MARSHALL, J., dissenting 433 U.S. 9 of "misus[ing] their influence," id., at 84-86, 102-103, and some concerted activity can still occur, id., at 118-119. But even if the risks posed by the Union were unique to it, and even if appellants' fear of the Union were more widely shared by other professionals, the prohibition on Union meetings still could not survive constitutional attack. The central lesson of over a half century of First Amendment adjudication is that freedom is sometimes a hazardous enterprise, and that the Constitution requires the State to bear certain risks to preserve our liberty. See, e. g., Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375-378 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949); Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969). As the ABA Joint Committee, supra, put it: "The doubts and risks raised by creating a humane and open prison must be accepted as a cost of our society; democracy is self-definitionally a risktaking form of government." 10 To my mind, therefore, the fact that appellants have not acted wholly irrationally in banning Union meetings is not dispositive. Rather, I believe that where, as here, meetings would not pose an immediate and substantial threat to the security or rehabilitative functions of the prisons, the First Amendment guarantees Union members the right to associate freely, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees them the right to be treated as favorably as members of other inmate organizations. The State can surely regulate the time, place, and manner of the meetings, and perhaps can monitor them to assure that disruptions are not planned, but the State cannot outlaw such assemblies altogether. See also Note, Bargaining in Correctional Institutions: Restructuring the Relation between the Inmate and the Prison Authority, 81 Yale L. J. 726 (1972). The concern over inmate leadership has been advanced to oppose numerous prison reforms. E. g., Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483, 499 (1969) (WHITE, J., dissenting); Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843, 866-869 (1974) (PoWELL, J., dissenting) (rejecting argument). 10 ABA Joint Committee report 419. 119 MARSHALL, J., dissenting III If the mode of analysis adopted in today's decision were to be generally followed, prisoners eventually would be stripped of all constitutional rights, and would retain only those privileges that prison officials, in their "informed discretion," deigned to recognize. The sole constitutional constraint on prison officials would be a requirement that they act rationally. Ironically, prisoners would be left with a right of access to the courts, see Bounds v. Smith, 430 U. S. 817 (1977); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969), but no substantive rights to assert once they get there. I cannot believe that the Court that decided Bounds and Johnson-the Court that has stated that "[t]here is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country," Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S., at 555-556, and that "[a] prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner," Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S., at 822 intends to allow this to happen. I therefore believe that the tension between today's decision and our prior cases ultimately will be resolved, not by the demise of the earlier cases, but by the recognition that the decision today is an aberration, a manifestation of the extent to which the very phrase "prisoner union" is threatening to those holding traditional conceptions of the nature of penal institutions. I respectfully dissent, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 75-1771. Argued March 30, 1977-Decided June 23, 1977 The "net valuation" portion of unpaid life insurance premiums (the portion state law requires a life insurance company to add to its reserves), but not the "loading" portion (the portion to be used to pay salesmen's commissions, other expenses such as state taxes and overhead, and profits), held required to be included in a life insurance company's assets and gross premium income, as well as in its reserves, for purposes of computing its federal income tax liability, notwithstanding such computation necessitates making a fictional assumption that the "net valuation" portion has been paid but that the "loading" portion has not. This treatment of unpaid premiums is in accordance with § 818 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (as added by the Life Insurance Company Income Tax Act of 1959), which requires computations of a life insurance company's income taxes to be made "in a manner consistent with the manner required for purposes of the annual statement approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners," unless the NAIC procedures are inconsistent with accrual accounting rules, and to the extent that the Treasury Regulations require different treatment of unpaid premiums they are inconsistent with § 818 (a) and therefore invalid. Pp. 152-163. 525 F.2d 786, reversed and remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BURGER, C. J., joined, post, p. 163. STEWART, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Stuart A. Smith argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were former Solicitor General Bork, Acting Solicitor General Friedman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Baum, Stephen M. Gelber, and Jeanne L. Dobres. Vester T. Hughes, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Gene A. Castleberry and W. John Glancy. Matthew J. Zinn argued the cause for the American Council of Life Insurance as amicus curiae. With him on the brief were William B. Harman, Jr., Kenneth L. Kimble, and Francis A. Goodhue, Jr.* MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, for the second time this Term, we are required to construe the complex portion of the Internal Revenue Code concerning life insurance companies.' The issue in this case is the extent to which deferred and uncollected life insurance premiums are includable in "reserves," "assets," and "gross premium income," as those concepts are used in the Life Insurance Company Income Tax Act of 1959.2 I Premiums on respondent's policies are often payable in installments. If an installment is not paid when due, the policy will lapse, generally after a grace period. However, there is no legally enforceable duty to pay the premiums. An installment falling due between the end of the tax year and the policy's anniversary date is called a "deferred premium." In 1961, the most recent year in issue, respondent had $1,572,763 of deferred premiums. Pet. for Cert. 4a. An installment which is overdue at the end of the tax year is called an "uncollected premium" if the policy has not yet lapsed. In 1961, respondent had $231,969 of uncollected premiums. Ibid. For convenience, we shall refer to both deferred and uncollected premiums simply as "unpaid premiums. *Edward J. Schmuck and Carolyn P. Chiechi filed a brief for the Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. as amicus curiae. 1 See United States v. Consumer Life Ins. Co., 430 U. S. 725. 226 U. S. C. §§ 801-820. The amount charged a policyholder-the "gross premium"-includes two components. Under state law, the company must add part of the premium to its reserves to ensure that it will have sufficient funds to pay death benefits. This amount, the "net valuation premium," is determined under mortality and interest assumptions. The rest of the gross premium is called "loading," and covers profits and expenses such as salesmen's commissions, state taxes, and overhead. Under normal accounting rules, unpaid premiums would simply be ignored. They would not be properly accruable since the company has no legal right to collect them. Nevertheless, for the past century, insurance companies have added an amount equal to the net valuation portion of unpaid premiums to their reserves, with an offsetting addition to assets. State law uniformly requires this treatment of unpaid premiums, as does the accounting form issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). This national organization of state regulatory officials, which acts on behalf of the various state insurance departments, performs audits on insurance companies like respondent which do business in many States. The NAIC accounting form, known in the industry as the "Annual Statement," is used by respondent for its financial reporting. In effect, in calculating its reserves, the company must treat these premiums to some extent as if they had been paid. This case involves the tax treatment of respondent's unpaid premiums for the years 1958, 1959, and 1961. In its returns for each of those years, it included the net unpaid premiums in reserves, just as it did in its annual NAIC statement. In 1959 and 1961, it also followed the NAIC statement by including the net premiums in assets and premium income. In 1958, however, it excluded the entire unpaid premium from assets. The Commissioner assessed a deficiency because respondent did not, in any of these years, include the entire |