Opinion ID: 348404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues on direct appeal

Text: 2 1. Whether the district court erred in holding that it had jurisdiction to consider the merits of taxpayer's argument concerning its claimed deduction under Section 809(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 for the increase in its reserves for nonparticipating contracts. 3 2. Assuming arguendo that the court was correct in determining that it had jurisdiction, whether Section 809(d)(5) which provides an additional 10-percent deduction for increases in life insurance reserves attributable to nonparticipating contracts, is subject to the Section 810 spread rule to the extent that the increase is due to reserve strengthening. 4 3. Whether the district court erred in holding that mortgage escrow funds, taxes and other amounts withheld from taxpayer's employees and various other amounts received or retained by taxpayer during the years in issue did not constitute assets of the taxpayer within the meaning of Section 805(b) of the Code. 5 4. Whether the district court also erred in holding that due and unpaid accident and health premiums were not includible in taxpayer's assets. 6 5. Whether the district court erred in holding that amounts paid by taxpayer to pension plans as excess interest on certain life insurance and annuity contracts constituted amounts in the nature of interest within the meaning of Section 805(e)(2) of the Code.