1 / 0

37th Annual Insurance Tax Conference

37th Annual Insurance Tax Conference. New Generation Products and Tax Logic – Burning Witches or Predicable Guidance?. Session B-4, Thursday November 1, 2012, 4:30pm-5:30pm . Tom Ronce (Moderator), Pacific Life Insurance Company Bryan Keene, Davis & Harman LLP

kali
Download Presentation

37th Annual Insurance Tax Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 37th Annual Insurance Tax Conference

    New Generation Products and Tax Logic – Burning Witches or Predicable Guidance? Session B-4, Thursday November 1, 2012, 4:30pm-5:30pm Tom Ronce (Moderator), Pacific Life Insurance Company Bryan Keene, Davis & Harman LLP Kim Lunn, Allstate Insurance Company
  2. Overview Trends in Products & Guidance Guidance on Newer Multi-Purpose Products Recent Guidance on “Investor Control” Logic of Guidance on Trust-Held Annuities New Uncertainty for Life Policy Loan Defaults Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  3. Trends in Products & Guidance Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  4. Trends … Managing investment risk Index annuities & guarantees in general Managing longevity risk (and investment risk) GLWBs, CDAs, longevity insurance Multi-purpose products LTC combo products, life & annuity riders addressing plethora of risks IRS guidance Statutory changes that drive product trends & vice versa (e.g., §§ 72(s), 7702B) Fewer published rulings in recent years Regulations even harder to come by More PLRs … predicable guidance or burning witches? Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  5. Guidance on NewerMulti-Purpose Products Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  6. Multi-Purpose Products Types of products GLWBs & other guaranteed benefits on VAs & life insurance CDAs or “unbundled” VAs Longevity insurance LTC combinations (life & annuity) Various other riders for life & annuity products: Nursing home benefits Critical illness Unemployment Future innovations? Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  7. Multi-Purpose Products (cont.) Guidance Some statutory (LTC combinations, chronic illness ADBs) Some regulatory (longevity insurance in qualified plans) Otherwise, mainly PLRs The problem w/ PLRs (other than ones you get yourself): Redactions can make facts hard to discern Don’t get as much review / scrutiny within IRS Can be inconsistent or use questionable logic Generally can’t rely on them (except “substantial authority”) Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  8. Multi-Purpose Products (cont.) Is there a common analytical framework? State law treatment as starting point? Is the additional benefit a separate contract for state law purposes? Does the state law answer also control for tax purposes? When does Congress need to weigh in to say “separate contract?” Negative inference if Congress has weighed in for X, but not Y? Do you want separate contract treatment or integrated treatment? Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  9. Multi-Purpose Products (cont.) Resources: GLWBs/GMWBs/CDAs/Longevity PLRs 201117013, 201117012, 201105005, 201105004, 201046008, 201001016, 200949036, 200949007, 200939018 QLACs: Prop Reg. 1.401(a)(9)-5 and 1.401(a)(9)-6 (REG-115809-11, 2/2/12) LTC combinations (life & annuity) PLRs 201213016, 201105001, 200919011 Various others: Wellness Riders: PLRs 201105027, 201105026, 200906001 Critical illness/Disability: PLRs 200903001, 200339016 200339015 Unemployment : PLRs 201117013, 201117012 Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  10. Recent Guidance on “Investor Control” Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  11. PLR 201235001 Two types of group annuities involved: Pension plan contracts (qualified) Non-pension plan contracts (non-qualified) Based on same separate account Direct & indirect holdings in real estate Some held through disregarded entities Proposed restructuring of separate account Get more $ into portfolio via general public investing Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  12. PLR 201235001 (cont.) Current Structure New Structure General Public Pension Contracts Non-Pension Contracts Pension Contracts Non-Pension Contracts Separate Account Separate Account 1 Separate Account 2** Disregard 1 Disregard 1 NewCo Disregard 2 Disregard 2 * The Separate Account will transfer "substantially all" of its Direct Holdings to Disregard 1, which will then transfer them to Disregard 2. ** Separate Account 2 will be established only if any Non-Pension Contracts remain in force as of the restructuring date. NewCo will be established and offer interests to the general public irrespective of whether Separate Account 2 is established. Direct Holdings Real estate assets Some* Direct Holdings Real estate assets Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  13. PLR 201235001 (cont.) Other key facts: Non-Pension Contracts amended: SA-2 became the only investment option under the contracts Manager must invest all SA-2 $$ in NewCo (i.e., Disregard 1) Pension contracts not amended in this manner LICO “not required to invest future money … in Disregard 1 or any other particular asset, and has not promised the Pension Contract owners that it will do so.” “Good” reps made for Pension Contracts only Policyholders have no legal / equitable / direct / indirect ownership LICO / manager cannot solicit input from policyholders Access to SA-1 available exclusively through variable contracts These reps not made for Non-Pension Contracts post-restructuring Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  14. PLR 201235001 (cont.) Conclusions: Pension contracts respected under investor control doctrine LICO owns separate account assets supporting contracts Reason: manager retained discretion Non-pension contracts disregarded Policyholders own separate account assets supporting contracts Reason: “Through Separate Account 2 the Non-Pension Contract owners hold interests only in NewCo, the interests of which are available for purchase by the general public.” Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  15. PLR 201235001 (cont.) Questions: Rev. Proc. 99-44? Does the investor control doctrine apply to pension contracts or not? Why would tax-exempt pension contract owners care? UBIT? Death to the clone issue? Is “discretion” all you need to avoid being deemed publicly available? Taxable annuities? Is intentionally “failing” investor control to get ownership treatment OK? Does investor control always trump 817(h)? Where’s the line? Are the “failed” contracts like CDAs, without the contingency? Why would non-pension contract owners want their contracts taxable? Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  16. PLR 201240018 Deferred, non-qualified annuities Variable & “New” Investment Options The variable investment options Meet requirements of § 817(d) (definition of variable contract) Assets held in a separate account (SA-1) Returns directly reflect investment return & market value of SA-1 Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  17. PLR 201240018 (cont.) The New Investment Options (NIOs) Linked to specified indexes Returns formula-based; reflect index changes over stated duration “SIV” formula: Calculated daily, available for surrender, etc. before certain date May reflect loss even if referenced index has gain at time of early withdrawal Loss determined using formula applied to early withdrawals “SMV” formula: Return as of specified date if no early withdrawal, surrender, etc. Reflects return on referenced index, subject to certain adjustments Examples in PLR suggest adjustments limit potential for gain & risk of loss Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  18. PLR 201240018 (cont.) The NIOs (cont.) Insurer holds assets in general account & separate account (SA-2) But returns always formulaic If investments outperform formula, insurer keeps excess If investments underperform formula, insurer makes up difference Types of assets supporting obligations Insurer not obligated to invest in any specific assets Contract owner has no input Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  19. PLR 201240018 (cont.) IRS Statement of Law Focuses more on legal underpinnings of investor control doctrine “Benefits and burdens” or “incidence” of ownership Discussion of criteria identified in general tax authorities: Legal title; rights of possession; burden of taxes & other costs; risk of loss; benefit of profits; accounting treatment Sums up published rulings as finding problem where: Holder exercises sufficient control over assets to be deemed the owner, OR Assets are not available exclusively through purchase of insurance product Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  20. PLR 201240018 (cont.) IRS Conclusion Insurer = owner of assets supporting NIOs IRS Analysis All six of the cited “benefits & burdens” line up for insurer Contract owners have no control over the assets Contract owners not investing directly in the linked indexes Returns available only through the contract & not outside it Returns formula-based & independent of insurer’s actual returns Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  21. PLR 201240018 (cont.) No ruling requested / opinion expressed … Whether NIOs are fixed or variable contracts under § 817(d) Whether SA-2 is a “segregated” account under § 817(d)(1) Regarding treatment of NIOs under any other Sub-L provisions Questions / observations Investor control applies to index annuities? Helpful way to think of investor control: Control is key b/c variable products already have “two strikes” under general tax ownership principles – risk of loss & benefit of gain Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  22. Logic of Guidance on Trust-Held Annuities Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  23. Trust-Held Annuities Background Sec. 72(u) Annuity held by non-natural person is taxable Exception if held as “agent” for natural person Sec. 72(e)(4)(C) If “individual” transfers annuity w/out full consideration, it is taxable Sec. 72(s) Certain distributions required upon death of any “holder” If non-natural holder, rules apply upon death or change in “primary annuitant” Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  24. Trust-Held Annuities (cont.) PLR 201124008 Facts Non-grantor-trust with 6 natural-person beneficiaries Trust purchases 6 NQ annuities, trust benes = annuitants At termination, trust transfers contracts to benes w/out consideration Each bene will receive the annuity for which he/she is the annuitant Don’t know what trust required if bene predeceased trust termination Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  25. Trust-Held Annuities (cont.) NON-GRANTOR TRUST* Deferred Annuity C Annuitant = Bene C Deferred Annuity A Annuitant = Bene A Deferred Annuity B Annuitant = Bene B Bene A Bene B Bene C Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  26. Trust-Held Annuities (cont.) Prior rulings Non-grantor trust owns annuity(ies) that satisfy 72(s) All trust beneficiaries (including contingent) are natural persons 72(u)(1): Trust ownership interest is nominal cf. to benes’ ownership interests Therefore, annuity held by natural person for purposes of 72(u)(1) 72(e)(4)(C): Distributing contract to bene ≠ transfer w/out consideration “because the trust is not an individual for purposes of section 72(e)(4)(C).” PLR200626034, PLR200449017, PLR199933033, PLR199905015, PLR9810015, PLR9752035, PLR9204014, PLR9204010 Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  