Dorrance, et al v. United States of America

Filing 124

AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW that Plaintiffs' request for a refund of taxes is granted. ORDER that the Parties shall confer and file, no later than 6/1/13, a proposed form of judgment to be entered in this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/19/13. (TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Bennett and Jacquelynn Dorrance,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

v.
United States of America,
Defendant.

13
14

No. CV-09-1284-PHX-GMS

On December 18 and 19, 2012, this matter was tried to the Court without a jury.
(Doc. 114, 115.) This Order constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).1
BACKGROUND
In 1996, Bennett and Jacquelynn Dorrance (“Plaintiffs”) purchased several life
insurance policies from mutual companies. Along with insurance benefits, those policies
granted Plaintiffs mutual ownership rights in the companies (“mutual rights”) for as long
as they paid premiums. These mutual companies later demutualized and converted into
stock-based companies. In 2000 and 2001, the mutual companies compensated Plaintiffs

24
1

25
26
27
28

During trial, at the conclusion of Plaintiffs’ case, Defendant moved for partial
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c). Defendant argued that
Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof. Defendant contended that Plaintiffs had not
provided an equitable method to apportion cost basis between their mutual rights and
insurance benefits. Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not offer evidence that they had a realistic
expectation of demutualization and that they paid an additional amount for mutual rights.
See Gladden v. Comm’r, 262 F.3d 851, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court denied
Defendant’s Motion.

1

for the loss of their mutual rights with shares of stock valued at $1,794,771. On June 23,

2

2003, Plaintiffs sold those shares for an aggregate amount of $2,248,806. Consistent with

3

IRS policy that policyholders have no basis in stock received during demutualization of a

4

life insurance company, Plaintiffs listed a zero cost basis when reporting their proceeds

5

for the tax year ending on December 31, 2003 and paid taxes on the full amount. On

6

October 15, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a claim for a refund, arguing that they did not owe tax

7

on their proceeds. Because the IRS did not issue a final determination regarding the

8

refund, Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court to affirm their claim on June 15, 2009.2

9

On July 9, 2012, this Court issued an Order ruling on the Parties’ cross-motions

10

for summary judgment. (Doc. 88.) Defendant argued that Plaintiffs paid premiums to

11

acquire insurance benefits, not to obtain mutual rights under the policy. Accordingly,

12

Plaintiffs had no basis in the stock that was provided in exchange for those mutual rights.

13

However, this Court held that Plaintiffs had met their burden of showing they paid

14

something for the mutual rights because they paid premiums for policies that included

15

both policy rights and mutual rights.

16

Plaintiffs contended that the demutualization should be governed by the “open

17

transaction doctrine” which is employed when the basis in property that is split cannot be

18

allocated to the resulting assets because it is not clear how much each asset cost. See

19

Fisher v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 780, 795 (Fed. Cl. 2008) (aff’d without opinion by

20

Fisher v. United States, 333 Fed. App’x. 572 (2009)). For example, under this doctrine,

21

proceeds from Plaintiffs’ sale of stock would be considered return of capital from their

22

premiums, and they would thereby owe no tax. This Court held that the doctrine did not

23

apply because Plaintiffs’ mutual rights were not “elements of value so speculative in

24
2

25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs Bennett and Jacquelynn Dorrance originally sought a refund in the
amount of $2,678,411.10 for the taxable years ending December 31, 2002, 2003, and
2004 on three unrelated and distinct bases. (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) They sought a refund of
penalties and interest the IRS assessed against them for participation in an allegedly
illegal tax shelter. On October 10, 2011, Plaintiffs abandoned that portion of their
Complaint. (Doc. 64 at 2.) Plaintiffs also sought to recover an overpayment of taxes due
to the miscalculation of their investment interest expense deduction. That issue was
settled with Defendant. (Id.)
-2-

1

character as to prohibit any reasonably based projection of worth.” Campbell v. United

2

States, 661 F.2d 209, 215 (Ct. Cl. 1981).

3

The remaining issue for trial was to determine an equitable method to allocate the

4

premiums paid by Plaintiffs before demutualization and apply that amount as a cost basis

5

to calculate the taxable gain, if any, on their sale of stock.

6

FINDINGS OF FACT

7

1.

