United States: Supreme Court addresses business succession

In brief

The Supreme Court, in Connelly v. United States, 602 U.S. 146 (2024), held that a company's contractual obligation to redeem the shares of a deceased shareholder did not reduce the value of those shares for estate tax purposes. Thus, the value of the company included the value of the life insurance proceeds paid to the company to fund the redemption of the deceased shareholder's shares. Owners of closely held businesses should carefully review their succession plans and buy-sell agreements in light of Connelly, particularly where insurance will fund a share buyback due to the death of a stockholder. 


Contents

The case

Brothers Michael and Thomas Connelly were the sole shareholders in Crown C Supply (“Crown”). The brothers entered into an agreement to ensure that Crown would stay in the family when either brother died. Under the agreement, the surviving brother had the option to purchase the deceased brother’s shares. If he declined, Crown would redeem the shares of the deceased brother. Crown obtained a life insurance policy on each brother to fund its redemption obligations. 

Following Michael's passing, an accounting firm valued Michael's shares of Crown by excluding the life insurance proceeds. The theory was that the value of the life insurance proceeds was offset by Crown’s obligation to redeem Michael's shares1.  

In siding with the IRS, the Supreme Court held that a closely held corporation’s value increases from the proceeds of a life insurance policy on one of its shareholders, even if there is an obligation to redeem the shares held by such shareholder in an amount equal to those proceeds.

The Supreme Court focused on the fact that the life insurance proceeds increased the value of the corporation. The Court determined that the price a hypothetical buyer of Michael's shares would have paid for the shares at his death would not have been reduced to reflect the corporation's obligation to redeem those shares.

Estate tax and succession planning implications

All business owners need to plan for business succession. Even more so for owners of significant family businesses due to the confluence of family, business, legal, and tax dynamics. 

Connelly stands for the proposition that life insurance proceeds paid to a corporation for the purpose of funding a buyback of a deceased shareholder is includible in the value of the shares for estate tax purposes. The brothers could have structured their arrangement differently to prevent this outcome. Potential alternatives are described below. 

Cross-purchase agreements

The brothers could have instead used a cross-purchase agreement. This is a buy-sell structured so that the surviving shareholder (rather than the company) purchases the decedent's shares2.  In this case, the brothers would have each purchased life insurance on the other to fund the obligation to purchase the shares. This arrangement would have kept the life insurance proceeds out of the company. 

However, the premiums paid by the brothers on such policies would not have been deductible for income tax purposes. Although premiums paid by Crown for life insurance on its shareholders were likely also not deductible for corporate income tax purposes, paying those premiums before the shareholder-level taxes would have a tax benefit. 

Buy-sell with valuation mechanism

A buy-sell agreement can have a mechanism to set the valuation of the shares subject to the buy-sell. An agreement or right to acquire property at less than its fair market value is generally disregarded for estate tax purposes. The general rule disregarding such agreements does not apply if the agreement is part of a bona fide business arrangement, is not a device for making a below-market transfer and has arm's length terms. 

The planning in Connelly involved a buy-sell agreement which did not appear to include a valuation mechanism that met these requirements. Structuring a buy-sell that specifies a valuation formula that meets these requirements could have benefitted the shareholders.

Conclusions

Owners with a buy-sell agreement need to revisit the agreement regularly to confirm that the agreement continues to meet each of its intended purposes. Agreements become outdated due to changes in the business, changes in the family, or changes in the tax law. Connelly is a good reminder to look at those agreements again, especially where the plan involves life insurance. 


1 See Estate of Blount v. Commissioner, 428 F. 3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2005), concluding that insurance proceeds should be deducted from the value of a corporation when they are offset by an obligation to pay those proceeds to the estate in a stock buyout.

2 Their actual plan contemplated a cross-purchase option by giving the surviving brother an election to purchase the shares.


Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.