Estate Planners Look for Way Out of Connelly Chains

Q&A December 31, 2024 at 03:19 PM
Share & Print

/contrib/content/uploads/sites/415/2022/01/2021-1-5-financial-maze_Shutterstock_640x640_Andrii-Vodolazhskyi.jpg

The U.S. Supreme Court knocked out a life insurance-based buy-sell funding arrangement in June, and business valuation advisors are still coping with the aftermath.

Two brothers, Michael Connelly and Thomas Connelly, were going to use company-owned life insurance to pay for stock redemption for Crown C Supply if one of the brothers died.

But the Supreme Court ended up agreeing with the Internal Revenue Service that the life insurance used in the arrangement was an asset that should have been included in the Crown business value total.

Anthony Duffy, a business valuation senior counsel at the Bonadio Group — a Rochester, New York-based accounting and consulting firm — says the exact wording of the Supreme Court ruling makes the ultimate impact unclear.

The court agreed with the IRS that a stock redemption obligation need not reduce the value of a business, but the court also suggested that some stock redemption obligations probably could hurt a company in a way that would reduce its net value.

But Duffy said the court ruling has had one clear effect: It complicates the work of advisors who are trying to help business owners with succession planning.

Duffy answered questions about Connelly ruling reverberations via email. The questions and answers have been edited.

THINKADVISOR: How common was the company-owned life insurance strategy that the Connellys used?

ANTHONY DUFFY: Company-owned policies have been a common and extremely effective financing tool and are easily maintained under one umbrella.

The court suggested that owners can use individually and maintained life insurance policies, along with a "cross-purchase" buy-sell. In that kind of arrangement, each owner buys a policy insuring the other owner's life. If one owner dies, the other owner can use death benefits from a life insurance policy to buy out the other owner's shares. What's wrong with that strategy?

This is a plausible solution when there are just two owners, but what if you have five, eight or 10 owners?

Then the cross-purchase arrangements get very complicated and onerous to maintain in an effective manner for all.

Were succession planners expecting this ruling?

Most practitioners were very surprised by this decision.

This methodology was a common practice, especially for smaller companies.

There is a significant corporate cost over many years to establishing and maintaining such a plan, to allow for a smooth transition at death, protecting other owners and all the employees.

How big do you expect the impact of the ruling on companies to be?

This depends on a company's position, size, access to other funding obligations, number of owners and then each of their respective ownership percentages.

Generally, the larger any individual ownership percentage is, the larger the potential difficulty would be to smoothly replace that person and redeem their stock, without impairing operations.

Some analysis should be performed to see what the size of the issue might be. From there, solutions can vary but must be executed carefully. For instance, there can be significant tax ramifications when removing policies from the corporation.

How complicated will calculating the impact of the ruling on valuations be?

Understanding the potential impact is not easy. The full value of the company, then of the individual ownership interests, and how existing policies work, all need to be coordinated and the correct flow followed.

The potential tax ramifications of moving any whole-life policies are not straightforward. The policy value for such purposes is called the policy "terminal interest reserve." This is a specific calculation done by the insurance company, and it is not the same as a policy's cash surrender value.

What should financial professionals do if they were recommending the kind of strategy affected by the court ruling?

It is important for them to look to quantify the potential problem now that we know of this decision. There is no shortcut here.

They should look to answer questions including:

  • At worst application, what would the result be?
  • Is any part of a redemption obligation liability a valid liability for valuation purposes following this ruling?
  • Can we make any adjustments to the corporation that will allow for a greater inclusion of these redemption obligations?

Insurance industry and estate planning advisors are working now on new, different solutions. These alternatives continue to evolve currently.

The alternatives, again, depend on the situation and answers to important questions like:

  • Who owns the company?
  • How large is the company?
  • What type of tax entity do we have?
  • How many owners are there?
  • Are the owners family?
  • How old is everyone?

Trusts can be used when all owners are in the same family. This has been done for years through irrevocable life insurance trusts, or ILITs.

The ILIT redeems the stock of a descendant from their estate, but when there are two, three or more families involved, as soon as owners start dying, the trust arrangements get very convoluted and are difficult to change.

I think the most important thing is to remember that any arrangement needs to be flexible. There are constantly new owners coming and going, new younger owners, older owners retire before they die, etc. Because the ownership group changes so often in so many situations, so too must any solutions.

Credit: LRafael/Adobe Stock

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center