Captivating Thinking

It appears the same old song and dance was trotted out at the Vermont Captive Insurance Association conference this Summer.  The “Hot Topic” was Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scrutiny of “micro-captives,” a misnomer for small insurance companies typically utilized by small and mid-sized businesses.  Small captive insurance companies are largely misunderstood by the captive managers and attorneys who thrived when large corporations were busy setting up and operating their own captive insurance companies.

It’s always nice to find yourself in good company, and this is certainly the case for CIC Services, LLC in the captive insurance industry.  A recent article published in ESTATES & TRUSTS written by Attorney Celia Clark thoroughly confirms our approach to captive insurance strategies and management.  Without a doubt, Attorney Celia Clark in New York is one of the top captive attorneys in the U.S.  Her June 24, 2014 article is titled. “Thinking About A Captive Insurance Company For Your Business?”  Importantly, she notes that, “The two most common business reasons for the formation of small CICs are the: (1) capturing of profits from low risk exposures, and (2) coverage of uninsured or underinsured losses.”  To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

By Sean G. King, JD, CPA, MAcc

Principal, In-House Counsel, CIC Services, LLC

Over our 10+ year history in the Captive Insurance world, it’s become apparent that there are essentially two factions of “professionals” providing services to the industry.  We’ve affectionately dubbed these two divisions the “Old Guard” and the “New Wave.”  This article takes a closer look at the two sides in an effort to give “outsiders” some background and perspective on the industry.

In today’s challenging economic climate, business owners, CFOs and advisors including CPAs and attorneys owe it to themselves to be vigilant in pursuing strategies that will safeguard the viability and wealth of the business and its owners.  The sort of vigilance in view often requires rethinking business paradigms to look for “both – and” versus “either – or” solutions.  “Both – and” thinking seeks to avoid trade-offs, equivalent to “having your cake and eating it too.”