ILNews

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."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  2. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  3. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

  4. If it were your child that died maybe you'd be more understanding. Most of us don't have graves to visit. My son was killed on a state road and I will be putting up a memorial where he died. It gives us a sense of peace to be at the location he took his last breath. Some people should be more understanding of that.

  5. Can we please take notice of the connection between the declining state of families across the United States and the RISE OF CPS INVOLVEMENT??? They call themselves "advocates" for "children's rights", however, statistics show those children whom are taken from, even NEGLIGENT homes are LESS likely to become successful, independent adults!!! Not to mention the undeniable lack of respect and lack of responsibility of the children being raised today vs the way we were raised 20 years ago, when families still existed. I was born in 1981 and I didn't even ever hear the term "CPS", in fact, I didn't even know they existed until about ten years ago... Now our children have disagreements between friends and they actually THREATEN EACH OTHER WITH, "I'll call CPS" or "I'll have [my parent] (usually singular) call CPS"!!!! And the truth is, no parent is perfect and we all have flaws and make mistakes, but it is RIGHTFULLY OURS - BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION - to be imperfect. Let's take a good look at what kind of parenting those that are stealing our children are doing, what kind of adults are they producing? WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO THE CHILDREN THAT HAVE BEEN RIPPED FROM THEIR FAMILY AND THAT CHILD'S SUCCESS - or otherwise - AS AN ADULT.....

ADVERTISEMENT