In accurately delineating fronting arrangements, the same principles stated for captive insurance apply. It is important to note, however, that fronting arrangements represent particularly complex controlled transactions to price as they involve the participation of a third party that is indifferent to the levels of the price of the insurance and reinsurance transactions. The key issues which are likely to arise in fronting cases are whether the transactions involved amount to genuine insurance or reinsurance and, if there is genuine insurance, whether the premiums payable (ultimately to the reinsurance captive) are on arm’s length terms ...

A reinsurance captive is a particular type of captive insurance which does not issue policies directly but operates as a reinsurance under an arrangement known as “fronting”. Captive insurance may not be able to underwrite insurance policies in the same way as traditional insurance companies. For instance, certain insurance risks must be placed with regulated insurers as a legal requirement. This may lead to the use of a fronting arrangement in which the first contract of insurance is between the insured member of an MNE group and an unrelated insurer (the fronter); the fronter then reinsures with the captive insurance most or all of the risk of the first contract. The fronter may remain responsible for claims handling and other administrative functions or these functions may be handled by a member of the same MNE group as the captive. The fronter retains a commission to cover its costs and to compensate for any portion of the insured risk which it retains. The majority of the fronter’s premium passes to the captive insurance as part of the reinsurance contract ...

In contrast, in this guidance the term reinsurance refers to a reinsurance undertaking or entity the purpose of which is to provide reinsurance policies for risks of unrelated parties that are in the first instance insured by entities of the MNE group to which it belongs. (The situation in which risks of entities within an MNE group are insured in the first instance by an unrelated party but then reinsured by an entity within the MNE group is discussed in Section E.2.4) ...

Unicomer (St. Vincent) Ltd. is engaged in the business of selling household furniture and appliances. In FY 2013 and 2014 Unicomer entered into an “insurance arrangement” involving an unrelated party, United insurance, and a related party, Canterbury. According to the tax authorities United Insurance had been used as an intermediate/conduit to funnel money from the Unicomer to Canterbury, thereby avoiding taxes in St. Vincent. In 2017 the Inland Revenue Department issued an assessments of additional tax in the sum of $12,666,798.23 inclusive of interest and penalties. The basis of the assessment centered on Unicomer’s treatment of (1) credit protection premiums (hereinafter referred to as “CPI”) under the insurance arrangement, (2) tax deferral of hire-purchase profits and (3) deductions for royalty payments. Unicomer appealed the assessment to the Appeal Commission where a decision was rendered in 2018. The Appeal Commission held that the CPI payments were rightfully disallowed by the tax authorities and that withholding tax was chargeable on these payments; the deferral of hire purchase profits was also disallowed; but royalty expenses were allowed. This decision was appealed by Unicomer to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court predominantly ruled in favor of the tax authorities. The court upheld the decision of the Appeal Commission to disallow deductions for CPI’s and confirmed that withholding tax on these payments was chargeable. The deferral of taxation of hire-purchase profits was also disallowed by the court. However, although the additional taxes should of course be collected by the tax authorities, the procedure that had been followed after receiving the decision of the Appeal Commission – contacting the bank of Unicomer and having them pay the additional taxes owed by the company – was considered wholly unacceptable and amounted to an abuse of the power. The taxes owed should be collected following correct procedures. Click here for translation ...

In accurately delineating fronting arrangements, the same principles stated for captive insurance apply. It is important to note, however, that fronting arrangements represent particularly complex controlled transactions to price as they involve the participation of a third party that is indifferent to the levels of the price of the insurance and reinsurance transactions. The key issues which are likely to arise in fronting cases are whether the transactions involved amount to genuine insurance or reinsurance and, if there is genuine insurance, whether the premiums payable (ultimately to the reinsurance captive) are on arm’s length terms ...

A reinsurance captive is a particular type of captive insurance which does not issue policies directly but operates as a reinsurance under an arrangement known as “fronting”. Captive insurance may not be able to underwrite insurance policies in the same way as traditional insurance companies. For instance, certain insurance risks must be placed with regulated insurers as a legal requirement. This may lead to the use of a fronting arrangement in which the first contract of insurance is between the insured member of an MNE group and an unrelated insurer (the fronter); the fronter then reinsures with the captive insurance most or all of the risk of the first contract. The fronter may remain responsible for claims handling and other administrative functions or these functions may be handled by a member of the same MNE group as the captive. The fronter retains a commission to cover its costs and to compensate for any portion of the insured risk which it retains. The majority of the fronter’s premium passes to the captive insurance as part of the reinsurance contract ...