Is a Luxembourg life insurance policy a PFIC? The tests, in order

Your US preparer sends you three lines. They contain the words PFIC, Form 8621 and section 7702, and they end in a question about your Luxembourg life insurance policy. You search the phrase, and the first page you land on says flatly that the IRS classifies the policy as a PFIC. That sentence is loose in a way that matters. Section 1297(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines a passive foreign investment company as a foreign corporation that meets a 75 percent income test or a 50 percent asset test. A life insurance policy is not a corporation. Section 1291, the provision usually quoted alongside it, is the punitive default regime, not the definition.

The distinction is not pedantry. Behind it sit two answers you actually need: whether your CPA files one Form 8621 or one for every fund line in the policy, and whether the gain building up inside it can be taxed in the United States year by year, or whether US deferral holds until money comes out. Rules that sit before the PFIC rules decide both, and they apply in a fixed order. Take the steps out of order and you will reach an answer, but not the right one.

I am Quentin Hagnéré, a French wealth adviser (conseiller en gestion de patrimoine), registered with ORIAS, the French register of insurance and financial intermediaries, under number 23002291. I write here for Hagnéré Patrimoine, and the "we" below is the firm.

This page follows the chain in the order US law runs it: is the contract life insurance (section 7702), who owns the assets (section 817(h) and the investor control doctrine), and only then, is what you hold PFIC stock (section 1297) and how many Forms 8621 does that mean (section 1298(f)). The reference points that keep coming back are the 55, 70, 80 and 90 percent diversification thresholds of Treasury Regulation 1.817-5(b)(1)(i); Webber v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 324 (2015), where the Tax Court treated the policyholder as owning the account assets; and the 1 percent excise tax of section 4371(2). This page carries no fee figure and names no company.

The short answer: no, not as such

The PFIC rules target interests in foreign corporations (section 1297(a)). They do not target insurance policies. They reach inside a policy only where another US rule has first treated the policyholder as the direct ownerof the assets held for it. So the answer to "is my policy a PFIC" is no, not as such. The question worth asking instead is at what level must my US adviser look, and on what documents?

The same holds if what you own is a French assurance vie, the standard French life insurance savings policy, rather than a Luxembourg one. The query is assurance vie a PFIC runs into the same three tests, and the country in which the insurer is established does not, by itself, change any of them.

The chain runs one way only, and the answer at each step decides whether the next step is reached at all.

The stock answer in circulation compresses all of this into "the IRS classifies the policy as a PFIC under section 1291". Section 1291 is the default regime that applies where no election is made. It is not the definition, and it is not a classification of your policy.

Why an American living in France is asked this at all

The starting point is Treasury Regulation 1.1-1(b), taken under sections 1 and 61 of the Internal Revenue Code: all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code. The Supreme Court upheld that principle in Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924). One point gets inverted constantly: section 7701(a)(30) supplies the definition of a United States person, not the basis of worldwide taxation. In practice, all of this means a Form 1040, the U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, every year, on top of your French return.

Your policy is not "taxed in the US". It stays taxed in France, where you live, and is reported to the United States. Depending on how it is structured, the gain building up inside it may be taxed there as well. None of this describes a French resident who moves to the United States and becomes a US tax resident: that is a different question, and it often gets a different answer. Tens of thousands of people are in the first situation in France. We put no precise figure on it, because the published counts measure a different population, people born on US soil.

What is settled law, and what depends on your policy

English-language coverage of this subject swings between two modes: the hidden trap, and "it depends, call us". Neither draws the line between a rule you can check at source and a position that turns on how your own policy is built. The tables below draw it. Everything in the first can be checked against a text. Everything in the second turns on documents specific to one policy.

First test: is it life insurance for US purposes?

Two alternative tests, calibrated on US actuarial standards

Section 7702(a) applies to any contract which is a life insurance contract under the applicable law. On the reading commonly taken in practice, which your US adviser must confirm for your own policy, that phrase is not confined to US law: a contract that is life insurance under Luxembourg law would come within scope. It must then clear one of two alternative tests.

The first is the cash value accumulation test (7702(b)): the cash surrender value must at no time exceed the net single premium needed to fund future benefits. The second combines a guideline premium requirement with a cash value corridor (7702(a)(2), (c) and (d)): cumulative premiums are capped, and the death benefit must represent a minimum percentage of the cash value, decreasing from 250 percent up to age 40, to 105 percent between 75 and 90, then 100 percent beyond 95 (table at 7702(d)(2)).

