[ad_1]
What You Have to Know
- Carefully held companies typically enter into agreements, funded by life insurance coverage, whereby the enterprise agrees to redeem a deceased shareholder’s shares.
- The IRS claims that the worth of that life insurance coverage ought to improve the worth of the deceased shareholder’s enterprise pursuits.
- The Supreme Courtroom is tasked with resolving a break up between how the Eighth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit have dominated on this problem.
A case being thought of by the U.S. Supreme Courtroom might have a widespread influence on one frequent succession planning observe that intently held companies typically use to make sure continuity upon the dying of a key shareholder.
Carefully held companies typically enter into redemption agreements whereby the enterprise agrees to redeem a deceased shareholder’s shares. These agreements are usually funded with life insurance coverage. The aim, after all, is to make sure that remaining shareholders retain management of the enterprise after a key shareholder’s dying.Â
Within the case into account, Connelly v. United States, 23-146, the Inner Income Service claims that the worth of that life insurance coverage ought to improve the worth of the deceased shareholder’s enterprise pursuits for federal property tax functions. The Supreme Courtroom is now considering the best way to resolve a break up between how the Eighth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit have dominated on this problem.
Whereas it stays to be seen how the justices will determine, intently held companies which have entered into redemption-type agreements ought to fastidiously contemplate their funding choices — and the potential property tax influence of those preparations.
The Connelly Case Information
Connelly entails a scenario the place a intently held company bought life insurance coverage on the lives of key shareholders. The enterprise right here was collectively owned by two brothers. Upon both shareholder’s dying, the surviving brother had the choice of buying the deceased brother’s shares. Within the occasion that the surviving brother didn’t choose to buy the opposite’s shares, the company would redeem them.
The company bought $3.5 million in life insurance coverage on every shareholder. When the primary brother died, the company acquired the life insurance coverage proceeds and, pursuant to the redemption settlement, redeemed the deceased shareholder’s shares within the company.
The deceased brother’s son and the surviving brother agreed that the worth of the deceased brother’s shares was $3 million. This worth disregarded the valuation approaches contained within the unique inventory buy settlement, which might have valued the decedent’s shares at $3.89 million. After the redemption, the decedent’s brother grew to become the only real shareholder within the enterprise and used the remaining $500,000 in life insurance coverage proceeds to fund enterprise operations.
The query being thought of is whether or not the $3.5 million in life insurance coverage proceeds acquired by the company must be thought of a company asset that will improve the worth of the possession curiosity held by the deceased shareholder for federal property tax functions.
[ad_2]
