美國最高法院（最高法院）裁定，出於聯邦遺產稅目的，公司擁有的人壽保險保單死亡撫卹金的價值必須包含在封閉持股公司的估值中，無論是否有任何合同贖回義務對死亡撫卹金收益徵收（Connelly v USA, 602, 6 June 2024）。
該裁決參考了美國企業家庭常見的遺產規劃做法，根據該做法，公司為所有者的生命提供人壽保險。本公司支付保單保費並確保保單足以支付贖回費用。受保人過世後，公司使用人壽保險保單的收益來贖回死者在公司的權益。
通常這些死亡撫卹金收益會被將這些收益支付給死者遺產的贖回義務所抵消。這導致人們對人壽保險收益的價值是否仍應包含在公司股票的估值中產生了困惑。
康納利案涉及共同擁有 Crown C Supply Corporation 的兩兄弟，現在已經解決了這個問題。兄弟倆簽訂了股票贖回協議，允許倖存的兄弟買斷已故兄弟的權益。結果，倖存者選擇不行使這項選擇權，而是公司以 300 萬美元購買了已故兄弟的權益。美國國稅局 (IRS) 對遺產稅申報表的審計對由此得出的公司估值提出了質疑。這項挑戰導致了最高法院的裁決，該裁決一致決定收益應計入公司的估值。其理由是，以公平市價贖回股票的義務不會抵銷為贖回預留的人壽保險收益的價值，因為公平市價股票贖回不會影響任何股東的經濟利益。
Kohrman Jackson & Krantz 律師事務所評論說，該裁決「可能會導致家族企業、小企業主和封閉型企業主承擔額外的遺產稅義務，並且需要重新考慮買賣安排的適當結構」。
Dinsmore & Shohl 律師事務所表示，擁有公司自有人壽保險單的封閉型控股公司的所有者應採取額外的預防措施，以避免在員工去世時承擔意外的巨額遺產稅。
然而，該公司也指出，企業主在急於重組公司擁有的人壽保險保單的所有權之前應謹慎行事，因為將人壽保險保單從一個所有者轉讓給另一個所有者可能會導致該保單的很大一部分死亡賠償金變成作為普通收入課稅。
US Supreme Court rules estate tax applies to company life insurance policies
The Supreme Court of the United States (the Supreme Court) has ruled that the value of a company-owned life insurance policy death benefit must be included in the valuation of a closely held corporation for federal estate tax purposes, regardless of any contractual redemption obligation imposed on the death benefit proceeds (Connelly v USA, 602, 6 June 2024).
The ruling refers to a common estate planning practice in US business-owning families, under which the company maintains a life-insurance policy on the life of an owner. The company pays the premium on the policy and ensures that the policy is sufficient to cover the cost of the redemption. Upon the death of the insured owner, the company uses the proceeds of the life insurance policy to redeem the deceased's interest in the company.
Often, these death benefit proceeds are offset by a redemption obligation that pays those proceeds to the deceased's estate. This has led to confusion as to whether the value of the life insurance proceeds should still be included in the valuation of the corporation's shares.
The Connelly case, concerning two brothers who jointly owned Crown C Supply Corporation, has now resolved this question. The brothers had a stock redemption agreement that would allow the surviving brother to buy out the deceased brother's interest. In the event, the survivor chose not to exercise this option and instead the company bought the deceased brother's interest for USD3 million. A US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit of the estate tax return challenged the resulting company valuation. The challenge led to the Supreme Court ruling, which unanimously decided that the proceeds should be included in the company's valuation. It reasoned that an obligation to redeem shares at fair market value does not offset the value of life insurance proceeds set aside for the redemption, because a fair market value share redemption does not affect any shareholder’s economic interest.
Law firm Kohrman Jackson & Krantz commented that the ruling ‘is likely going to result in additional estate tax obligations for family-owned businesses, small business owners, and closely-held business owners and a need to reconsider the appropriate structure for buy-sell arrangements.’
Owners of closely held companies with company-owned life insurance policies should take extra precautions to avoid an unexpectedly large estate tax bill when an employee dies, said law firm Dinsmore & Shohl.
However, the firm also noted that business owners should take care before rushing to restructure the ownership of company-owned life insurance policies, because transfer of a life insurance policy from one owner to another may lead to a significant portion of the policy's death benefit becoming taxable as ordinary income.
Sources:
Dinsmore & Shohl
Kohrman Jackson & Krantz