The practical obstacle lies elsewhere. Sections 7702(c)(3)(B)(i) and 7702(f)(10) cap mortality charges by reference to the prevailing commissioners' standard tables of the NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners), admitted in at least 26 US states: an actuarial standard European carriers do not use. Congress has recalibrated the section twice. P.L. 115-97 reworked the mortality charge rules in 2017. P.L. 116-260 then replaced, in 2020, the fixed 4 and 6 percent rates with variable ones (new 7702(f)(11)), with a transitional 2 percent for the cash value accumulation test and 4 percent for the guideline premium. That window is bounded at both ends: it opens for contracts issued from 1 January 2021 and closes at the first adjustment year after 31 December 2021, after which the statutory formula sets the rate. A European savings policy, whose death benefit often sits close to the surrender value, is not built for these ratios. That has to be verified policy by policy, never presumed.

Section 7702(g): what happens the day the contract fails

Section 7702(g)(1)(A) provides that, where the contract does not meet the definition, the income on the contract shall be treated as ordinary income received or accrued by the policyholder during such year. The US deferral disappears. Section 7702(g)(1)(B) defines that income as the increase in the net surrender value over the year, plus the cost of the life insurance protection provided, minus premiums paid during the year. Under 7702(g)(1)(D), the cost of protection taken into account is the lesser of the amount computed on the uniform premiums prescribed by the Secretary, in five-year age bands, and the mortality charge stated in the contract.

Two adjacent provisions change how far all of this reaches. They are routinely merged; they should not be. Section 7702(g)(1)(C) provides for a retroactive catch-up: if the contract ceases mid-life to meet the definition, the income of all prior years is treated as received in the year of cessation. The wording turns on cessation. Subparagraph (C) speaks of a contract that ceases to meet the definition; subparagraph (A) speaks of a contract that does not meet it at any time. Whether a contract that never met the definition can be said to cease to meet it is our reading of the text, not a settled point, and it is for your US adviser to resolve.

The second provision cuts the other way. Section 7702(g)(3) says the contract shall, notwithstanding such failure, be treated as an insurance contract for purposes of this title. Section 7702(g)(2) does the same work at death: the excess of the death benefit over the net surrender value is still deemed paid under a life insurance contract for the purposes of section 101. We return to that wording below, and it has to be handled as an argument in a debate, never as a solution.

This is where the mismatch bites. On the French side, no income tax falls due until you make a withdrawal (rachat): that is the founding principle of the French assurance vie. On the US side, if section 7702 is not met, the gain building up inside the policy may become taxable every year. The possible outcome is an uncomfortable one: a tax bill on money you have not received. That is our analysis rather than a citation, and your US adviser has to validate it against your actual policy.

Why we avoid the word "wrapper"

In US tax English, insurance wrapper is a term of art for a contract that fails section 7702: US practitioners apply it to contracts that are not compliant with that section. A European reader, by contrast, has usually been sold "wrapper" as a neutral name for the policy itself. So we do not apply it to a Luxembourg policy, and everywhere else on this page we simply write the policy. The same gap explains why the English-language literature on private placement life insurance answers a different question for a different reader: the US-resident buyer.

Second test: who actually owns the assets? Section 817(h) and investor control

Section 817(h): diversification of the segregated account

Section 817(d) defines a variable contract by three features: amounts allocated to a segregated asset accountheld apart from the insurer's general assets; an annuity or life insurance contract; and amounts that reflect the investment return and the market value of the segregated asset account. Section 817(h)(1) adds that a contract backed by an inadequately diversified account ceases to be treated as life insurance. The consequence reaches any period (and any subsequent period): once it bites, it carries forward.

Treasury Regulation 1.817-5(b)(1)(i) sets four thresholds, read as a cascade: no more than 55 percent of account value in one investment, 70 percent in two, 80 percent in three and 90 percent in four. A safe harbor exists (817(h)(2) and 1.817-5(b)(2)): meeting the conditions of section 851(b)(3), which the regulation still cites as 851(b)(4), before renumbering, and holding no more than 55 percent in cash, cash items, government securities and securities of other regulated investment companies. Section 817(h)(3) further deems US Treasury securities held by a segregated account backing a variable life insurance contract adequately diversified.

