by Jonathan A. Nelson
The U.S. Supreme Court this week, in Connelly v. U.S. (opinion here), added a wrinkle to estate and succession plans for businesses with only a few owners.
Estate plans often depend on life insurance proceeds to give one's family (or other beneficiaries) a financial benefit from the decedent's having built a business, but without jeopardizing the future of the company by giving full rights of ownership and management to people unable or unwilling to run the company or perhaps a group who can't efficiently get along. Some such plans pay the insurance proceeds directly to the company and have the company purchase the decedent's ownership interests back in a forced sale, usually for a price equal to the amount of insurance, thereby increasing proportionally all other ownership interests. That buyback is a contract matter, and there is usually a mechanism for calculating the price.
Brothers Michael and Thomas Connelly had such an arrangement for the building supply company they owned together - as it happened, Michael died first, so Thomas would keep the company and the company would pay the life insurance proceeds to buy back the stock from Michael's survivors for $3,000,000. The executor filed a federal estate tax return (Form 706, the tax on a gross estate in excess of $13.61M in 2024, but less when Michael died) reporting a valuation of Michael's share of the company as $3,000,000. The valuation had excluded the insurance proceeds as offset by the obligation to repurchase the shares, and the IRS disagreed with the offset. The difference in tax was nearly $900,000.
There may also be personal or tax reasons to direct the estate to different beneficiaries than the legal default: without a will, the estate of a person with no spouse and no descendants goes to his or her parents, but leaving the assets to siblings or a family college fund for nieces or nephews may be more tax efficient than sending the money back to the parents’ generation, only to have it come forward again later.
The Supreme Court has now ruled that the insurance proceeds must be included in the valuation, reasoning that even if the total value of the company goes down after the funds are used for a repurchase at fair market value, the value per share does not change, and in any event the valuation looks at date of death value (with received or receivable insurance proceeds) not post-redemption value. Before the present decision, the federal circuit courts of appeal were split on this question.
Stock redemption plans are complex and must be tailored to the outcome needed for that specific company and the overall financial pictures of the owners. If you have a stock redemption plan, buy-sell agreement, or provisions in a shareholder agreement, operating agreement, or similar document which restrict transfers and direct the disposition of the ownership interests, please check with your counsel on whether a change should be made in light of Connelly.
Virginia attorney Jonathan A. Nelson uses his extensive legal knowledge and trial experience to resolve conflicts, negotiate settlements, navigate compliance matters, and vigorously advocate in the courtroom in order to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. He practices in estate planning, probate, trust and estate administration, corporate law, and civil litigation related to these fields.
The attorneys of Smith Pugh & Nelson, PLC, offer the experienced counsel, personal attention, and customized legal services needed to address the many complex issues surrounding estate planning, probate, and trust administration. Contact us at (703) 777-6084 to schedule a consultation.