[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-302803-105":53,"doc-detail-302803-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","final-order-findings-of-fact-conclusions-of-law-and-order-adopting-recommended-decision","FINAL ORDER - Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Adopting Recommended Decision","","Final Order issued by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of West Virginia in Administrative Proceeding No. 22-IC-02274 involving Forethought Life Insurance Company. The order adopts the Hearing Examiner’s Recommended Decision and adds clarifying findings and conclusions addressing premium tax obligations on deferred annuity contracts. Findings conclude Forethought incorrectly characterized purchased deferred annuities as deposit contracts and thereby evaded premium taxes; conclusions apply West Virginia Code provisions on annuity premium taxation, election rules, assessments, and the burden of proof for disputing assessments.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":51,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/final-order-findings-of-fact-conclusions-of-law-and-order-adopting-recommended-decision/302803/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/final-order-findings-of-fact-conclusions-of-law-and-order-adopting-recommended-decision/302803.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Clementine","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-22","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":73},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What did the Insurance Commissioner decide regarding the Hearing Examiner’s Recommended Decision?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The Commissioner adopted and approved the Recommended Decision and incorporated its findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with additional clarifying findings and conclusions.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why did the Commissioner find Forethought improperly handled premium taxes?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"Forethought incorrectly characterized purchased deferred annuities as deposit contracts and filed as a back-end taxpayer, although evidence showed it sold single or flexible premium deferred annuity contracts and premium taxes were due when the annuities were purchased/accepted.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How did the Commissioner address the front-end/back-end premium taxation election?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The order concludes a front-end/back-end election is not available for already purchased annuities and is inapplicable when the insurer had no secondary contract or agreement providing for future annuity purchases; once funds for the annuity are accepted, the election does not apply.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},302803,1790057065,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":50,"category_name":51,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":73,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":141},1374391974564,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/14000253aa45c000a9e?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779874745381141002","# BEFORE ALLANL.MCVEY,INSURANCE COMMISSIONEROF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA\n\nFORETHOUGHT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY(NAIC\\#91642)  \nAdministrative Proceeding No.22-1C-02274  \n# FINAL ORDER\n\nFindings of Fact,Conclusions of Law andOrder Adopting Recommended Decision  \nOn a prior day,to-wit,June 13,2023,the Hearing Examiner in this matter submitted hisRecommended Decision,appended hereto,containing findings of fact,discussion,analysis andconclusions of law.After consideration thereof,the undersigned Insurance Commissioner makesthe following additional and/or clarifying findings of fact and conclusions of law,and makes theorder as set forth hereinbelow:  \n# Findings of Fact\n\n1.Forethought Life Insurance Company(\"Forethought\")has filed tax forms as a back-end taxpayer for premium taxes on deferred annuities.Forethought's premiums were for individualpurchased deferred annuities.Forethought incorrectly characterized these deferred annuities asdeposit contracts.  \n2.   An agreement which provides for an accumulation of money to purchase annuitiesat a future date,or a deposit account held for the future purchase of an annuity is eligible to electfront-end or back-end premium taxation.However,this front-end/back-end election is not availablefor already purchased annuities.Forethought has evaded the payment of premium taxes bycharacterizing their purchased deferred annuity contracts as deposit agreements instead of deferredannuity contracts.However,evidence adduced in this matter clearly shows Forethought sold  \n“Single Premium Deferred Annuity Contract[s]or Flexible Premium Individual Deferred AnnuityContract[s]”to their policyholders and the insurance premium annuity tax should have been paidwhen the annuities were purchased.  \n3.   Forethought filed its insurance premium tax forms with the Offices of the InsuranceCommissioner(“OIC”)as a back-end taxpayer essentially alleging that it did not owe premiumtaxes on deferred annuities until the previously sold annuity contracts“annuitized.”However,evidence adduced showed that Forethought's collected premiums from policyholders were forindividual purchased deferred annuities and that Forethought incorrectly characterized thesedeferred annuities as deposit contracts.(Trans.,p.138,lines 1 -23).In fact,the policies thatForethought sold were titled “Single Premium Deferred Annuity Contract[s]or Flexible PremiumIndividual Deferred Annuity Contract[s]”.  \n4.   Because these premiums were for deferred annuities,insurance annuity premiumtaxes were due at the time funds were accepted by Forethought from its policyholders forpurchased annuity contracts or policies.  \n## Conclusions of Law\n\n1.Article 3,Chapter 33 of the West Virginia Code sets forth various insurance premiumtaxes,including the insurance premium tax,additional insurance premium tax,additional fire andcasualty insurance premium tax,annuity premium tax,and retaliatory tax.Specifically,W.Va.Code§33-3-15 provides that every life insurer transacting insurance in West Virginia shall make anannual tax return to the Commissioner of the gross amount of annuity considerations,or premiumscollected and received on its annuity business transacted in West Virginia.The premium tax dueon annuities is one percent of the“gross amount of the annuity considerations,less annuityconsiderations returned and less termination allowances on group annuity contracts.\"See W.Va.Code 33-3-15.  \n2.   W.Va.Code §33-3-15 further provides that,in the case of funds accepted by a lifeinsurer under an agreement which provides for an accumulation of money to purchase annuities atfuture dates,annuity considerations may be either considered to be collected and received uponreceipt or upon actual application to the purchase of annuities.This is the front-end/back-endelection.However,in this instance,Forethought had no secondary contract or agreement with thepolicyholder to purchase annuities at future dates.Instead,Forethought sold only one“SinglePremium Deferred Annuity Contract or F","cbCaicIBZEAAoViI","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaicIBZEAAoViI","pdf",1093789,25,"English","# Findings of Fact\n## 1. Filing and mischaracterization of deferred annuities\n## 2. Front-end/back-end premium election limits\n## 3. Premium tax due at acceptance and purchase\n# Conclusions of Law\n## 1. West Virginia Code provisions on annuity premium tax\n## 2. Front-end/back-end election applicability\n## 3. Authority to issue assessments\n## 4. Presumption of correctness and burden of proof\n# Order","[{\"question\":\"What did the Insurance Commissioner decide regarding the Hearing Examiner’s Recommended Decision?\",\"answer\":\"The Commissioner adopted and approved the Recommended Decision and incorporated its findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with additional clarifying findings and conclusions.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the Commissioner find Forethought improperly handled premium taxes?\",\"answer\":\"Forethought incorrectly characterized purchased deferred annuities as deposit contracts and filed as a back-end taxpayer, although evidence showed it sold single or flexible premium deferred annuity contracts and premium taxes were due when the annuities were purchased/accepted.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Commissioner address the front-end/back-end premium taxation election?\",\"answer\":\"The order concludes a front-end/back-end election is not available for already purchased annuities and is inapplicable when the insurer had no secondary contract or agreement providing for future annuity purchases; once funds for the annuity are accepted, the election does not apply.\"}]","FINAL ORDER - Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Adopting Recommended Decision | PDF",1789797028,9]