Income Taxes

Valuation Allowance

We review the need to maintain a deferred tax asset valuation allowance on a quarterly basis. We analyze many factors, among which are the severity and frequency of operating losses, our capacity for the carryback or carryforward of any losses, the existence and current level of taxable operating income, operating results on a three year cumulative basis, the expected occurrence of future income or loss, the expiration dates of the loss carryforwards, the cyclical nature of our operating results, and available tax planning strategies. Based on our analysis, we reduced our benefit from income tax through the recognition of a valuation allowance from the first quarter of 2009 through the second quarter of 2015. In the third quarter of 2015, we concluded that it was more likely than not that our deferred tax assets would be fully realizable and that the valuation allowance was no longer necessary and we reversed the valuation allowance.

The effect of the change in valuation allowance on the provision for income taxes for three and nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 was as follows:



	Three months ended September 30,					Nine months ended September 30,
(In thousands)	2016		2015			2016		2015
Provision for income tax	$	27,131	$	43,694		$	117,646	$	131,568
Change in valuation allowance	—		(739,298		)	—		(822,465		)
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes	$	27,131	$	(695,604	)	$	117,646	$	(690,897	)

The change in the valuation allowance that was included in other comprehensive income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 was a decrease of $70.0 million and $54.5 million, respectively.

We have approximately $1.6 billion of net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards on a regular tax basis and $0.7 billion of NOL carryforwards for computing the alternative minimum tax as of September 30, 2016. Any unutilized carryforwards are scheduled to expire at the end of tax years 2030 through 2033.

Tax Contingencies

As previously disclosed, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) completed examinations of our federal income tax returns for the years 2000 through 2007 and issued proposed assessments for taxes, interest and penalties related to our treatment of the flow-through income and loss from an investment in a portfolio of residual interests of Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (“REMICs”). The IRS indicated that it did not believe that, for various reasons, we had established sufficient tax basis in the REMIC residual interests to deduct the losses from taxable income. We appealed these assessments within the IRS and in August 2010, we reached a tentative settlement agreement with the IRS which was not finalized.

In 2014, we received Notices of Deficiency (commonly referred to as “90 day letters”) covering the 2000-2007 tax years. The Notices of Deficiency reflect taxes and penalties related to the REMIC matters of $197.5 million and at September 30, 2016, there would also be interest related to these matters of approximately $195.9 million. In 2007, we made a payment of $65.2 million to the United States Department of the Treasury which will reduce any amounts we would ultimately owe. The Notices of Deficiency also reflect additional amounts due of $261.4 million, which are primarily associated with the disallowance of the carryback of the 2009 net operating loss to the 2004-2007 tax years. We believe the IRS included the carryback adjustments as a precaution to keep open the statute of limitations on collection of the tax that was refunded when this loss was carried back, and not because the IRS actually intends to disallow the carryback permanently.

We filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court contesting most of the IRS’ proposed adjustments reflected in the Notices of Deficiency and the IRS has filed an answer to our petition which continues to assert their claim. The case has twice been scheduled for trial and in each instance, the parties jointly filed, and the U.S. Tax Court approved (most recently in February 2016), motions for continuance to postpone the trial date. Also in February 2016, the U.S. Tax Court approved a joint motion to consolidate for trial, briefing, and opinion, our case with similar cases of Radian Group, Inc., as successor to Enhance Financial Services Group, Inc., et al. Litigation to resolve our dispute with the IRS could be lengthy and costly in terms of legal fees and related expenses. We can provide no assurance regarding the outcome of any such litigation or whether a compromised settlement with the IRS will ultimately be reached and finalized. Depending on the outcome of this matter, additional state income taxes and state interest may become due when a final resolution is reached. As of September 30, 2016, those state taxes and interest would approximate $50.2 million. In addition, there could also be state tax penalties. Our total amount of unrecognized tax benefits as of September 30, 2016 is $107.9 million, which represents the tax benefits generated by the REMIC portfolio included in our tax returns that we have not taken benefit for in our financial statements, including any related interest. We continue to believe that our previously recorded tax provisions and liabilities are appropriate. However, we would need to make appropriate adjustments, which could be material, to our tax provision and liabilities if our view of the probability of success in this matter changes, and the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material negative impact on our effective tax rate, results of operations, cash flows, available assets and statutory capital. In this regard, see Note 15 – “Capital Requirements.”

The total amount of the unrecognized tax benefits, related to our aforementioned REMIC issue that would affect our effective tax rate is $94.4 million. We recognize interest accrued and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income taxes. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had accrued $28.6 million and $27.8 million, respectively, for the payment of interest.