In 1995, Plaintiffs formed the Dorrance 1995 Legacy Trust (the “Trust”)

8

and retained a financial consulting firm to assemble a pool of survivor coverage for their

9

heirs. Through that Trust, Plaintiffs purchased the life insurance policies at issue as part

10

of an estate plan. They purchased policies with the Prudential Insurance Company of

11

America (“Prudential”), Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”), Phoenix

12

Home Life Mutual Insurance Company (“Phoenix”), Principal Life Insurance Company

13

(“Principal”), and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) (collectively, the

14

“Companies”). At that time, all of the Companies were mutual insurance companies.

15

2.

On April 28, 1996, Plaintiffs purchased the Principal policy with a face

16

value of $10,000,000 and annual premiums of $124,450. On April 30, 1996, Plaintiffs

17

purchased the Phoenix policy with a face value of $8,000,000 and annual premiums of

18

$106,355. On June 1, 1996, Plaintiffs purchased the Prudential policy, which provides the

19

bulk of their coverage, with a face value of $50,000,000 and fluctuating premiums. On

20

June 10, 1996, Plaintiffs purchased the MetLife policy with a face value of $17,500,000

21

and annual premiums of $254,350. On August 20, 1996, Plaintiffs purchased the Sun

22

Life policy with a face value of $2,275,000 and annual premiums of $33,259.

23

3.

Mutual insurance companies issue no stock and have no shareholders.

24

Instead, initial capital requirements come from premiums paid by policyholders.

25

Policyholders are the owners of mutual companies which operate for their benefit and

26

seek to offer reliable insurance at a low cost.

27
28

4.

A typical purchaser of a life insurance policy from a mutual company

understands that, by virtue of buying a policy, he or she becomes an owner of the
-3-

1

company. The possession of mutual rights was a typical selling point to potential

2

policyholders.

3

5.

A stock-based life insurance company is organized and operated for the

4

purpose of making a profit for its shareholders. Policyholders may also be shareholders

5

if they purchase stock, but otherwise policyholders have no equity interest in the

6

company and no voting rights. If a stock-based insurance company has surplus, it is

7

distributed to the shareholders, not the policyholders.
6.

8

Mutual rights include the right to share in company profits, to vote, and to a

9

preferred position in the event of liquidation. Each policyholder has one vote regardless

10

of how many policies the policyholder owns and of the size of each policy. These rights

11

arise by operation of state law and under corporate charters. See, e.g., NY Ins. Law §

12

7312(a)(3) (mutual rights defined as “including, but not limited to, the rights to vote and

13

to participate in any distribution of surplus whether or not incident to a liquidation of the

14

mutual life insurer.”). The Companies expressly defined their policyholders’ mutual

15

rights in their plans of demutualization.
7.

16

Prior to demutualization, mutual rights were not separable from ownership

17

of the life insurance policy. A policyholder could not sell or transfer mutual rights

18

regardless of whether he retained the underlying policy to which they were inextricably

19

tied.

20

8.

Plaintiffs paid premiums to the Companies which secured life insurance

21

and mutual rights. However, the Companies did not allocate premiums or assign an

22

independent cost to the mutual rights. Some of the Companies stated that policyholders’

23

mutual rights could not be valued prior to demutualization.

24

9.

If an underlying policy was terminated, either because of missed payments

25

or because the death benefit came due, the mutual rights would also be terminated. For

26

Plaintiffs, no such divestiture occurred prior to the five demutualizations in this case.

27
28

10.

The Companies demutualized into stock companies by exchanging the

policyholders’ mutual rights for shares of stock through processes that culminated in
-4-

1

2000 and 2001. They demutualized to raise additional capital through an initial public

2

offering (“IPO”) which occurred at the same time as the demutualization.

3

11.

The demutualizations went through several levels of approval. First, the

4

Companies’ boards of directors investigated and voted to approve demutualization. This

5

investigation involved the opinions of independent actuaries and investment banks

6

regarding the fairness of the compensation to be given to policyholders. Second, state

7

insurance commissioners approved the plans. Third, the plans were submitted to

8

policyholders, who approved them by significant majority votes.

9

12.

MetLife’s board unanimously approved its Plan of Reorganization on

10

September 28, 1999. Following approval by the New York state insurance commissioner,

11

a public hearing, and an approval vote by policyholders, MetLife’s IPO and

12

demutualization took place on April 4, 2000.

13

13.

