|
A traditional split-dollar arrangement involves the
employee buying a permanent life insurance policy and the employer paying
for that part of the premium equal to that year’s increase in the cash
surrender value. The employee pays the balance. If the insured pays an
amount toward premiums each year that at least equals the cost of what
would be the premium for an equivalent term policy (determined by the
IRS’s Table P.S. 58), the insured reports no income. If the employee pays
less than the P.S. 58 amount, the employee is taxed on the difference. The
employer can’t deduct its premium payments, but the eventual repayment of
its total premiums out of cash surrender value when the employee leaves
service or retires is tax free. This arrangement allows the business owner
or executive to hold high-value life insurance for minimum cost.
In recent years, equity split dollar has come to
dominate split-dollar arrangements. Here, life insurance with a high
investment component is bought. In a typical arrangement, the employer pays
the bulk of the premiums, but is repaid out of the cash value at the
insured’s termination, retirement or death only the total amount premiums
paid by the employer. The remaining cash value goes to the employee (and
the death benefits, of course, go to the beneficiary). In short, the
executive has received an interest-free loan from the employer and garnered
potentially substantial investment gains.
This rise in the use of equity split dollar, and the
fact that the P.S. 58 table was out of date in light of increasing life
expectancy, prompted the IRS to issue new rules in this area to clarify tax
obligations. While a very complicated area, here are some key points from
the IRS notice.
Regardless of whether a policy is owned by the
employer (under the endorsement method) or the employee (under the
collateral assignment method), the investment gains in an equity
split-dollar arrangement beyond the actual life insurance protection are
taxable. This hasn’t necessarily been the case in the past. When that
gain is taxed will depend on the arrangement.
[Financial Panning mag March
2001, p. 68]
Where the employer is expected to receive repayment of
its premium payments by the employee at a “fixed or determinable future
date,” the employer’s premium payments are considered a series of
below-market (interest-free in this case) loans. In this arrangement, the
cash-value gains build up without immediate taxation, but the employee must
pay tax on the interest at the applicable federal rate.
On the other hand, if the employer’s payments are
not treated as interest-free loans, with the employee paying tax on the
interest, the annual gains in the cash value will be taxable as ordinary
income to the employee each year or at the rollout when the employee
terminates employment.
In the case of new equity split-dollar arrangements,
the employer and employee can essentially choose which method they want,
and the IRS will treat it that way for tax purposes as long as they follow
that characterization, from inception. In the case of existing
arrangements, it will be treated as one involving loans, which is usually
the best method, as long as the parties have consistently followed the loan
arrangement in the past and they can account for all economic benefits to
the employee. If they haven’t followed it consistently, or they’ve
chosen a nonloan method, then the employee will have compensation income
equal to the value of the life insurance protection (reduced by payments
the employee makes annually for that protection), as well as dividend
income and gains in the cash surrender value of the policy.
Although the IRS ruling focuses on equity split-dollar
arrangements, the notice is expected to affect other forms of split-dollar
arrangements, including private split dollar. The revision of the P.S. 58
tables is also expected to affect other insurance benefits as such as life
insurance inside qualified retirement plans.
The
IRS has informally stated that there will be some sort of grandfathering
for existing equity split-dollar arrangements. Since this is interim
guidance only, it will be important to continue following this issue.
E-mail this story to a friend
September 2001 — This column is produced by the Financial Planning Association, the
membership organization for the financial planning community.
|