Then comes the rule that decides everything in a European policy: the conditional look-through of 1.817-5(f)(2)(i). You may look through a pooled vehicle, to test diversification on its underlyings, only where both conditions are met: all interests in the vehicle are held by insurance company segregated accounts, subject to the limited exceptions at (f)(3); and public access to the vehicle is only possible by purchasing a variable contract. A European retail UCITS, whether a SICAV (an open-ended investment company), an FCP (fonds commun de placement, a contractual fund with no legal personality) or a retail UCITS ETF, fails both. Everything in the next subsection follows from that.

Investor control: two revenue rulings that show where the line runs

Rev. Rul. 2003-91 describes the safe harbor. The policyholder is not treated as owner of the assets where, cumulatively: they cannot select or direct a particular investment; they cannot buy or sell the sub-account assets; all investment decisions rest with the insurer or an independent manager; there is no arrangement over specified investments; they cannot communicate with the managers about particular investments; and the underlyings are available only by purchasing the contract. On the facts, twelve sub-accounts were available and never more than twenty. The express limit matters just as much: the mere ability to allocate premiums between sub-accounts and to switch between them does not by itself establish ownership of the assets.

Rev. Rul. 2003-92 describes the tipping point: where the interests are publicly available outside the contract, the policyholder owns them and must include the income annually. So the distinguishing criterion is public availability of the underlying, and its virtue is that you can check it against documents: can the units of your funds be bought outside the policy, or not?

The doctrine was upheld in Webber v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 324 (2015) (Tax Court, 30 June 2015). A US citizen set up a grantor trust that took out private placement policies with a Cayman Islands company; he effectively dictated both the companies in which the separate accounts would invest and all actions taken with respect to these investments, with power to direct the investments, vote the securities and extract cash at will. The court gave the revenue rulings Skidmore deference, held the taxpayer to be the owner of the assets and taxable on their income, but imposed no penalty under section 6662(a), since he had relied in good faith on competent professional advice.

Why a dedicated fund sits closest to the doctrine

A dedicated internal fund (fonds interne dédié) or a specialized insurance fund (fonds d'assurance spécialisé) exists precisely to tailor how the money is managed. Seen from the United States, that places it on the very ground the doctrine occupies. If the doctrine applies, the policy screens nothing: the policyholder is treated as direct owner of the assets, and the PFIC analysis drops line by line, one Form 8621 per fund. Be precise about what Webber decided, though: it was an extreme case on its facts. A discretionary management mandate does not, by itself, establish investor control, and the opposite claim is just as false. Neither "a dedicated fund brings the policy down" nor "a dedicated fund is safe" is a defensible statement. No structure, no mandate and no sales argument, including ours, should be presented to you as immunizing you against that risk.

Whether to keep, restructure or surrender a policy is a separate decision, and it is covered in our full guide to Luxembourg life insurance for US persons. This page stays on the mechanism.

Only now: the PFIC rules, Form 8621, and the two elections

What a PFIC is, and why a European fund is one

Section 1297(a) characterizes as a PFIC a foreign corporation meeting either of two tests: the income test, where 75 percent or more of gross income is passive, or the asset test, where at least 50 percent of assets produce, or are held to produce, passive income. Passive income takes the character of foreign personal holding company income under section 954(c). A European UCITS holds financial assets and collects dividends and interest, so it generally ticks both boxes. One caveat: characterizing a given fund is a question of fact, and vehicles without legal personality, such as a French FCP, have to be checked on their own terms.

Your Luxembourg insurer is not your PFIC problem

Section 1297(b)(2)(B) excludes from passive income the income derived in the active conduct of an insurance business by a qualifying insurance corporation, which section 1297(f) defines as a company taxable under subchapter L if it were domestic and whose applicable insurance liabilities exceed 25 percent of total assets. An alternative facts-and-circumstances test opens at 10 percent, but only on election by the US holder and only where the 25 percent threshold is missed solely because of runoff or ratings-related circumstances (1297(f)(2)). So the answer is no, for two reasons: you are not a shareholder of your insurer, and the exception exists. But it says nothing about the underlying funds, and it does not protect the policy. It should never be offered to you as reassurance.

A single PFIC, or look-through? A contested position

Both readings exist, and neither can be presented as settled. The textual argument for the policy is 7702(g)(3): the contract remains treated as an insurance contract for the purposes of the whole of title 26, hence also for sections 1291 and following. The argument against is direct ownership of the assets, derived from section 817(h) and the investor control doctrine: if you own them, you hold shares in foreign funds, and therefore PFIC stock. Depending on the structure of your policy and your US adviser's analysis, the reasoning can stay at policy level or drop line by line. No published guidance settles it. That is why the right question is not is my policy a PFIC? but at what level must my US adviser look, and on what documents?