On December 18, 2000, Phoenix’s board of directors unanimously

14

approved its Plan of Reorganization. Following approval by the New York state

15

insurance commissioner, a public hearing, and an approval vote by policyholders,

16

Phoenix’s IPO and demutualization took place on June 19, 2001.

17

14.

On March 31, 2001, Principal’s board of directors unanimously approved

18

its Plan of Conversion. Following approval by the Iowa state insurance commissioner, a

19

public hearing, and an approval vote by Principal’s policyholders, Principal’s IPO and

20

demutualization took place on October 22, 2001.

21

15.

On December 15, 2000, Prudential’s board of directors unanimously

22

approved a Plan of Reorganization. Following approval by the New Jersey state

23

insurance department, a public hearing, and an approval vote by policyholders,

24

Prudential’s IPO and demutualization took place on December 12, 2001.

25

16.

On September 28, 1999, Sun Life’s board unanimously approved its plan of

26

demutualization. Following approval by the Canadian insurance superintendent and the

27

Michigan state insurance commissioner, and an approval vote by Sun Life’s

28

policyholders, Sun Life’s IPO and demutualization took place on March 23, 2000.
-5-

1

17.

After the Companies demutualized, Plaintiffs retained their policies and

2

continued to pay premiums but no longer had mutual rights. In exchange for relinquished

3

mutual rights, the Companies provided Plaintiffs with stock compensation.

4

18.

When determining how many shares of stock to give policyholders, the

5

Companies calculated (1) a fixed component for the loss of voting rights, since each

6

policyholder was entitled to one vote, and (2) a variable component for the loss of other

7

rights, measured by the policyholder’s past and projected future contributions to the

8

company’s surplus.3 Of the variable component, 60% was an estimate of each

9

policyholder’s past contributions to surplus as of the calculation date while the remaining

10
11

40% was an estimate of future contributions.
19.

Although the Companies used different methods to measure policyholders’

12

contribution to surplus, all obtained independent actuarial opinions that the share

13

allocation methods were sound and that the stock compensation was “fair and equitable.”

14

The Companies also obtained opinions from investment banks, concluding that the

15

compensation was fair to the group as a whole.

16

20.

The Companies informed policyholders that their mutual rights were being

17

“exchanged” for stock. (Doc. 70-3 at 12; Doc. 71-1 at 11; Doc. 68-7 at 11; Doc. 69-1 at

18

20; Doc. 69-3 at 12.) In 2000 and 2001, Principal and Sun Life represented to the IRS

19

that the fair market value of the stock policyholders would receive during

20

demutualization approximately equaled the fair market value of mutual rights that

21

policyholders surrendered. (Doc. 24 at 3); I.R.S. Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200020048 at 6 (Feb. 22,

22

2000) (representation (g)) (Sun Life Private Letter Ruling).

23

21.

The aggregate IPO value of the shares that the Companies granted to

24

Plaintiffs during demutualization was $1,794,771. At the time of the IPOs, Plaintiffs had

25

paid $15,265,608 in premiums on the five life insurance policies.

26

22.

Plaintiffs received 2,721 shares in MetLife’s demutualization. The IPO

27
3

28

“Surplus” is the book value or equity of the insurance company. It is equal to the
company’s assets reduced by its liabilities.
-6-

1

stock price on April 4, 2000 was $14.25 per share. The IPO value of the shares Plaintiffs

2

received was $38,774. At the time of MetLife’s IPO, Plaintiffs had paid $1,017,400 in

3

premiums.

4

23.

Plaintiffs received 1,601 shares in Phoenix’s demutualization. The IPO

5

stock price on June 19, 2001 was $17.50 per share. The IPO value of the shares Plaintiffs

6

received was $28,018. At the time of Phoenix’s IPO, Plaintiffs had paid $638,130 in

7

premiums.

8

24.

Plaintiffs received 5,039 shares in Principal’s demutualization. The IPO

9

stock price on October 22, 2001 was $18.50 per share. The IPO value of the shares

10

Plaintiffs received was $93,222. At the time of Principal’s IPO, Plaintiffs had paid

11

$746,700 in premiums.

12

25.

Plaintiffs received 58,455 shares in Prudential’s demutualization. The IPO

13

stock price on December 12, 2001 was $27.50 per share. The IPO value of the shares

14

Plaintiffs received was $1,607,513. At the time of Prudential’s IPO, Plaintiffs had paid

15

$12,730,342 in premiums.

16

26.

