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.