The default regime, and why both escape routes are usually shut

Section 1291 applies where no election is made. An excess distributionis the portion of a year's distributions exceeding 125 percent of the average of the three preceding years. It is then allocated ratably to each day of the holding period. The portion landing on prior years is taxed at the highest marginal rate in force for each of those years, without the reduced long-term capital gains rate, and increased by an interest charge computed under section 6621. Gains on disposal follow the same logic.

The QEF election (section 1295) requires the fund to produce, every year, a PFIC Annual Information Statement within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.1295-1(g), detailing ordinary earnings and net capital gain. Most European funds do not produce that statement. That is a market observation, not a rule of law: whether a given fund produces one is a question for the fund itself.

The mark-to-market election (section 1296) is restricted to marketable stock as defined at 1296(e): stock regularly traded on a SEC-registered exchange or a qualified foreign market (1296(e)(1)(A)); or, to the extent provided in regulations, stock of a foreign corporation comparable to a regulated investment company and redeemable at net asset value (1296(e)(1)(B)). Treasury Regulation 1.1296-2(d) sets eight cumulative conditions for that second route, among them more than 100 shareholders, redemption at net asset value, a minimum investment of no more than 10,000 USD, a net asset value published at least weekly and an annual independent audit. A listed UCITS ETF, like an open-ended fund redeemable at net asset value, may therefore fall within the definition. It is checked fund by fund, with the professional preparing your Forms 8621. Inclusion is annual and in ordinary income, and losses are deductible only to the extent of unreversed inclusions.

One form per fund, a de minimis exception, and a retroactive rule

Form 8621 carries the exact title Information Return by a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund, and its annual filing rests on section 1298(f). The instructions (December 2025 revision) set out the principle that a separate Form 8621 is filed for each PFIC in which stock is held directly or indirectly. Those last three words carry the whole look-through discussion. A de minimis exception exists (Treasury Regulation 1.1298-1(c)(2)): no 1298(f) filing for a section 1291 fund where the value of all PFIC stock held is, on the last day of the year, 25,000 USD or less (50,000 USD on a joint return, 5,000 USD for indirect holdings), subject to cumulative conditions.

Second point, heavier than it looks: section 1298(b)(1), the once a PFIC, always a PFIC rule. The stock remains PFIC stock for the whole holding period, absent a purging election. Switching funds inside the policy does not clean up the past, and rebalancing an allocation regularizes nothing for prior years.

This page carries no cost figure. Every form named here has to be prepared by someone, and what that costs tracks the number of fund lines in your policy rather than the amount you have invested. It is set out form by form in what Form 8621 actually costs, per fund. That work sits with your US preparer: we do not do it, and it is not covered by our fees.

Does the France-US treaty help? The saving clause and its closed list

The applicable income tax treaty is the one signed 31 August 1994, whose provisions took effect on 1 January 1996 (article 33), and which was amended by the protocols of 8 December 2004 and 13 January 2009. Read the original wording and you will be misled: both protocols amended article 29. In its consolidated version, article 29(2) allows the United States to tax its residents, as determined under article 4, and its citizens, as if the Convention had not come into effect. That is the saving clause(often written "savings clause"). The same paragraph adds that a former citizen or former long-term resident may, for ten years after losing that status, be taxed on income from sources in that State, a long term resident being a lawful permanent resident for at least eight of the fifteen preceding tax years.

The treaty does not protect you, and the reason is mechanical rather than a matter of principle: its list of exceptions is closed. Article 29(3)(a) (2004 protocol) expressly reserves the benefits of article 9(2), article 13(3)(a), article 18(1), and articles 24 (elimination of double taxation), 25 (non-discrimination) and 26 (mutual agreement procedure). Article 29(3)(b) (2009 protocol) adds articles 18(2), 19, 20, 21 and 31, but only for persons who are neither citizens of, nor immigrant-status holders in, the State concerned, so not our reader. None of the texts that concern us appears there: neither the PFIC regime, nor section 7702, nor section 817(h), nor the section 4371 excise tax, nor any reporting obligation (FBAR, 8938, 8621, 3520). So the treaty neutralizes neither the PFIC rules nor the annual taxation of section 7702(g).

