AVW webcast features the Connelly case
Charles Persing (Bedersen LLP) appeared on the November edition of NACVA’s Around the Valuation World (AVW) webcast to discuss the Connelly case that came out this past June.
Connelly Lesson: A Good Buy-Sell Is Not Enough to Fix Value
Some insights on the Connelly U.S. Supreme Court case from exit planner Paul Hood and attorney Ed Morrow. In the case, the estate of a deceased owner got hit with tax penalties due to trouble over the buy-sell agreement and mandatory redemption on death that was funded with life insurance.
Handy tool: the buy-sell options grid
In the wake of the Connelly case, the order of the day for valuation experts is to get involved in the review of buy-sell agreements.
SCOTUS Decides Valuation of Corporate-Owned Life Insurance
In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court sided with the 8th Circuit and ruled that the life insurance proceeds payable to a corporation that was to be used to redeem the deceased shareholder’s stock should be included in the deceased’s estate when calculating the value of the stock the deceased owned. The redemption liability did not offset the life insurance proceeds. This article is a summary of the decision and some observations.
SCOTUS sides with IRS in COLI valuation dispute
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously sided with the 8th Circuit and ruled that company-owned life insurance (COLI) proceeds used to redeem the deceased shareholder’s stock should be included for purposes of valuing the corporation for estate tax purposes.
Connelly v. United States (II)
The U.S. Supreme Court took on this case because of a split between two circuit courts. In the first case, Blount v. Commr., the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court and excluded the insurance proceeds that accrued as a result of the death of the shareholder. In the Connelly case, the Tax Court once again included the insurance proceeds in the estate. The 8th Circuit affirmed the Tax Court, and the Supreme Court now unanimously affirmed the 8th Circuit, thus negating the decision of the 11th Circuit in Blount.
U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Inclusion of Corporate-Owned Life Insurance in Value of Company for Estate Tax Purposes
The U.S. Supreme Court took on this case because of a split between two circuit courts. In the first case, Blount v. Commr., the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court and excluded the insurance proceeds that accrued as a result of the death of the shareholder since there was a binding liability to pay the proceeds to the estate of the decedent. In the Connelly case, the Tax Court once again included the insurance proceeds in the estate. The 8th Circuit affirmed the Tax Court, and the Supreme Court now unanimously affirmed the 8th Circuit, thus negating the decision of the 11th Circuit in Blount.
Key Points From Hitchner’s Annual BV Update
A recap of Jim Hitchner’s look at the major issues in BV over the past year, including long-term growth rates, the three-stage DCF, normalizing the risk-free rate, cost of capital, plagiarism, lack of liquidity on a 100% interest, and more.
SCOTUS struggles with COLI valuation case
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Connelly case, which involves the question of how corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) designed to fund the redemption of a deceased shareholder’s stock impacts the fair market value of the subject company and the value of the decedent’s gross estate.
BV News and Trends March 2024
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Live today! SCOTUS arguments in the COLI valuation case
A live audio feed of oral arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Connelly case will be broadcast today, March 27.
COLI valuation case now on SCOTUS’ calendar
March 27 is the date the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Connelly case, according to the court’s calendar.
What Valuers Should Do While SCOTUS Mulls Connelly
Regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the Connelly case, there are some steps valuers can take to better help their client business owners, many of whom could be sitting on ticking time bombs. The issue before SCOTUS is how does corporate-owned life insurance designed to fund the redemption of a deceased shareholder’s stock impact the fair market value of the subject company and the value of the decedent’s gross estate.
Hitchner’s annual review of need-to-know BV topics
Over 500 attendees listened to Jim Hitchner (Valuation Products and Services) do his annual review of recent need-to-know concepts, data, models, and methods in business valuation. Here are a few key points from the two-hour webinar.
