Connelly v. United States the Supreme Court’s foray into the estate tax treatment of corporate-owned life insurance Brant J. Hellwig
By: Hellwig, Brant J
.
Material type: 
ArticleSubject(s): IMPUESTO SOBRE SUCESIONES Y DONACIONES | ACCIONES | SEGURO DE VIDA | CONTRIBUYENTES
In:
Journal of Taxation of Investments n. 41-4, Summer 2024 , p. 5-21Summary: The Supreme Court addressed the estate tax consequences of corporate-owned life insurance in Connelly v. United States. In doing so, the Court addressed the taxpayer’s argument that the proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of a principal shareholder payable to a corporation should not be treated as an asset of the corporation when the corporation was obligated to redeem that shareholder’s equity interest. Despite displays of sympathy for the plight of owners of closely held corporations in this setting, the Court rejected the taxpayer’s argument—largely as a matter of logic as opposed to statutory or regulatory analysis. Apart from resolving a split among circuit courts of appeals on the matter, perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the case was the manner in which the Court ultimately treated the issue as unremarkable in its unanimous holding.
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 235/2024/4-1 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 235/2024/4-1 |
The Supreme Court addressed the estate tax consequences of corporate-owned life insurance in Connelly v. United States. In doing so, the Court addressed the taxpayer’s argument that the proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of a principal shareholder payable to a corporation should not be treated as an asset of the corporation when the corporation was obligated to redeem that shareholder’s equity interest. Despite displays of sympathy for the plight of owners of closely held corporations in this setting, the Court rejected the taxpayer’s argument—largely as a matter of logic as opposed to statutory or regulatory analysis. Apart from resolving a split among circuit courts of appeals on the matter, perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the case was the manner in which the Court ultimately treated the issue as unremarkable in its unanimous holding.
There are no comments for this item.