On June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that life-insurance proceeds required to be used to redeem stock of a deceased shareholder must be included in the value of the company for purposes of determining the deceased shareholder’s gross estate. The Court affirmed the holding of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Connelly v. United States.
After an audit, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency finding that the $3 million of life insurance proceeds used for the redemption should have been included in the company’s valuation. When the case made its way to the Eight Circuit, the estate relied on the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Estate of Blount v. Commissioner, where the court found that life insurance proceeds owned by a corporation did not raise the company’s stock value because they offset the obligation to redeem the decedent’s shares. However, the Eight Circuit disagreed and held that the life insurance proceeds did increase the value of the company and that the obligation to redeem the shares was not a typical obligation. The executor appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
But the Court unanimously resolved the Circuit split in favor of the government because “a corporation’s contractual obligation to redeem shares at fair market value does not reduce the value of those shares in and of itself[.]” Rejecting the executor’s argument that a potential buyer would not consider the insurance proceeds as part of the value of the company, Justice Thomas wrote that the inquiry here should focus on what Crown was worth at the time the shareholder died. “Because a fair-market-value redemption has no effect on any shareholder’s economic interest, no willing buyer purchasing Michael’s shares would have treated Crown’s obligation to redeem Michael’s shares at fair market value as a factor that reduced the value of those shares.”
Acknowledging that the opinion will make estate planning more difficult for owners of closely held private corporations, the Court stated that “every arrangement has its own drawbacks.” But the Court pointed out that the brothers could have used a cross-purchase agreement where each brother purchased a life insurance policy on the other to finance the agreement without inflating the value of the corporation. Ultimately, the Court found that the arrangement the brothers entered into here increased the value of the corporation for estate tax purposes.
For further questions regarding this topic, contact Liskow attorneys Leon Rittenberg III, John Rouchell, Caroline Lafourcade, and Kevin Naccari, Jr. and visit our Estate Planning practice page.
Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm of Liskow & Lewis, APLC (“Liskow & Lewis”) and the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice as to an identified problem or issue. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney-client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.
Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewisʼ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database. If at any time you would like to unsubscribe, please use the SafeUnsubscribe® link located at the bottom of every email that you receive.