|
|
Buy Sell Agreements
As part owner of a business, one of your primary concerns should be to ensure the continuity of the business should you or one of your partners dies. With a buy-sell agreement one party is obligated to purchase a deceased business owner’s interest in the business at a certain price, and another party – the deceased owner’s estate or heirs – is obligated to sell the interest at that price. By establishing a buy-sell agreement, you can help ensure a smooth transition of ownership, with minimal disruption to the day-to-day activities of the business.
Call us for rates and a Quote 866-392-INFO (4636)
An effective buy-sell agreement must establish:
• Who will purchase the decedent’s share of the business
• At what price the decedent’s heirs or estate will sell the share.
• When the sale will take place and how it will be funded.
There are two types of buy-sell agreements, both utilizing life insurance. Under both types of arrangements, the total amount of insurance should approximate the anticipated purchase price of the insured’s share of the business.
In a Cross-Purchase Buy-Sell Plan each business owner purchases a life insurance policy covering the life of every other owner. Each business owner pays the premiums and is the beneficiary of the policies that he/she is purchasing. If an owner dies, the surviving owners use the life insurance death benefit to purchase the deceased owner’s interest.
In an Entity/Stock Redemption Buy-Sell Plan the business purchases life insurance policies on each owner. The business pays the policy premiums and is the beneficiary on each policy. If one of the owner’s dies, the death benefit from his/her policy is paid to the business to purchase that owner’s interest in the company.
Book a Phone Appointment now
CLICK THE BOOKNOW Button Above
|
FACTOR |
CONSIDERATION |
|
Number of parties |
The larger the number of parties, the more complex the establishment and administration of a cross-purchase plan will be. This would include a far greater number of insurance polices if that was the funding vehicle. |
|
Age and ownership differential |
The greater the age difference, the larger the financial obligation imposed upon the younger/minority stockholder or partners, under a cross-purchase plan. An entity plan may be preferable since it allows for a pooling of the premium obligations within the business (corporate dollars). |
|
Life insurance funding |
An entity purchase plan would not necessitate the business owners’ personally paying premiums for funding life insurance. However, split dollar life insurance may assist in funding a cross-purchase. |
|
Cost basis |
Since a cross-purchase plan generally will result in the surviving owner receiving a higher cost basis for the business interest, the survivor would incur lower capital gain for any subsequent sale. |
|
Attribution of ownership rules |
Due to potential dividend taxation under Internal Revenue Code Section 301, redemption may be inadvisable for a family corporation. Therefore, a cross-purchase plan may be the only viable approach. |
|
Possibility of plan change |
If the parties anticipate that they may change from one type of plan to another, the effect of the transfer-for-value rule {Internal Revenue Code Section 101 (a)(2)} favors the initial establishment of a cross-purchase plan for a corporation, since the policies could later be transferred to the corporation to fund a redemption without creating a transfer-forvalue. However, the parties normally would not be able to transfer the policies from the corporation to the non-insured stockholders to fund a cross-purchase plan, without creating a transfer-for-value and, therefore, subjecting the death proceeds to income taxation |
|
Tax considerations |
Funding a stock redemption agreement requires attention to be paid to possible accumulated earning tax and the corporate alternative minimum tax. A cross-purchase plan can ignore these concerns. |
|
Tax bracket |
If the corporate tax bracket is higher than the policy-owner’s individual tax bracket, a cross-purchase arrangement would be the logical choice and vice-versa. |
|
|