Plaintiffs received 3,209 shares in Sun Life’s demutualization. The IPO

17

stock price on March 23, 2000 was $8.49 per share. The IPO value of the shares

18

Plaintiffs received was $27,244. At the time of Sun Life’s IPO, Plaintiffs had paid

19

$133,036 in premiums.

20

27.

Plaintiffs sold all of their shares on June 23, 2003, for an aggregate value of

21

$2,248,806. The MetLife stock sold with proceeds of $76,953. The Phoenix stock sold

22

with proceeds of $15,289. The Principal stock sold with proceeds of $164,603. The

23

Prudential stock sold with proceeds of $1,925,797. The Sun Life stock sold with proceeds

24

of $66,164.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

25
26

1.

This is an action for the refund of federal income taxes in the amount of

27

$2,248,806 for the taxable year ending December 31, 2003. This Court has jurisdiction

28

by reason of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. § 7422.
-7-

1

2.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because

2

Plaintiffs reside in this District and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to

3

this claim took place in this District.

4

3.

Taxpayers are required to report “[g]ains derived from dealings in

5

property” in their gross income under I.R.C. § 61(a)(3). In general, the amount of gain or

6

loss recognized upon the sale of property is the difference between the adjusted basis of

7

the property sold and the amount realized from the sale. I.R.C. § 1001(a), (c); Treas.

8

Reg. §§ 1.61-6(a), 1.1001-1(a).

9

4.

A taxpayer’s basis in property is equal to the cost of that property to the

10

taxpayer. I.R.C. § 1012. A taxpayer must prove what he actually paid for property to

11

establish a basis in that property. See Gladden, 262 F.2d at 855. However, if “it is clear

12

that the taxpayer is entitled to some deduction, but he cannot establish the full amount

13

claimed, it is improper to deny the deduction in its entirety.” United States v. Marabelles,

14

724 F.2d 1374, 1383 (9th Cir. 1984).

15

5.

“[W]hen property is acquired in a lump-sum purchase but then divided and

16

sold off in parts,” Treas. Reg. § 1.61-6(a) requires that “the cost basis of the property

17

should generally be allocated over the several parts.” Gladden, 262 F.3d at 853. Thus,

18

the default rule calls for the taxpayer to “equitably apportion[]” the basis of the property

19

among its elements when those elements are sold. Treas. Reg. § 1.61-6(a).

20

6.

Taxpayers must prove their bases in property by a preponderance of the

21

evidence and substantiate the amount of the refund they seek. See Coloman v. Comm’r,

22

540 F.2d 427, 429 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976). The fact

23

that basis may be difficult to establish does not relieve a taxpayer from his burden.

24

Coloman, 540 F.2d at 430. Plaintiffs must prove that there is an equitable method of

25

estimating the amount they paid for mutual rights at the time they purchased insurance

26

policies and paid premiums.

27
28

7.

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs did not pay an additional amount for

mutual rights and did not have a realistic expectation of demutualization. Therefore,
-8-

1

Plaintiffs should not be allocated any basis from the premium payments. See Gladden,

2

262 F.3d at 855. The Gladden Court addressed a situation where taxpayers did not own

3

the asset at issue at the time of a land purchase but rather, obtained unvested water rights

4

contingent on the execution of a government irrigation project. Id. In contrast, Plaintiffs

5

obtained vested mutual rights when they bought insurance policies. At the time of

6

purchase, Plaintiffs had voting rights and the ability to participate in any distribution of

7

the company’s surplus, whether or not that distribution was triggered by a

8

demutualization. Therefore, the Gladden “expectation test” is not applicable to these

9

facts. The correct question is how to allocate cost between mutual rights and policy rights

10
11

under Treas. Reg. § 1.61-6(a).
8.

Although Plaintiffs’ mutual rights contributed to the insurance policies’

12

value from the time the policies were purchased, the cost of the mutual rights could not

13

be determined prior to demutualization. The mutual rights were not separable from the

14

policy rights and could not be sold. Therefore, the cost associated with acquiring mutual

15

rights cannot be established exclusively through Plaintiffs’ payment of premiums.

16

9.

The first valuation of what Plaintiffs paid for mutual rights was the IPO

17

price of the shares they received pursuant to demutualization. The Companies determined

18

that the fair market value of the shares were equivalent to the value of the mutual rights.

