Legal Outsourcing: Another Billion Dollar Industry

Surging business

Virtually unheard 10 years ago, the term “outsourcing” has emerged as a phenomenon in the business of the present day world. It has become the backbone of Indian service sectors. In the last fiscal India earned $6.7 billion by providing services in software, technology and manufacturing outsourcing.

Now the BPO companies have turned their eyes on legal outsourcing. According to a study by the US-based Forester Research, the current annual value of legal outsourcing which is worth $80 million can rise up to $4 billion and can produce 79,000 jobs in India by 2015. National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) also projected that Legal Processing Outsourcing providers (LPOs) in India will soon rise up to $3-4 billion. This heralds the opening of new vistas for law professionals whose number is increasing incessantly.

According to Forrester Research report, “The benefit of the outsourcing companies in the US would translate into a cost saving of about 10-12 per cent. The potential of the Indian resources to absorb the increasing demand in legal outsourcing is because India enjoys the economic advantages of the wage difference and less perks and overheads.”

Nature of work

In the beginning the works which are being outsourced to India are “of secretarial nature and includes patent drafting, legal research, contract review and monitoring,” says Mr. Ravi Shankar S. of 21 st Century Law Firm. But it is set to expand with the enlarging knowledge of Indians regarding the foreign laws. Experts are hoping to receive high-end sophisticated contracts, which require a strong legal base of international standards.

Challenge ahead

The most important challenge to the newly-born sector is the need for Indian lawyers to pass US Bar exams, conflict of interest rules and data security. According to Mr. Ravi Shankar, “As far as qualifications of Indian lawyers regarding handling of foreign legal jobs are concerned, it should be pointed out that the nature of jobs at the lower level is almost the same. So no special qualification is needed to handle them.”

But notwithstanding the optimism prevalent in the legal business, there are a plenty of hurdles which can hamper the growth of this sector. For example the Indian Advocates Act, which deals with the professional conduct of lawyers, does not support work for other countries. Even, in specific laws governing companies and trade in securities, which hugely differ from one country to another, may constrain LPOs to paralegal and secretarial work.

But on the bright side, certain branches of law, which are of a global nature, like Intellectual Property laws (patents and trademarks) can give Legal Process Outsourcing Providers (LPOs) a fillip in their endeavour.

An Indian lawyer can be as good as his American counterpart in US Federal laws if properly trained in US law. What is required of an attorney, either Indian or American, is not that he should be aware of all laws and regulations but that he should be ready to acquire that knowledge.

Rush to grab the opportunity

It is the effect of this optimism that not only established BPO companies but also several legal firms have thrown themselves open to this lucrative opportunity. In fact, American conglomerate, General Electric, was one of the first to set up its captive BPO Gecis in India, which included LPO. Other technology companies, too, farmed out work to their Indian captive units.

Khaitan & Co, a leading law firm from Kolkata has already started an LPO by floating a new company ‘Neoworth’ and engaged 10 US-enrolled lawyers.

There is a strong political opposition in the US against outsourcing as it may affect the livelihood of US attorneys and may also serve as a roadblock. Despite of that feeling, legal firms are more than willing to outsource their jobs to India. That’s because like other BPO activities, Indian lawyers come cheap. An associate lawyer in the US comes with a $225 per hour tag in the first year. By the eighth year, it goes up to $450 an hour. In India, the rates are barely 10 per cent to 15 per cent of that. Moreover, with the time lag between India and the US and the UK, the turnaround time is 24 hours.

Animals in Captivity May Not Take Learned Skills Back to the Wild

Many believe and some have documented instances when wild animals are taken from the wild and taught a new skill, that they do not necessarily use those skills once out of captivity. Why is this? Well many reasons one, is that it may not be a practical skill to use or there is no real need. Perhaps it might jeopardize their social status to do something that the others felt out of place? Maybe they cannot teach the skill to their offspring or the others in the group are not interested in learning what they have to show them.

Recently this subject came up in an online think tank when a fellow thinker stated: “However when the same specimen is returned to its place of origin the acquired responses will not succeed within its classification. The adaptation would then be considered residual.”

Indeed this hits the nail on the head. The adaptation would be residual to the normal life of the social group or individual animal in the wild. Humans are able to adapt very quickly and often take their skills to new levels with them. That is to say that this is one thing mankind is extremely good at, very well suited and the large brain makes it very easy for him. Indeed this has helped in the “luck” phases of cataclysmic evolution after his branch off from Chimpanzees. Able to adapt no matter where or what is presented.

This is to mankind’s plus side of the “T” chart on the large legal pad of classification and abilities of the species; humans rank high there indeed. Some individual cultures rank really high, perhaps this is the explorer gene or something. These are all very interesting topics to think about indeed. So, perhaps you will consider all of this in 2006.

