We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you agree to our use of cookies. To close this message click close.

U.S. District Court issues taxpayer-favorable opinion in Validus Reinsurance, Ltd. v. United States

06 March 2014
On February 5, 2014, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. issued the much anticipated opinion in Validus, holding that the so-called “cascading” federal excise tax (FET) of 1 percent of premiums paid in connection with reinsurance covering US risks does not apply to retrocession agreements between a non-U.S. reinsurer and a non-U.S. retrocessionaire. The court’s reasoning suggests that reinsurance agreements between a non-U.S. insurer and a non-U.S. reinsurer that cover U.S. risks are subject to the cascading FET, but the opinion does not specifically address this issue.

U S District Court issues taxpayer favorable opinion in Validus Reinsurance Ltd v United StatesThis is a significant and generally helpful decision for non-U.S. reinsurers involved in retrocession transactions. In light of the decision, non-US reinsurers should consider evaluating the FET they have paid in recent years to determine whether a refund claim is appropriate. Additionally, non-U.S. reinsurers should consider the impact of Validus on future transactions. It is uncertain whether the Internal Revenue Service will appeal the decision. Such an appeal, while pending, could impact the considerations described above.

For prior coverage, “Cascadingfederal excise tax challenged in recent U.S. District Court case, click here.


Christine K. Lane

Christine K. Lane,

Washington, D.C.

Francis Monaco

InsurTech – Innovation in Insurance?

What is genuinely innovative about today's insurance sector? Perhaps little – but that is beginning to change. For the past few years we have seen innovative ways of selling products –...

12 July 2016
Loading data