430(h)(2)(D)(i), determined by substituting ``60-month period'' for
``24-month period'' therein). The annual rate for any calendar year is
determined on the basis of a yield curve that reflects the average, for
the most recent 60-month period ending before the beginning of the
calendar year, of monthly yields on corporate bonds described in
section 430(h)(2)(D)(i). The annual rate is the average of that yield
curve's monthly spot rates with times to maturity from four and one-
half years to ten years.
(d) Determination of loss payment pattern--(1) In general. Under
section 846(d)(1), the loss payment pattern determined by the Secretary
for each line of business is determined by reference to the historical
loss payment pattern applicable to such line of business determined in
accordance with the method of determination set forth in section
846(d)(2) and the computational rules prescribed in section 846(d)(3)
on the basis of the annual statement data from annual statements
described in section 846(d)(2)(A) and (B). However, the Secretary may
adjust the loss payment pattern for any line of business as provided in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(2) Smoothing adjustments. The Secretary may adjust the loss
payment pattern for any line of business using a methodology described
by the Secretary in other published guidance if necessary to avoid
negative payment amounts and otherwise produce a stable pattern of
positive discount factors less than one.
(e) Applicability dates. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2)
of this section, this section applies to taxable years beginning after
December 31, 1986.
(2) Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2017.
Sec. 1.846-2 [Removed]
0
Par. 4. Section 1.846-2 is removed.
Sec. 1.846-2T [Removed]
0
Par. 5. Section 1.846-2T is removed.
Sec. 1.846-3 [Removed]
0
Par. 6. Section 1.846-3 is removed.
Sec. 1.846-4 [Removed]
0
Par. 7. Section 1.846-4 is removed.
Sec. 1.846-4T [Removed]
0
Par. 8. Section 1.846-4T is removed.
Kirsten Wielobob,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
Approved: May 21, 2019.
David J. Kautter,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2019-12172 Filed 6-13-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P