Captive Insurance Company – Reduce Taxes and Build Wealth

For business owners paying taxes in the United States, captive insurance companies reduce taxes, build wealth and improve insurance protection. A captive insurance company (CIC) is similar in many ways to any other insurance company. It is referred to as “captive” because it generally provides insurance to one or more related operating businesses. With captive insurance, premiums paid by a business are retained in the same “economic family”, instead of being paid to an outsider.

Two key tax benefits enable a structure containing a CIC to build wealth efficiently: (1) insurance premiums paid by a business to the CIC are tax deductible; and (2) under IRC § 831(b), the CIC receives up to $1.2 million of premium payments annually income-tax-free. In other words, a business owner can shift taxable income out of an operating business into the low-tax captive insurer. An 831(b) CIC pays taxes only on income from its investments. The “dividends received deduction” under IRC § 243 provides additional tax efficiency for dividends received from its corporate stock investments.

Starting about 60 years ago, the first captive insurance companies were formed by large corporations to provide insurance that was either too expensive or unavailable in the conventional insurance market.

Over the years, a combination of US tax laws, court cases and IRS rulings has clearly defined the steps and procedures required for the establishment and operation of a CIC by one or more business owners or professionals.

To qualify as an insurance company for tax purposes, a captive insurance company must satisfy “risk shifting” and “risk distribution” requirements. This is easily done through routine CIC planning. The insurance provided by a CIC must really be insurance, that is, a genuine risk of loss must be shifted from the premium-paying operating business to the CIC that insures the risk.

In addition to tax benefits, principal advantages of a CIC include increased control and increased flexibility, which improve insurance protection and lower cost. With conventional insurance, an outside carrier typically dictates all aspects of a policy. Often, certain risks cannot be insured conventionally, or can only be insured at a prohibitive price. Conventional insurance rates are often volatile and unpredictable, and conventional insurers are prone to deny valid claims by exaggerating petty technicalities. Also, although business insurance premiums are generally deductible, once they are paid to a conventional outside insurer, they are gone forever.

A captive insurance company efficiently insures risk in various ways, such as through customized insurance policies, favorable “wholesale” rates from reinsurers, and pooled risk. Captive companies are well suited for insuring risk that would otherwise be uninsurable. Most businesses have conventional “retail” insurance policies for obvious risks, but remain exposed and subject to damages and loss from numerous other risks (i.e., they “self insure” those risks). A captive company can write customized policies for a business’s peculiar insurance needs and negotiate directly with reinsurers. A CIC is particularly well-suited to issue business casualty policies, that is, policies that cover business losses claimed by a business and not involving third-party claimants. For example, a business might insure itself against losses incurred through business interruptions arising from weather, labor problems or computer failure.

As noted above, an 831(b) CIC is exempt from taxes on up to $1.2 million of premium income annually. As a practical matter, a CIC makes economic sense when its annual receipt of premiums is about $300,000 or more. Also, a business’s total payments of insurance premiums should not exceed 10 percent of its annual revenues. A group of businesses or professionals having similar or homogeneous risks can form a multiple-parent captive (or group captive) insurance company and/or join a risk retention group (RRG) to pool resources and risks.

A captive insurance company is a separate entity with its own identity, management, finances and capitalization requirements. It is organized as an insurance company, having procedures and personnel to administer insurance policies and claims. An initial feasibility study of a business, its finances and its risks determines if a CIC is appropriate for a particular economic family. An actuarial study identifies appropriate insurance policies, corresponding premium amounts and capitalization requirements. After selection of a suitable jurisdiction, application for an insurance license may proceed. Fortunately, competent service providers have developed “turnkey” solutions for conducting the initial evaluation, licensing, and ongoing management of captive insurance companies. The annual cost for such turnkey services is typically about $50,000 to $150,000, which is high but readily offset by reduced taxes and enhanced investment growth.

A captive insurance company may be organized under the laws of one of several offshore jurisdictions or in a domestic jurisdiction (i.e., in one of 39 US states). Some captives, such as a risk retention group (RRG), must be licensed domestically. Generally, offshore jurisdictions are more accommodating than domestic insurance regulators. As a practical matter, most offshore CICs owned by a US taxpayer elect to be treated under IRC § 953(d) as a domestic company for federal taxation. An offshore CIC, however, avoids state income taxes. The costs of licensing and managing an offshore CIC are comparable to or less than doing so domestically. More importantly, an offshore company offers better asset protection opportunities than a domestic company. For example, an offshore irrevocable trust owning an offshore captive insurance company provides asset protection against creditors of the business, grantor and other beneficiaries while allowing the grantor to enjoy benefits of the trust.

For US business owners paying substantial insurance premiums every year, a captive insurance company efficiently reduces taxes and builds wealth and can be easily integrated into asset protection and estate planning structures. Up to $1.2 million of taxable income can be shifted as deductible insurance premiums from an operating business to a low-tax CIC.

Warning & Disclaimer: This is not legal or tax advice.

Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Copyright 2011 – Thomas Swenson