[jaclaz]

Let's try imagining another scenario.

You have ransomware insurance.

You fall victim to a ransomware attack.

You pay US $ 100,000 as ransom.

The insurance company reimburses you the US $ 100,000.

It is clear that financially that is 0.

But from a tax view point, if you cannot count the US $ 100,000 of the ransom as expenses you will be paying some form of taxation on the US $ 100,000 you received from the insurance.

[ithkuil]

This can be solved easily: let the insurance company pay the ransom, and factor in the full cost (since it wouldn't be tax-deductable) when computing the premium.

EDIT: otherwise, the collectivity effectively pays for what you deducted from your taxes. The missing money on the overall country balance has to come from somewhere.

EDIT2: If you're talking about private insurances covering your risk of ransoms, this means you assume it's your responsibility to pay for your losses (insurances just allow you to pay proportionally to the risk), and not e.g. have the government, say, paying it for you (through public funds, which can and IIRC has happened for kidnapping cases here some countries pay the cost of rescue). All I'm saying is that if it's private insurance, it should be private 100%