The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion (S Ct, 6/6/2024) ruled on June 6 that a corporation’s obligation to redeem shares is not a liability that reduces a corporation’s value for federal estate tax purposes.
The case, Connelly v. United States, centered around two brothers, Michael and Thomas Connelly, who were the only shareholders in a building supply corporation. The brothers and the company entered into an agreement for the purchase or the redemption of the first brother to die shares so that the business would stay in the family. The agreement provided that the surviving brother would have the option to purchase the deceased brothers shares. If the surviving brother declined the company would be obligated to redeem the shares of the deceased brother. The company also held life insurance on each brother’s life in the amount of $3.5 million each in order to fund the possible redemption.
After the death of the first brother the surviving brother did not exercise their purchase option, so the company was obligated to redeem the shares of the deceased brother. Ignoring the agreements provision for an appraisal to determine the redemption price there was an agreement amongst the parties that the stock would be redeemed for $3 million. The estate tax return of the deceased brother was filed with the value of the deceased brother’s shares being reported as $3 million. The estate tax return was audited and during the audit a third-party appraisal was obtained that valued the deceased brother’s interest in the company as $3.86 million. This appraisal did not include $3 million in insurance proceeds used to redeem the stock of the deceased brother. The appraisal did not include value of the insurance proceeds that were used to redeem the shares based on the case of Estate of Blount v. Commissioner, which held that insurance proceeds should be deducted from the value of a corporation when they are to be used to pay an obligation in a stock buyout. The IRS disagreed with this analysis that the buyback obligation reduced the value of the business and valued the stock at $5.3 million.
The Supreme Court agreed with the IRS’s position holding that the obligation to redeem the shares did not reduce the value of the company for estate tax purposes. The court held that a hypothetical buyer purchasing the deceased brother’s shares would not have treated the company’s obligation to redeem the shares as a factor that would reduce the value of the shares in question.
Additionally, the court went on to suggest that if the brothers had entered into a cross purchase agreement and that they held the life insurance on each other outside of the business the value of the business would not have been increased by the life insurance proceeds.
Based on the holding of this case all taxpayers who’s closely held business holds life insurance in the business to redeem a shareholder on their death, should consult with their tax advisor to determine if a restructuring of this redemption is in order.
Contact:
Content disclaimer
This content provides information and comments on current issues and developments from Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and Grant Thornton LLP. It is not a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter covered. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and Grant Thornton LLP. All relevant facts and circumstances, including the pertinent authoritative literature, need to be considered to arrive at conclusions that comply with matters addressed in this content.
For additional information on topics covered in this content, contact a Grant Thornton professional.
Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC (and their respective subsidiary entities) practice as an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations and professional standards. Grant Thornton LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients, and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities provide tax and business consulting services to their clients. Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton Advisors LLC’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact a Grant Thornton Advisors LLC tax professional. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact a Grant Thornton Advisors LLC tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton Advisors LLC assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.
More tax hot topics
No Results Found. Please search again using different keywords and/or filters.
Share with your network
Share