19

Furthermore, the shares were allocated in exchange for mutual rights in a fair and

20

equitable manner, as determined by the Companies, actuaries, and state insurance

21

commissioners.

22

10.

The Companies allocated shares to Plaintiffs based on (1) the value of

23

voting rights, (2) past contributions to surplus, and (3) projected future contributions to

24

surplus. Effectively, Plaintiffs paid for shares of stock in the demutualized Companies by

25

relinquishing voting rights and making contributions to surplus. However, projected

26

future contributions to surplus are a portion of premiums which Plaintiffs had not actually

27

paid before receiving shares and cannot be considered as a part of basis.

28

11.

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ basis is equal to the combination of the IPO value of
-9-

1

shares allocated to Plaintiffs for (1) the fixed component representing compensation for

2

relinquished voting rights (“fixed shares”) and (2) 60% of the variable component

3

representing past contributions to surplus (“variable shares”).

4

12.

The following is the calculation, by insurer, of the IPO value of the fixed

5

shares. For the MetLife policy, Plaintiffs were allocated 10 fixed shares amounting to an

6

IPO value of $143. (Doc. 70-3 at 23.) For the Phoenix policy, Plaintiffs were allocated 18

7

fixed shares amounting to an IPO value of $315. (Doc. 75-6 at 2.) For the Principal

8

policy, Plaintiffs were allocated 100 fixed shares amounting to an IPO value of $1,850.

9

(Doc. 68-7 at 29.) For the Prudential policy, Plaintiffs were allocated 8 fixed shares

10

amounting to an IPO value of $220. (Doc. 69-11 at 33.) For the Sun Life policy, Plaintiffs

11

were allocated 75 fixed shares amounting to an IPO value of $637. (Doc. 69-3 at 31.) The

12

aggregate IPO value of the fixed shares was $3,164.

13

13.

The following are the calculations, by insurer, of the IPO value of the

14

variable shares.4 For the MetLife policy, Plaintiffs were allocated 2,711 variable shares

15

amounting to a value of $38,632. For the Phoenix policy, Plaintiffs were allocated 1,583

16

variable shares amounting to a value of $27,703. For the Principal policy, Plaintiffs were

17

allocated 4,939 variable shares amounting to a value of $91,372. For the Prudential

18

policy, Plaintiffs were allocated 58,447 variable shares amounting to a value of

19

$1,607,293. For the Sun Life policy, Plaintiffs were allocated 3,134 variable shares

20

amounting to a value of $26,608. The aggregate IPO value of the variable shares is

21

$1,791,606. Plaintiffs’ past contributions to surplus is equal to 60% of the aggregate IPO

22

value, amounting to $1,074,964.

23

14.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ basis is equal to the IPO value of the fixed shares

24

($3,164) combined with 60% of IPO value of the variable shares ($1,074,964). That

25

amounts to a basis of $1,078,128 applicable to Plaintiffs’ sales proceeds of $2,248,806.5

26
4

27
28

The amounts of variable shares, by insurer, are calculated by deducting the
amount of fixed shares from the aggregate amount of shares allocated to Plaintiffs.
5

Plaintiffs offer a method to account for additional contributions made to surplus
- 10 -

1

After selling their shares in 2003, Plaintiffs paid tax on that basis at a 15% capital gains

2

tax rate. Thus, they are entitled to a refund of $161,719.20.

3

15.

Any conclusion of law deemed a finding of fact is so adopted.
CONCLUSION

4
5

Plaintiffs paid for shares of stock in the demutualized Companies by contributing

6

to the Companies’ surplus and by relinquishing voting rights in exchange for the shares.

7

Accordingly, they had a cost basis in the shares of $1,078,128. Plaintiffs are entitled to a

8

refund of taxes in the amount of $161,719.20.

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for a refund of taxes is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall confer and file, no later than
June 1, 2013, a proposed form of judgment to be entered in this action.
Dated this 19th day of April, 2013.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

between the calculation date for share allocation and the IPO date, as an element of basis
in shares. (Doc. 119 at 5-6.) Plaintiffs provide this methodology for the first time in posttrial briefing. Their failure to provide this methodology at trial has waived it for purposes
of calculating additional contributions to surplus as an element of basis. See Air
Separation, Inc. v. William H. Cauley Ins., Inc., 967 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1992); Northwest
Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equipment, Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 924 (9th Cir. 1988).
- 11 -