COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	10.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Under insurance guaranty fund laws, in most states insurance companies doing business therein can be assessed up to prescribed limits for policyholder losses incurred by insolvent companies. In addition, from time to time, companies may be asked to contribute amounts beyond prescribed limits. Most insurance guaranty fund laws provide that an assessment may be excused or deferred if it would threaten an insurer’s own financial strength. The Company does not believe its insurance guaranty fund assessments will be materially different from amounts already provided for in the financial statements. A number of civil jury verdicts have been returned against insurers, broker dealers and other providers of financial services involving sales, refund or claims practices, alleged agent misconduct, failure to properly supervise representatives, relationships with agents or persons with whom the insurer does business, and other matters. Often these lawsuits have resulted in the award of substantial judgments that are disproportionate to the actual damages, including material amounts of punitive and non-economic compensatory damages. In some states, juries, judges, and arbitrators have substantial discretion in awarding punitive non-economic compensatory damages which creates the potential for unpredictable material adverse judgments or awards in any given lawsuit or arbitration. Arbitration awards are subject to very limited appellate review. In addition, in some class action and other lawsuits, companies have made material settlement payments. Publicly held companies in general and the financial services and insurance industries in particular are also sometimes the target of law enforcement and regulatory investigations relating to the numerous laws and regulations that govern such companies. Some companies have been the subject of law enforcement or regulatory actions or other actions resulting from such investigations. The Company, in the ordinary course of business, is involved in such matters. The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory actions when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no liability is established. For such matters, the Company may provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory matters on a quarterly and annual basis and updates its established liabilities, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or range of loss based on such reviews. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of any litigation or regulatory action, the Company does not believe that any such outcome will have an impact, either individually or in the aggregate, on its financial condition or results of operations that differs materially from the Company’s established liabilities. Given the inherent difficulty in predicting the outcome of such matters, however, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain such matters could be material to the Company’s financial condition or results of operations for any particular reporting period. The Company was audited by the IRS and the IRS proposed favorable and unfavorable adjustments to the Company’s 2003 through 2007 reported taxable income. The Company protested certain unfavorable adjustments and sought resolution at the IRS’ Appeals Division. The case has followed normal procedure and is now under review at Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation. The Company believes the matter will conclude within the next twelve months. If the IRS prevails on every issue that it identified in this audit, and the Company does not litigate these issues, then the Company will make an immaterial income tax payment. However, this payment, if it were to occur, would not materially impact the Company or its effective tax rate. Through the acquisition of MONY by the Company certain income tax credit carryforwards, which arose in MONY’s pre-acquisition tax years, transferred to the Company. This transfer was in accordance with the applicable rules of the Internal Revenue Code and the related Regulations. In spite of this transfer, AXA, the former parent of the consolidated income tax return group in which MONY was a member, retains the right to utilize these credits in the future to offset future increases in its 2010 through 2013 tax liabilities. The Company had determined that, based on all information known as of the acquisition date and through the March 31, 2014 reporting date, it was probable that a loss of the utilization of these carryforwards had been incurred. Due to indemnification received from AXA during the quarter ending June 30, 2014, the probability of loss of these carryforwards has been eliminated. Accordingly, in the table summarizing the fair value of net assets acquired from the Acquisition, the amount of the deferred tax asset from the credit carryforwards is no longer offset by a liability. Certain of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries, as well as certain other insurance companies for which the Company has coinsured blocks of life insurance and annuity policies, are under audit for compliance with the unclaimed property laws of a number of states. The audits are being conducted on behalf of the treasury departments or unclaimed property administrators in such states. The focus of the audits is on whether there have been unreported deaths, maturities, or policies that have exceeded limiting age with respect to which death benefits or other payments under life insurance or annuity policies should be treated as unclaimed property that should be escheated to the state. The Company is presently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from the audits due to a number of factors, including uncertainty as to the legal theory or theories that may give rise to liability, the early stages of the audits being conducted, and, with respect to one block of life insurance policies that is co-insured by a subsidiary of the Company, uncertainty as to whether the Company or other companies are responsible for the liabilities, if any, arising in connection with such policies. The Company will continue to monitor the matter for any developments that would make the loss contingency associated with the audits probable or reasonably estimable. Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries are under a targeted multi-state examination with respect to their claims paying practices and their use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File or similar databases (a “Death Database”) to identify unreported deaths in their life insurance policies, annuity contracts and retained asset accounts. There is no clear basis in previously existing law for requiring a life insurer to search for unreported deaths in order to determine whether a benefit is owed, and substantial legal authority exists to support the position that the prevailing industry practice was lawful. A number of life insurers, however, have entered into settlement or consent agreements with state insurance regulators under which the life insurers agreed to implement procedures for periodically comparing their life insurance and annuity contracts and retained asset accounts against a Death Database, treating confirmed deaths as giving rise to a death benefit under their policies, locating beneficiaries and paying them the benefits and interest, and escheating the benefits and interest as well as penalties to the state if the beneficiary could not be found. It has been publicly reported that the life insurers have paid administrative and/or examination fees to the insurance regulators in connection with the settlement or consent agreements. The Company believes it is reasonably possible that insurance regulators could demand from the Company administrative and/or examination fees relating to the targeted multi-state examination. Based on publicly reported payments by other life insurers, the Company estimates the range of such fees to be from $0 to $3.5 million.

