For C corporations, savvy advisors typically utilize cross purchase buy-sell arrangements. Cross purchase arrangements in C corporations allow the remaining owners to receive a basis step-up equal to the price paid for the shares. Given the importance of capital gains planning, this has become the typical way of planning for C corporations. To avoid the problems caused by traditional cross-purchase arrangements, such as the transfer of life insurance between owners upon retirement or sale of the business, the cross endorsement buy-sell has become a popular planning strategy. This allows for the insured to own his or her own life policy while still funding a buy-sell arrangement.
Despite the relative simplicity of strategies such as the cross endorsement buy-sell and the trusteed cross purchase, many advisors still utilize entity buy-sell arrangements, when the business is not a C corporation. The thought is that a basis step-up can be achieved with an entity arrangement and owning the life insurance at the business level is the simplest alternative. Although some tax professionals previously hypothesized about possible estate tax inclusion of life insurance when using an entity buy-sell, the concern was generally disregarded by most professionals. The conclusion that the life insurance death benefit was not included in the business valuation is supported by Blount v. Commissioner, 428 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2005).
However, the recent case of Connelly v. United States, 4:19-cv-01410-SRC (E.D. Mo. Sep. 21, 2021) casts doubt over Blount and opens up the possibility that other courts (outside of the Eleventh Circuit) could include life insurance death benefits in the valuation of business interests. Because of Connelly, many advisors are now cautious about recommending entity buy-sell arrangements that will be funded with life insurance. Instead, various forms of cross purchase, including the Cross Endorsement Buy-Sell, are typically being recommended regardless of the business structure. Although some tax professionals consider Connelly a case of bad facts making for bad law, it may be prudent to avoid entity buy-sell arrangements funded with life insurance at least until other courts look at this issue.