7th Circuit: expenses were capital expenditures

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis-based health insurer can't deduct its settlement payments or legal expenses from the litigation because the insurer's payments were actually capital expenditures, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed today.

In WellPoint Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 09-3163, WellPoint challenged the U.S. Tax Court's ruling that upheld the IRS' refusal to allow the insurer to deduct a $113 million settlement to three states or the nearly $1 million in legal fees from the litigation as "ordinary and necessary business expenses."

The 7th Circuit briefly addressed the parties' arguments about the scope of appellate review and held it would still affirm the tax court's decision under either standard proposed.

WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurer based on membership, is a for-profit company. When it was still Anthem in the 1990s, the company acquired three Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance companies, which had been formed as non-profits. Attorneys general from Connecticut, Kentucky, and Ohio sued WellPoint alleging it was using the acquired assets to make profits in violation of those companies' charitable statuses. The case was settled, and WellPoint attempted to write off the settlement and legal expenses as ordinary and necessary business expenses.

WellPoint claimed its expenses were "ordinary" because it was defending against claims that it was improperly using its property - the assets of the acquired companies. The government argued WellPoint was defending its title to the acquired assets, which the 7th Circuit Court has said aren't ordinary expenses.

The 7th Circuit judges pointed out the remedy sought or agreed to is a clue to the nature of the claim in the instant case. The attorneys general were trying to strip WellPoint of its equitable ownership, its right to use the acquired assets for profit.

An alternative argument raised was that the settlement was in effect a partial restoration of the acquired assets to their rightful owners and that like any other repayment of money, it wasn't a capital expenditure and shouldn't have any tax consequences at all. The judges declined to accept this alternative option.

"It is true that if you receive money as a loan and repay it, the repayment is not deductible from your taxable income, because you never claimed to own the money you had borrowed," wrote Judge Richard Posner. "But WellPoint always claimed (it still claims) to have equitable title to the assets it acquired. The expenses that it reasonably incurred to defend that claim - the claim to own the assets free and clear - are capital expenditures, not repayments."


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit