In its second significant tax policy case this term, the Supreme Court is tackling a complex issue concerning the valuation of life insurance proceeds in estate tax calculations for a family-owned construction company. The case, Connelly v. Internal Revenue Service, presented to the justices on March 27, revolves around whether life insurance proceeds used to buy out a deceased shareholder’s stakes should be included in the company’s estate value. The IRS argues that the $889,914 additional tax levied on the deceased's estate was justified as the proceeds increased the company’s value, a stance upheld by lower courts.

Legal professionals and observers noted a general skepticism among the justices toward the business owner’s argument against the IRS's valuation method. This skepticism mirrors the challenges presented in an earlier case, Moore v. U.S., which also addressed contentious tax issues under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Both cases highlight critical debates over government taxing power and its implications for estate planning.

Tax experts like Jose Reynoso, head of personal financial planning at Citizens Private Wealth, find the court’s willingness to hear such a nuanced case intriguing, especially given its potential implications for closely held businesses. These businesses frequently use life insurance as a succession planning tool, allowing for the smooth transition of ownership upon a shareholder's death. The plaintiff's attorney, Kannon Shanmugam, argued that recognizing the IRS's valuation method could undermine this common practice.

Support from significant organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center underscores the broader impact of the court's decision on small businesses. However, justices questioned the practical impact of $3 million in insurance proceeds on the value of the company, indicating potential agreement with the IRS’s perspective.

Frank Paolini, a partner at Neal Gerber Eisenberg law firm, suggests that a hypothetical buyer would likely value the shares higher if the company held a policy on key individuals, reflecting the enduring relevance of such policies in corporate valuations. The plaintiffs argue that the government’s stance misaligns with practical tax implications and precedents that view such proceeds differently in valuations.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case, expected by early July, alongside the Moore case, could significantly influence future tax planning and estate valuations, highlighting the ongoing complexity and evolution of tax law interpretation.

Talley's team of tax professionals provide comprehensive tax compliance and consulting services so you can preserve, enhance, and pass on your assets and wealth to the next generation. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the current options available for you. For more information, contact us today.