Introduction: An American Success Story

The remarkable journey of Benyamin Avrahami, from a fleeing immigrant to a successful entrepreneur, culminates in a contentious legal battle with the IRS following his venture into captive insurance. This overview highlights the pivotal moments and complexities of his experience.

The Avrahami Timeline

1974

Immigration

Benyamin Avrahami and his family immigrate to the United States from Iran.

Late 1970s to Early 1980s

Education and Business Foundation

Benyamin studies business and gemology, eventually founding American Findings Corporation, a company that supplies jewelry components.

1980s to 1990s

Expansion into Retail

Benyamin purchases a distressed jewelry store, London Gold, marking his entry into retail sales.

Early 2000s

Diversification

Benyamin incorporates a real estate company with his brother, expanding his business ventures.

November 2007

Captive Insurance Creation

Benyamin executes a retainer agreement with Clark & Gentry to establish a captive insurance company named Feedback in St. Kitts.

2009

Start of Risk Pooling Schemes

Benyamin executes a retainer agreement with Clark & Gentry to establish a captive insurance company named Feedback in St. Kitts.

2012

IRS Investigation Begins

The IRS starts investigating Celia Clark’s law firm to assess whether she was liable for promoting tax shelters.

2015

ATH Act Legislation:

Congress passes the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act, which introduces new regulations affecting 831(b) captive insurance companies.

2017

Tax Court Case:

Benyamin Avrahami takes his case against the IRS to Tax Court, focusing on whether Feedback provided "insurance" in a tax-acceptable manner.

April 2021

IRS Assessment:

The IRS completes its examination, assessing over $11 million in penalties against Clark for her involvement in structuring 831(b) captive insurance companies.

2007 - 2021

‍

From Asylum to Industry

After fleeing to the United States from Israel in 1974, Benyamin Avrahami pursued a higher education in business and gemology. This foundation laid the groundwork for his future expansion in the jewelry industry.

Building An Empire

Benyamin established American Findings Corporation, a supplier of components for jewelry, which later evolved into the purchase of London Gold, a retail jewelry store.

Diversifying Interests

Beyond jewelry, Benyamin ventured into real estate, broadening his portfolio and creating a diverse financial base to ensure stability and growth.

Introduction to Captive Insurance

Facing growing needs for sophisticated financial management, Benyamin was introduced to Celia Clark, an estate planning and captive insurance law expert, who suggested setting up a captive insurance company to manage risks efficiently and benefit from favorable tax treatments.

The Rise of Feedback

Feedback, the captive insurance company initiated by Clark, wrote a variety of insurance coverages, including:

• Business income interruption
• Employee fidelity liability
• Litigation expense
• Loss of key employee
• Tax indemnity
• Administrative actions coverage
• Business risk indemnity


This setup allowed for strategic financial planning and tax benefits.

Controversial Practices and IRS Scrutiny

Feedback's involvement in a risk distribution program, particularly once it decided to offer terrorism insurance, attracted IRS attention. The agency scrutinized the legitimacy of Feedback’s practices, questioning their validity as genuine insurance operations.

The IRS's scrutiny culminated in a court case, Avrahami vs. Commissioner, which challenged Feedback's status as a legitimate insurance company. This landmark case examined what constitutes "insurance" in the commonly accepted sense, whether Feedback’s practices adhered to established insurance principles, and ultimately whether Feedback should be recognized as a legitimate insurance company for tax purposes.

The following table includes the main issue at trial, and summarizes the arguments from both parties:

The Fallout and Ongoing Legal Implications

The IRS won. 


Following the Tax Court’s unfavorable decision in the Avrahami vs. Commissioner case, Celia Clark and her firm faced significant repercussions. The IRS assessed over $11 million in penalties against Clark for her role in promoting what they deemed were improper tax shelters under the guise of captive insurance. 


This decision underscored the IRS's stance against what it perceives as abusive microcaptive arrangements, particularly those that do not meet the stringent requirements for risk distribution and the definition of “insurance” in the commonly accepted sense.