27. Trust-Held Annuities (cont.) PLR 201124008: Ruling #1 re: 72(u)(1) All the beneficial interests of the trust are owned by natural persons “in a non-employment context” Therefore, the contracts will be treated as owned by a natural person for purposes of 72(u)(1) Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  28. Trust-Held Annuities (cont.) PLR 201124008: Ruling #2 re: 72(e)(4)(C) “The Transfer of the contracts from the trust to the Beneficiary does not have the effect of avoiding the required distribution rules of §72(s): the annuitant is not changed. Accordingly, the distribution of the contracts from Trust to Beneficiaries will not be treated as an assignment of an annuity contract without full and adequate consideration under §72(e)(4)(C).” “Without the clarification treating gratuitous transfers of annuity contracts as assignments, the required distribution rules adopted in the 1984 Act could be avoided easily because they would allow taxpayers to continue tax deferral beyond the life of an individual taxpayer.” S. Rep. No. 99-313, at 994. Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  29. Trust-Held Annuities (cont.) Sound result for these facts, but what about the logic? 72(e)(4)(C) applies to “individual who holds an annuity” and transfers it Earlier PLRs said 72(e)(4)(C) n/a if holder is not “individual” Contract “held” by “individual” for 72(e)(4)(C) if “held” by natural person for 72(u)? But this is illogical & inconsistent, right? Mixing up rules for natural & non-natural holders Ruling wants to treat contract as held by natural person for 72(e)(4)(C) but then justifies result by referencing 72(s) rule for non-natural holders Seems unnecessary -- 72(e)(4)(C) and 72(s)(6) address concern re: 72(s) avoidance by natural and non-natural holders, respectively Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  30. Trust-Held Annuities (cont.) So what’s the big deal if the end result was right? Questionable logic can leak through to other contexts For example: Sec. 72(e)(4)(A) Loans, assignments & pledges received by “individual” are taxable For non-natural persons, too, if § 72(u) exception applies? Sec. 72(s) Non-grantor-trust where § 72(u) exception applies: does 72(s) apply upon the death of the trust beneficiary or upon the death / change of the primary annuitant? Makes a difference if they are different people Trust taxation and administration Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  31. Trust-Held Annuities (cont.) GRANDPARENT’S NON-GRANTOR TRUST Def. Annuity B Annuitant = Grandchild B Value = $100k IVC = $25k Def. Annuity A Annuitant = Grandchild A Value = $100k IVC = $25k Def. Annuity C Annuitant = Grandchild C Value = $100k IVC = $25k Child A Child B Child C Trust Provision: Trustee can make distributions of income or principal to Child A, B, or C, per an ascertainable standard. Deceased beneficiary’s share will be held for benefit of grandchildren, per stirpes. Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  32. New Uncertainty for Life Policy Loan Defaults? Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  33. Moore v. Commissioner Taxpayer bought policy in 1975 Participating whole life w/ $20K face Elected auto-loan provision to pay any late premiums Paid about 2 years of premiums ($472) before stopping Carrier kept policy in force for 30+ years w/ policy loans Court said “unclear from the record” how this could have been In 2008, carrier informed owner that policy in default $253 cash value applied to purchase extended term coverage Told owner $17,941 was taxable for prior policy loans offset in default Seems to have added at least some of the loaned premiums and subtracted dividends earned when calculating investment in the contract Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  34. Moore v. Commissioner (cont.) IRS argument Policy lapsed in 2008 when cash value insufficient to support more policy loans under auto-loan provision Deemed distribution of cash value (including loan value), which taxpayer was then deemed to use to repay the loan Taxpayer argument Nonforfeiture provision trumped auto-loan provision Abandoned policy in 1977 after stopped paying premiums Policy terminated well before 2008 Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  35. Moore v. Commissioner (cont.) Court analysis Normally, loan offset is taxable as IRS argues, but … Record did not support policy continuing in force for 30+ years If premium not paid w/in grace period, policy terminates (nonforfeiture) Loans processed after grace periods, so policy should have terminated Once policy terminates, owner must take affirmative action to reinstate Owner didn’t take any such action Court refused to “construct a multitude of inferences” in IRS favor & “simultaneously turn a blind eye” to “unexplained discrepancies” in record Concluded that policy should have terminated prior to 2008 Presumably in a tax year that is now closed by the statute of limitations Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  36. Moore v. Commissioner (cont.) Observations Policy terminated even though carrier said it didn’t Presumably carrier would have felt obligated to pay death benefit, even if it was a mistake to keep in force for so long Presumably carrier felt obligated to tax report the gain it calculated in 2008 Policy terminated even though owner received statements Carrier sent letters at least between 2005-2010 Letters described policy as in force via policy loans & gave lapse notice Owner thought letters were advertisements Dividends subtracted from investment in the contract Distributed to owner? If so, still ignorant of policy being in force? Insurance Tax Conference 2012, Session B-4
  37. Questions? ABA Joint Fall CLE Meeting 2012
More Related