Article 24 is, by contrast, an express exception: the foreign tax credit mechanism survives, together with the re-sourcing rule of 24(1)(b)(ii), which treats as French-source income that, but for the citizenship of the taxpayer, would be exempt from United States income tax under the Convention, to the extent necessary to give effect to the credit. What follows is our reading, and not a stipulation of the treaty: a credit presupposes a French tax to credit, on the same item and for the same year, which is precisely not the case for inside build-up not yet withdrawn in France. We have not identified a direct source settling that point, and it must be validated by your US adviser.

A word on death. The estate and gift tax convention of 24 November 1978, amended by the protocol of 8 December 2004, applies to persons subject to US law by reason of their citizenship (article 1), so to our reader; its article 12 provides that each State levies its own tax and grants its own exemptions, allowances and credits under its own law. The useful point here is that the French death regime for life insurance (articles 990 I and 757 B of the French General Tax Code) turns on tax domicile, never on nationality, and so continues to apply as it stands. Cross-border succession planning has to be run on the actual family situation.

What you owe whatever the answer

The 1 percent excise tax on premiums

Section 4371(2) imposes a tax of 1 cent per dollar of premium, that is 1 percent, on life insurance policies issued by a foreign insurer. It is a tax on premiums, not on gains. Section 4372(a) defines a foreign insurer as an insurer who is a nonresident alien individual, a foreign partnership or a foreign corporation, which covers a Luxembourg company, and section 4372(e) covers the policy taken out with respect to the life or hazards to the person of a citizen or resident of the United States. The connecting factor is the insured life being a US citizen or resident: living in France does not take you outside it. As to who pays, the instructions to Form 720 (Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return) and Treasury Regulation 46.4374-1(c) point to the person who pays the premium to the foreign insurer, so the charge can fall on the policyholder. Form 720 is filed quarterly.

The instinct is to reach for the France-US treaty. It is the wrong one: the exemption depends on the insurer'streaty, not the policyholder's (Rev. Proc. 2003-78, paragraph 2.04, a procedure that may have been amended since and to be confirmed with the company and your US adviser). For a Luxembourg carrier the relevant treaty is the one between the United States and Luxembourg, signed 3 April 1996. And the exemption is never automatic: it presupposes the limitation on benefits clause (paragraph 3.03) and a closing agreement in force between the IRS and the insurer (paragraph 3.01). The IRS states that its own published lists cannot be relied upon to establish that a given company has a valid agreement, and invites inquiry with the company. Our position is conservative, then: presume the tax due, and ask the insurer for written confirmation.

What you file yourself, and what your insurer reports separately

Many policyholders reason that an insurance policy is not an "account". The text says otherwise: 31 CFR 1010.350(c)(3)(ii) expressly lists an account that is an insurance or annuity policy with a cash value among reportable accounts. A Luxembourg policy with a surrender value is a foreign financial account for FBAR purposes: FinCEN Form 114, the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts. The threshold is 10,000 USD aggregate at any point in the calendar year. It goes to FinCEN electronically rather than attached to the 1040, and it is due 15 April, automatically extended to 15 October.

The same policy is also a specified foreign financial asset for Form 8938 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, section 6038D), whose thresholds are higher outside the United States: 200,000 USD on the last day of the year or 300,000 USD at any time for a single filer, 400,000 and 600,000 USD on the same logic for a joint return. A frequent mistake is to copy across the thresholds that apply to US residents.

The two obligations do not replace one another: two authorities, two thresholds, two penalty regimes. The same holds across borders. The French 3916 / 3916-bis return (article 1649 AA of the French General Tax Code) relieves no US obligation, and neither the FBAR nor Form 8938 relieves the French one. On penalties, Bittner v. United States, 598 U.S. 85 (2023), settled a useful point: the non-willful penalty is assessed per return, not per account. It remains a reason to file accurately. Finally, your Luxembourg insurer identifies and reports you under the Luxembourg-United States intergovernmental agreement (a FATCA Model 1 agreement); that does not replace your own filings.

Forms 3520 and 3520-A concern transactions with a foreign trust and ownership of one (reporting under section 6048, trust ownership under sections 671 to 679, penalties under section 6677). That analysis stays strictly conditional here: no published US guidance or case law has been identified treating a standard Luxembourg life insurance policy as a foreign trust. In Webber, the policies were held by a grantor trust set up by the taxpayer himself: the contract was not the trust.

