While the IRS has been unambiguous in its disdain for many micro-captive arrangements, critics argue that the agency’s stance is overbroad and sometimes mischaracterizes legitimate risk management as tax abuse. Here we examine several counterarguments raised by taxpayers, captive insurance industry groups, and some policymakers.
Proponents of micro-captives emphasize that these structures can serve valid insurance purposes, especially for small and mid-sized businesses facing high insurance costs or coverage gaps. For many companies, forming a captive is a way to insure risks that are unavailable or unaffordable in the commercial market – for example, coverage for product liability on a new product, or supplemental disaster insurance with tailored terms. Industry experts note that in recent years, businesses have been hit with escalating premiums in traditional insurance markets, which drives them to seek alternative risk financing11. In this context, the §831(b) election is viewed not as a loophole, but as an intended incentive from Congress to promote the use of captives for genuine risk mitigation. In fact, the tax benefit helps smaller companies build a prudent reserve against future losses. Captive owners often insist that tax considerations were secondary: the primary motivator was to gain more control and stability over their risk management program. As one industry advisor stated, “Most [captive] taxpayers are not primarily motivated by tax benefits… escalating costs in the commercial insurance market are a major factor driving the formation of captives.”11 From this perspective, the IRS’s blanket suspicion can feel misplaced – akin to punishing businesses for self-insuring responsibly.
Another critique is that the IRS, in its zeal, tends to paint all §831(b) captives with the same brush. The majority of micro-captives may never come onto the IRS’s radar because they largely follow best practices: they set actuarially sound premiums, cover real risks of the business, and pay out claims as needed. The IRS enforcement narrative, however, is shaped by the worst actors – the extreme cases that ended up in court or on the settlement list. This creates a confirmation bias that all micro-captives must be abusive, when in reality, there is a spectrum. Some captives may have minor compliance issues or less-than-perfect risk distribution but are fundamentally engaged in insurance activity; others truly are sham arrangements. Captive industry professionals argue that the IRS’s current metrics (loss ratios below X%, etc.) could easily flag captives that are legitimate but simply had a run of good luck or are conservatively reserving for low-frequency risks. For instance, a captive insuring against a catastrophic earthquake might (fortunately) have zero claims for many years—a low loss ratio—yet it provides very real insurance protection. Using loss ratios as a blunt tool could subject even prudent captives to penalties or onerous disclosure, which critics say is unfair. They call for a more nuanced analysis that considers qualitative factors and the context of the coverage, rather than automatic presumptions of abuse based on quantitative thresholds.
The IRS’s handling of micro-captive enforcement has been legally challenged on procedural grounds. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit by a captive manager (CIC Services, LLC) to proceed, contesting the validity of Notice 2016-66. Subsequently, in 2022, a federal district court invalidated Notice 2016-66, ruling that the IRS failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)12. The court found that the IRS had effectively imposed new reporting obligations and potential penalties without going through the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process (which is needed for legislative rules). Moreover, the court deemed the IRS’s action “arbitrary and capricious,” highlighting that agencies cannot bypass procedural safeguards even in the name of curbing tax shelters12. This was a significant rebuke: it forced the IRS to temporarily halt enforcement of the disclosure requirements and later spurred the Treasury to reissue those rules properly (the 2023 proposed regs, now final). The APA showdown is cited by critics as evidence that the IRS overreached in its initial approach – prioritizing enforcement urgency over due process. It also underscores a broader point: the IRS’s interpretation of what constitutes abusive micro-captive activity is not unimpeachable and can be checked by the courts. While the IRS has now addressed the procedural gap with formal regulations, the episode gave the captive industry a morale boost and a legal foothold to question how the IRS exercises its authority.
Detractors argue that the IRS has relied on heavy-handed deterrence – large penalties, litigation threats, and broad categorical labeling – rather than issuing clear guidelines on how to comply. For years, legitimate captive owners have asked the IRS for clarity: What premium pricing methodologies will be respected? What level of risk distribution is considered adequate? Are there safe harbor ratios or practices that a well-intentioned §831(b) captive can follow to avoid being lumped with “abusive” ones? The IRS provided scant such positive guidance, leaving a gray area where taxpayers must guess or assume the worst. This has had a chilling effect: some businesses that could benefit from a captive for risk management have been discouraged from doing so, fearing the IRS will automatically suspect them. Policy observers and even some members of Congress have suggested that the solution is not to ban micro-captives, but to “develop guidelines” that distinguish the good from the bad. As one business owner wrote in an op-ed, lawmakers should “push for clear, fair guidelines from the IRS for 831(b) plan owners to follow. Small businesses are counting on them.”16 The sentiment is that with proper guardrails (e.g. requiring truly independent actuarial studies, minimum capital levels, normal range premiums, etc.), micro-captives can operate above board – and the IRS should articulate those guardrails instead of catching everyone by surprise in audits.
Some commentators note that Congress deliberately set up §831(b) as a tax benefit to encourage small insurers, implying that utilizing it is not inherently abusive. They caution that the IRS’s current posture might be effectively undermining congressional intent by making §831(b) elections untenable. If virtually every small captive is assumed guilty until proven innocent, the tax provision’s purpose is defeated. Furthermore, there are calls for the IRS to recognize situations where micro-captives actually reduce risk and improve the insured’s financial stability (which is a positive outcome, not an abusive one). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic or other crises, some captives provided critical coverage payouts to their parent companies that had nowhere else to turn for insurance. Denying the tax benefits retroactively in such cases (if they technically fell afoul of the IRS’s criteria) could be seen as harmful and contrary to the broader economic interest of resilience. Additionally, not all tax reduction is abuse – there is a line between tax avoidance (legal use of incentives) and tax evasion. Captive supporters argue that when a structure is fundamentally sound insurance, the fact that it also yields tax advantages should not, by itself, make it a target.
The captive industry underscores that it’s willing to work with regulators to weed out bad actors. For instance, major industry associations have issued best practice guides and even supported sanctions against fraudulent captive promoters. They argue that a collaborative approach would yield better outcomes than the current adversarial dynamic. After the 2025 regulations came out, captive insurance associations formally asked the IRS for an extension on the disclosure deadline – indicating their intent to comply but pleading for sufficient time given the complexity16. Such interactions show that many involved parties are in good faith and not the willful tax cheats the IRS portrayal might suggest.
In conclusion, the counterarguments do not deny that abuse exists in the micro-captive arena; rather, they assert that the IRS is casting too wide a net and not acknowledging the legitimate side of captives. There is a plea for balanced enforcement – crack down on the clear abuses, yes, but don’t destroy the entire tool in the process. The IRS’s often rigid view (“we’ve never seen a micro-captive we liked”) is challenged by those who have real-world examples of captives fulfilling claims and stabilizing insurance costs for businesses. The tension between these perspectives sets the stage for potential reforms and the need for more refined policy, as discussed in the following sections.
Click the link to take the assessment:
https://www.riskmgmtadvisors.com/captive-insurance-fit-assessment