10.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Under insurance guaranty fund laws, in most states insurance companies doing business therein can be assessed up to prescribed limits for policyholder losses incurred by insolvent companies. In addition, from time to time, companies may be asked to contribute amounts beyond prescribed limits. Most insurance guaranty fund laws provide that an assessment may be excused or deferred if it would threaten an insurer’s own financial strength. The Company does not believe its insurance guaranty fund assessments will be materially different from amounts already provided for in the financial statements.

A number of civil jury verdicts have been returned against insurers, broker dealers and other providers of financial services involving sales, refund or claims practices, alleged agent misconduct, failure to properly supervise representatives, relationships with agents or persons with whom the insurer does business, and other matters. Often these lawsuits have resulted in the award of substantial judgments that are disproportionate to the actual damages, including material amounts of punitive and non-economic compensatory damages. In some states, juries, judges, and arbitrators have substantial discretion in awarding punitive non-economic compensatory damages which creates the potential for unpredictable material adverse judgments or awards in any given lawsuit or arbitration. Arbitration awards are subject to very limited appellate review. In addition, in some class action and other lawsuits, companies have made material settlement payments. Publicly held companies in general and the financial services and insurance industries in particular are also sometimes the target of law enforcement and regulatory investigations relating to the numerous laws and regulations that govern such companies. Some companies have been the subject of law enforcement or regulatory actions or other actions resulting from such investigations. The Company, in the ordinary course of business, is involved in such matters.

The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory actions when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no liability is established. For such matters, the Company may provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory matters on a quarterly and annual basis and updates its established liabilities, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or range of loss based on such reviews.

Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of any litigation or regulatory action, the Company does not believe that any such outcome will have an impact, either individually or in the aggregate, on its financial condition or results of operations that differs materially from the Company’s established liabilities. Given the inherent difficulty in predicting the outcome of such matters, however, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain such matters could be material to the Company’s financial condition or results of operations for any particular reporting period.

The Company was audited by the IRS and the IRS proposed favorable and unfavorable adjustments to the Company’s 2003 through 2007 reported taxable income. The Company protested certain unfavorable adjustments and sought resolution at the IRS’ Appeals Division. The case has followed normal procedure and is now under review at Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation. The Company believes the matter will conclude within the next twelve months. If the IRS prevails on every issue that it identified in this audit, and the Company does not litigate these issues, then the Company will make an immaterial income tax payment. However, this payment, if it were to occur, would not materially impact the Company or its effective tax rate.

Through the acquisition of MONY by the Company certain income tax credit carryforwards, which arose in MONY’s pre-acquisition tax years, transferred to the Company. This transfer was in accordance with the applicable rules of the Internal Revenue Code and the related Regulations. In spite of this transfer, AXA, the former parent of the consolidated income tax return group in which MONY was a member, retains the right to utilize these credits in the future to offset future increases in its 2010 through 2013 tax liabilities. The Company had determined that, based on all information known as of the acquisition date and through the March 31, 2014 reporting date, it was probable that a loss of the utilization of these carryforwards had been incurred. Due to indemnification received from AXA during the quarter ending June 30, 2014, the probability of loss of these carryforwards has been eliminated. Accordingly, in the table summarizing the fair value of net assets acquired from the Acquisition, the amount of the deferred tax asset from the credit carryforwards is no longer offset by a liability.

Certain of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries, as well as certain other insurance companies for which the Company has coinsured blocks of life insurance and annuity policies, are under audit for compliance with the unclaimed property laws of a number of states. The audits are being conducted on behalf of the treasury departments or unclaimed property administrators in such states. The focus of the audits is on whether there have been unreported deaths, maturities, or policies that have exceeded limiting age with respect to which death benefits or other payments under life insurance or annuity policies should be treated as unclaimed property that should be escheated to the state. The Company is presently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from the audits due to a number of factors, including uncertainty as to the legal theory or theories that may give rise to liability, the early stages of the audits being conducted, and, with respect to one block of life insurance policies that is co-insured by a subsidiary of the Company, uncertainty as to whether the Company or other companies are responsible for the liabilities, if any, arising in connection with such policies. The Company will continue to monitor the matter for any developments that would make the loss contingency associated with the audits probable or reasonably estimable.

Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries are under a targeted multi-state examination with respect to their claims paying practices and their use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File or similar databases (a “Death Database”) to identify unreported deaths in their life insurance policies, annuity contracts and retained asset accounts. There is no clear basis in previously existing law for requiring a life insurer to search for unreported deaths in order to determine whether a benefit is owed, and substantial legal authority exists to support the position that the prevailing industry practice was lawful. A number of life insurers, however, have entered into settlement or consent agreements with state insurance regulators under which the life insurers agreed to implement procedures for periodically comparing their life insurance and annuity contracts and retained asset accounts against a Death Database, treating confirmed deaths as giving rise to a death benefit under their policies, locating beneficiaries and paying them the benefits and interest, and escheating the benefits and interest as well as penalties to the state if the beneficiary could not be found. It has been publicly reported that the life insurers have paid administrative and/or examination fees to the insurance regulators in connection with the settlement or consent agreements. The Company believes it is reasonably possible that insurance regulators could demand from the Company administrative and/or examination fees relating to the targeted multi-state examination. Based on publicly reported payments by other life insurers, the Company estimates the range of such fees to be from $0 to $3.5 million.