Commitments and Contingencies

Qualification of Life Products

In the first quarter of 2015, we announced that we identified that a substantial portion of the life insurance policies issued by our subsidiary insurance companies failed to qualify for the favorable U.S. federal income tax treatment afforded by Sections 7702 and 7702A of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") of 1986. This tax code section allows for qualifying products sold to clients to have favorable tax treatment such as the death benefit is not taxable. By identifying certain products that we have sold with the intention of this favorable tax treatment but in fact they do not qualify under the IRC rules, our policyholders may now be subject to additional tax liabilities. The policies at issue were primarily sold to non-U.S. citizens residing abroad. Based upon a review of the options available to the Company we have determined that will not remediate our endowments and endowment like products we have sold to non-U.S. citizens. We do intend to remediate the domestic products we have sold to U.S. citizens. Failure of these policies to qualify under Sections 7702 and 7702A has resulted in additional expenses as described below. The products have been and continue to be appropriately reported under U.S. GAAP for financial reporting.

The failure of these policies to qualify under Sections 7702 and 7702A resulted in additional expense of $11.4 million, after tax, related to projected IRS toll charges and fees of $10.1 million as well as claims liability for past claims and reserves increases to bring policies into compliance totaling $1.3 million. The range of financial estimates relative to this issue is $11.4 million to $40.0 million, after tax.This estimated range includes projected toll charges and fees as well as increased claims liability for past claims, reserves increases to bring policies into compliance and other probable liabilities resulting from this tax compliance matter. Our estimated range reflects the uncertainties with respect to the required course of action and other matters unknown at this time. Currently, management believes there is not a specific estimable amount for these probable liabilities and expenses which is more likely than other specific amounts within our estimated range. The process of determining our estimated range was a complex undertaking and involved management’s judgment based upon a variety of factors known at the time. In addition, it is reasonably possible that we may incur additional costs associated with this issue in 2015 related to system remediation and consulting costs. We believe these costs could be $0.5 million to $0.8 million but due to the uncertainty of actions we cannot reasonably estimate these costs with any reliability. Actual amounts incurred may exceed this estimate and will be recorded as they become probable and can be reasonably estimated.

Litigation

We are a defendant in a lawsuit filed on August 6, 1999, in the Texas District Court, Austin, Texas, now styled Delia Bolanos Andrade, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Citizens Insurance Company of America, et al., Defendants in which a class was originally certified by the trial court and reversed by the Texas Supreme Court in 2007 with an order to the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent with its ruling. The underlying lawsuit alleged that certain life insurance policies CICA made available to non-U.S. residents, when combined with a policy feature that allowed certain cash benefits to be assigned to two non-U.S. trusts for the purpose of accumulating ownership of our Class A common stock, along with allowing the policyholders to make additional contributions to the trusts, were actually offers and sales of securities that occurred in Texas by unregistered dealers in violation of the Texas securities laws. The remedy sought was rescission and return of the insurance premium payments. On December 9, 2009, the trial court denied the recertification of the class after conducting additional proceedings in accordance with the Texas Supreme Court's ruling. The remaining plaintiffs must now proceed individually, and not as a class, if they intend to pursue their claims against us. Since the December 9, 2009 trial court ruling, no individual cases have been further pursued by the plaintiffs. The probability of the plaintiffs further pursuing their cases individually is unknown. An estimate of any possible loss or range of losses cannot be made at this time in regard to individuals pursuing claims. However, should the plaintiffs further pursue their claims individually, we intend to vigorously defend any proceedings.

In 2007 and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana filed suit against SPFIC and every other homeowner insurer doing business in the State of Louisiana, on behalf of the State of Louisiana and certain Road Home fund recipients. On July 18, 2013, a full and final settlement was reached between SPFIC and the State of Louisiana resolving all claims against SPFIC in the Road Home matter for approximately $183,000. This amount did not have a material impact on the consolidated financials.

Compliance

As part of our efforts to review and improve our compliance controls, we discovered potential non-compliance with Treasury regulations such as Section 7702, described earlier, as well as unrelated applicable BSA requirements. Although we are not yet able to determine the extent of any oversights or estimate any other potential loss, we cannot assure you that the impact of any non-compliance will not have a material impact upon the company.

Unclaimed Property Contingencies

The Company is currently performing an internal audit related to unclaimed property for all legal reporting entities. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had been informed by the Louisiana Department of Treasury, Arkansas Auditor of State and the Texas State Comptroller, that they authorized an audit of Citizens, Inc. and its affiliates for compliance with unclaimed property laws. This audit is being conducted by Verus Financial LLC on behalf of the states.

These internal and external audits may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, administrative penalties, interest, and changes to the Company's procedures for the identification and escheatment of abandoned property. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate any of these possible amounts, but such costs could be substantial for a company our size.

We defend all claims vigorously. However, in doing so, we could incur significant defense costs, including attorneys' fees, other direct litigation costs and the expenditure of substantial amounts of management time that otherwise would be devoted to our business. If we suffer an adverse judgment as a result of litigation claims, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We have the following lease commitments as of December 31, 2014 with the payments due by the periods indicated below.



	Lease Commitments
	(In thousands)
Less than 1 year	$	468
1 year to 3 years	426
3 years to 5 years	51
More than 5 years	—
Total	$	945

Operating lease expense was $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, and $0.6 million and $0.6 million for the same periods ended 2013 and 2012.