Then the section 953(d) election. It is regularly presented as the route that makes the excise tax disappear, and it depends on the insurer rather than on you. Section 953(d)(1) sets four cumulative conditions, and two of them block it in practice for a Luxembourg company owned by a European group: being a controlled foreign corporation under section 957(a), with the threshold lowered to 25 percent or more, and making the election while waiving all treaty benefits granted by the United States. That has to be checked company by company, on the actual ownership of the company concerned, and it is exactly why the 1 percent excise tax belongs in the budget from the start.

One policy, two readings: Margaret's case

Margaret, 58, lives in Bordeaux. She was born in Boston, where her parents were posted for three years, and has never worked in the United States. She is nonetheless a US citizen, up to date with her filings, and holds a Luxembourg policy opened twelve years ago. Her question is whether her CPA will have one form to complete for the policy, or one per fund line.

Scenario A, delegated collective allocation. Six collective fund lines. Apply the section 817(h) test (Treasury Regulation 1.817-5(b)(1)(i)) cumulatively and all four thresholds hold, as the table shows. Management is delegated to a manager appointed by the insurer; Margaret has given no instruction on the underlyings and has had no contact with the managers. The set-up matches the logic of the Rev. Rul. 2003-91 safe harbor, so the ownership question carries less weight, and the analysis concentrates on section 7702.

Scenario B, concentrated dedicated fund, client-directed. Three lines only, and all four thresholds are breached. The underlyings are also publicly available outside the contract, and Margaret sends instructions to the manager. Two things now combine: the public availability that tipped Rev. Rul. 2003-92, and the effective direction of investments that weighed with the court in Webber. On those facts a US adviser will take the investor control question seriously; if that reading is accepted, Margaret is treated as the owner of the three lines, and the PFIC question arises at that level.

The arithmetic has a floor: an account of four fund lines or fewer can never hold the 90 percent ceiling, since its lines sum to 100. You need at least five lines, and the fifth must weigh at least 10 percent (five lines at 20 give 20 / 40 / 60 / 80).

Neither scenario describes any real policy. The look-through rule of Treasury Regulation 1.817-5(f) presupposes underlyings reserved to insurance company segregated accounts, a condition an ordinary retail policy generally does not meet, and one that changes the basis of the calculation where it is met. And Webber was an extreme case. Only a French-US tax attorney or CPA can conclude for a given policy, on the actual documentation. Capital is at risk of loss on unit-linked funds, and no return is guaranteed.

What we do, and what we will not do for you

We do not stand in for your CPA. What we can do is save them some back-and-forth. They receive the policy terms, the list of fund lines with their weightings, the management mandate, and the questions put in the order the texts put them: section 7702, then section 817(h) and investor control, then sections 1297 and 1298(f), on a structure that adds no unnecessary uncertainty.

Where an application is submitted for a US person who is tax resident in France, it goes to our partner insurers, none of which is bound to consider it; on practices observed as of July 2026, acceptance policies change without notice and must be reconfirmed before any step is taken. We never guarantee that a policy is US-compliant, and we will not write that a policy is compliant with section 7702: we ask the insurer for written confirmation and pass it on as it stands. We can review whether a policy could be arranged, subject to the insurer's acceptance; we never open one on the strength of a web page.

We do not prepare US tax returns: we refer to partner French-US tax attorneys or CPAs, and that cost is not included in our fees, it is borne entirely by the client. We do not settle the single-PFIC-versus-look-through question: it is a contested technical position and it belongs to your US adviser. And where your US position is not regularized, that comes first, with a US adviser, before any wealth-planning project, and again at your own cost.

As of July 2026, and as a statement of what our own research has found rather than a market position, we have identified no Luxembourg company publicly claiming to issue a policy designed to meet the tests of sections 7702 and 817(h); no Luxembourg life insurer appears on the closing agreement lists published by the IRS, lists the IRS itself says are not conclusive; and no Luxembourg company can, in principle, make a section 953(d) election. That prejudges no individual case and must be reconfirmed, because acceptance policies change without notice. No company is named on this page.

What this page does not cover

If your question is which carrier will look at your application, and on what terms, see which insurers may consider a US person's application. If it is what the Luxembourg framework itself is worth to this profile, see the Luxembourg triangle of security and the super-privilege. And if you are a French resident about to move to the United States, the analysis flips: you would cease to be a French tax resident, and the answer is then often different.

Related guides

• Our full guide to Luxembourg life insurance for US persons
• Am I a US person? A self-assessment in six cases
• What Form 8621 actually costs, per fund
• Which insurers may consider a US person's application
• The Luxembourg triangle of security and the super-privilege

Read this guide in French: assurance vie et PFIC.