Valuation Impact of Corporate-Owned Life Insurance on SCOTUS’ Agenda
The goal of this paper is to inform readers about a valuation issue that is the subject of a petition put before the United States Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split. The issue is how does corporate-owned life insurance designed to fund the redemption of a deceased shareholder’s stock impact the fair market value of the subject company and the value of the decedent’s gross estate. The author examines the applicable U.S. Tax Court, district court, and two appellate decisions so the reader can understand the arguments made and the basis for the legal conclusions.
Connelly case kicks off Heckerling conference
At the Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning in Orlando, Fla., earlier this month, the first session was a panel on key court cases of 2023, and “valuation was top of mind for many federal courts,” according to coverage in WealthManagement.com.
Grabowski analyzes COLI valuation issue SCOTUS will decide
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving a valuation issue in order to resolve a circuit split.
Ali Sedaghatpour v. Lemonade Ins. Co. (I)
Similar to what happened with many of the pandemic cases, the court here determined that cryptocurrencies did not have a physical presence or at least not one that was part of the cause of the theft that the plaintiff suffered. Definitions of cryptocurrencies supported the decision of the court. The Court of Appeals affirmed this case. In valuing cryptocurrencies, the lack of insurance coverage could be an additional risk to be considered. Subsequent to the date of this claim, most insurance companies had specifically excluded loss of cryptocurrency from coverage.
Cryptocurrency Determined Not to Be a Physical Loss and Not Covered by Insurance
Similar to what happened with many of the pandemic cases, the court here determined that cryptocurrencies did not have a physical presence or at least not one that was part of the cause of the theft that the plaintiff suffered. Definitions of cryptocurrencies supported the decision of the court. The Court of Appeals affirmed this case. In valuing cryptocurrencies, the lack of insurance coverage could be an additional risk to be considered. Subsequent to the date of this claim, most insurance companies had specifically excluded loss of cryptocurrency from coverage.
Dentists Ins. Co. v. Yousefian
The plaintiff insurance company in this damages case waived work product protection when the plaintiff’s expert disclosed alleged “secret” information to the defendant’s expert. The court required disclosure.
Plaintiff’s Expert Waives Work Product Protection
The plaintiff insurance company in this damages case waived work product protection when the plaintiff’s expert disclosed alleged “secret” information to the defendant’s expert. The court required disclosure.
Stout Risius Ross, LLC v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co.
Stout Risius Ross LLC asked for a declaratory judgment to require Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. to defend Stout Risius Ross in a lawsuit brought against it by its former client, Wilmington Trust, in an ESOP matter. Stout Risius Ross performed a valuation for an ESOP transaction that the court later criticized in that matter (Brundle). After being sued by Wilmington Trust, Stout Risius Ross filed a claim with Aspen, which was denied by Aspen, citing the “prior knowledge” clause. The court denied Stout Risius Ross’ motion for declaratory judgment and did not allow Stout Risius Ross to amend its motion.
U.S. District Court Dismisses Accounting Firm’s Plea to Require Insurance Company to Defend a Lawsuit Against It
Stout Risius Ross LLC asked for a declaratory judgment to require Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. to defend Stout Risius Ross in a lawsuit brought against it by its former client, Wilmington Trust, in an ESOP matter. Stout Risius Ross performed a valuation for an ESOP transaction that the court later criticized in that matter (Brundle). After being sued by Wilmington Trust, Stout Risius Ross filed a claim with Aspen, which was denied by Aspen, citing the “prior knowledge” clause. The court denied Stout Risius Ross’ motion for declaratory judgment and did not allow Stout Risius Ross to amend its motion.
What It's Worth: Valuing Insurance Agencies
September 2021 PDF
BVR (editor)
Business Valuation Resources, LLC
Malpractice Insurer Not Required to Defend Valuation Firm for Claim Alleging Securities Fraud
This case featured a motion to dismiss a claim from an insured that the plaintiff, Great American, was required to defend the defendant, Stout, against a claim by ESOP plaintiffs that Stout committed “federal securities fraud.” While the Great American policy covered valuation services, the policy also featured an exclusion for claims against the insured for securities violations.