Opinion Letter to The Honorable James Antonio

Decembe r 28 , 1979 Amended Augu s t 21 , 1980 AHEr~ut.C CJ.r!H1I01~ Ll:.T'l'E .t~ .t-.0 . 25 Answe r by l ette r - Allen Honvr ab l e James Anton1o State Auditor S t ate Cap1tol Builo i ng Jeffe r son Ci ty , ~o bSlul Jear ur . Anton1o : F l LED ~5 Th i s l D 1n r esvonse to a r eq ues t f r oM your ~ r e~ecesso r t o r an opi n i on concerni ng t he tol l ow i n ·~ quest i ons : 1. Shoul d t he ~issouri u1vis i on of l n- 5ur ance assess ag~ 1 ns t i nsurance coru- pan l es t ne excess of the e xpenses ot t ne a i v i s 1on over tne amoun t col l ected unde r ~ec t 1 on 374 . 2JO as seeming l y re - quired by Secti on 374 . 260 , RSMo l 9b9? 2 . May i nsur ance cornpan 1es , pursuan t to Section 148 . 400 , RSMo Cum. Supp . 1975 , take as a c r ~u it aga i ns t p r e~ i um t~xcs any amoun t asnesse~ ou r suan t to Sec- t l un 374 . 260? Secti on 3 7 4 . 260 , "-S''o 1 9 7 !:! , prov i des : I n case tee expenses of t h1s d i v 1s 1on , i nc l ud ing t he salaries ~a 1 d to t he director ana .Jepu ty direc t o r , shall exceed t oe a.nou n t collec t ed unae r sect i on 3 74 . 230 , t he d l r~ctor shal l , annuall y , assess upon all i nsu r ance compan 1es ao1 ng bus 1 nes~ i n t n i s stat e a sum equal t o such exc~ss , wh lch he snal l collect anJ .l~p l y i n like l.,anne r a~ oy tt'i l s chap t er au t horized and r e~u ir ed 1n res~ect to the fees payable cy such cor"i.~an H~s . .Such Honorable James Antonio assessments shall be made in proportion to the r e lative amounts of the assets of each company . Sect i on 374.230 , RSMo 1978, is the section prescri b ing var- ious fees , exclud i ng examination fees , to be chargee by t he D ~vi­ sion of Insurance for enumerated services . It should oe noted that the t!issouri legislature specifi cally indicates in thi s sec- tion and in § 374 . 260 what fees are to be used for tn~ exfenses for t he D ivi s~on of Insurance . Section 374 . 230 does not include , however , broker ' s and miscellaneous fees . Therefore , the broker ' s and mi scel l aneous fees such as unde r § 375 . 081 , RSKo 1 97& , cannot be considered in de termining whether the expenses of the Divis ion exceed the amount collected unaer S 374 . 230 . The Oirector shall assess all insurance companies doing business in t h is state a sum equal to any excess as dete r mined under S 3 7 4. 260 w i t110U t re- ga r d to those tees not specifically enumerated in S 374.230 . Section 148 . 400 , RSMo 197 8 , provides: All i nsurance compani es or associa- tions organizea in or admitted to thi s state may deduct from premium taxes pay- able to this state , in addition to all other credits allowed by law , income taxes, franch i se taxes , personal property taxes , valuat~on fees , reg i stration fees and ex- arninat~on fees pa ~d, including taxes and fees pa id by the dttorney i n fact ot a r e- ciprocal or interins urance exchange to the extent attributable to the principal busi- ness as such attorney in fact , under any law of this state. The facts which g ive rise to t h i s opinion are that ~ n a f i s - cal year the expend itures , exclus1ve of examination costs, of the Division of Insurance exceed the amount it collects pu r suant to § 374 . 230 by approximately $500 , 000. Our chief concern i s to aetermine tne leg i s lative intent from the plain language contained in the appropriate statutory provi- sions. The plain language of § 374 . 260 says tnat the Director of t he Divi sion of Insurance is regu1red to assess the amount by wnicn expenditures , exclusive of examination costs , exceed collect1ons against insurance companies under § 374.230 . he s 1rnply cannot i gnor e this language . The assessment under § 374 . 260 is not an allowable deduction from premium tax in tha t 1t is not an enumeratea credit which ~ s - 2- Honorable James Antonio set out in S 148.40U . We , therefore, believe that such assessment is not to be credited against the premium taxes . It i s t he opinion of t his office that the Div i s i on of Insur- ance should assess ayainst 1nsurance companies the excess expenses of the Divi sion over the amount collected unaer ~ 374 . 230 as r e - quired under S 374.260. The Di rector of the Division should con- sider onl y those fees specificall y enumerated i n § 374.230 1n mak- i ng his assessment ana should not consider various broker ' s ana miscellaneous fees which are not enumerated in that sec~ i on in making his assessment . It is the fu rther opinion of this off 1ce that such assessment is not a credit aga inst the premium tax as provided in § 148 . 400 . Very truly yours , JOHN ASHCROFT Attorney General - 3-