This court ruling also catalyzed a reevaluation of captive insurance practices, influencing both legislative and regulatory frameworks. 


The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act that was passed in 2015 included new restrictions specifically designed to curb abuses in the captive insurance sector, particularly affecting small captives making an 831(b) election.


The ongoing legal Implications for the Captive Insurance Industry include:


• Regulatory Changes: There is a stronger emphasis now on compliance and documentation, especially concerning the demonstration of risk distribution and actual insurance risk.
• Audit and Compliance Risks: Companies using captive insurance must now be more diligent in their operations and documentation to avoid falling into the category of tax avoidance schemes.
• Increased Scrutiny: The IRS has since heightened its scrutiny of captive insurance companies, particularly those involving family-related entities and small-scale operations.


Note: The IRS interest in the Avrahami case is centered around taxation. That is to say, the 831(b) election is exactly that, an election. Qualifying captives can choose not to make the election, particularly in the first several years while establishing an operational track record, and likely significantly reduce the related IRS scrutiny.

Reflections and the Path Forward

The Avrahami case serves as a critical learning point for companies considering captive insurance as part of their risk management and tax planning strategies. The main lessons to be drawn from the case emphasize the importance of compliance, proper structure, and transparency.

Summary of Lessons Learned

1. Adherence to Risk Distribution Requirements:
This is a key component that the IRS uses to determine the validity of a captive as a real insurance company. Strategies for proper risk distribution include:
   • Reinsurance: Allows a captive to spread its risk by transferring portions of it to other insurance entities.
   • Fronting Arrangements: Fronting carriers issue policies on behalf of the captive, facilitating regulatory compliance and market entry.
   • Risk Pools: Captives often join risk pools, where multiple captives share their risks by pooling among the members.
   • Diversifying Underwritten Risks: Captives can write a variety of insurance products across different industries or geographic regions. This diversification inherently spreads risk by reducing dependence on a single type of risk or market.
   • Using Multiple Captives: Larger organizations may establish multiple captive insurance companies, each designed to cover different types of risks, thereby spreading out exposures across their operations.

2. Documentation and Support for Premium Calculations:
   • Premiums must be set based on sound actuarial principles and must be justifiable in a court of law or to regulatory bodies. Companies should ensure that their premium calculations are backed by credible, independent actuarial reports.
3. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest:
   • Ensuring that captive management companies, actuaries, and insured entities operate independently of one another to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure arm's length transactions.
4. Compliance with Evolving Legislation:
   • Staying informed and compliant with the latest tax laws and regulations affecting captives is crucial. Legislative environments can evolve, particularly in response to perceived abuses.
5. Management Practices:
   • Operating with transparent and ethical practices can avoid legal pitfalls similar to those experienced by Clark and Avrahami.

The Path Forward

The future of captive insurance remains robust, but only for those who know how to navigate regulatory expectations. 


Businesses must engage with a skilled captive management firm to navigate the complexities. With expertise in risk management, compliance, and operations, captive managers are an invaluable part of the equation. 


Furthermore, ongoing education and adjustment to emerging regulations and case law are vital to maintain the viability and effectiveness of captives as a strategic risk management tool.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale of Ambition vs. Regulation

Benyamin Avrahami's journey from an immigrant to a target of IRS scrutiny encapsulates the complex interplay between entrepreneurship and regulatory oversight in American business. His experience highlights the perils when walking the fine line between “the letter of the law” and the “spirit” of it.

The case of Celia Clark and Benyamin Avrahami is a lasting reminder (and likely a deliberate one from the IRS) that legal strategies, while perhaps permissible, are not always prudent. Regulators can decide when and where to adjudicate the law, and prospective captive owners would be well-advised to play it safe.

Even without stretching the possibilities to the limit, captives offer tremendous value to qualifying businesses. Adopting a proactive, informed approach to captive planning, formation, and management, emphasized by transparency, integrity, and expert guidance can draw clear lines to safely balance your captive ambitions.

‍