AndyH Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Can anyone explain the advantages to a Bank or Bank Executive of Bank Owned Life Insurance in a NQ plan for the executive? Other than deferral of taxation on growth of a life insurance policy (which I am admittedly skeptical about), are there any other legitimate selling points? Are there any advantages due to the banking industry's tax or capitalization rules? Any contrary arguments?
XTitan Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 The reasons for banks owning life insurance are similar to the reasons for corporations or trusts owning life insurance for informally funding NQ plans. The banking regulators issued OCC 2004-56 to address many of the issues regarding the permissibility of banks owning life insurance. Why the skepticism on tax-deferred cash value growth? - There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets...
AndyH Posted October 22, 2009 Author Posted October 22, 2009 Why the skepticism on tax-deferred cash value growth? Thanks for the comments. Insurance premiums, policy commissions and expenses eating at the return are my reasons. I'm looking at a proposal that assumes 8% growth. Is that even legal now to illustrate? Is it reasonable?
XTitan Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Ah. Skepticism fueled by economic concerns not tax law. That's legit. When it comes to an assumed rate of return on an insurance proposal, the only thing you can be sure of is that it's wrong, but you won't know by how much for another 40 years. I suppose that's true for any asset. If you want to see the mechanics of the insurance proposal at a different rate, the broker should be able to provide. - There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets...
AndyH Posted October 22, 2009 Author Posted October 22, 2009 But if, hypothetically the contract does earn 8%, is there any reason to do this other than: 1. Earn (8%-expenses and insurance premiums) tax deferred from now until payment date inside the contract versus earn less 2. Earn (8% less taxes) in an after tax account (assuming the same investment mix). The same deductible amount is paid at retirement age, right? And, at the same tax rate. Is there anything else to this?
rcline46 Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 The purpose of the insurance is if the executive should die prematurely, the bank gets tax free income to pay the deductible benefits. whattadeal!
XTitan Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 But if, hypothetically the contract does earn 8%, is there any reason to do this other than:1. Earn (8%-expenses and insurance premiums) tax deferred from now until payment date inside the contract versus earn less 2. Earn (8% less taxes) in an after tax account (assuming the same investment mix). The same deductible amount is paid at retirement age, right? And, at the same tax rate. Is there anything else to this? From an economic stand point, you should consider the accounting attributes as well as they tend to be different between life insurance and taxable assets. - There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets...
david rigby Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 When it comes to an assumed rate of return on an insurance proposal, the only thing you can be sure of is that it's wrong, but you won't know by how much for another 40 years. Calling Ned Ryerson. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
AndyH Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 From an economic stand point, you should consider the accounting attributes as well as they tend to be different between life insurance and taxable assets. Would you or someone else kindly explain what such accounting attributes might be? I have seen some COLI FAS #87 exhibits for example, and have not seen any differences that appeared sustantive beyond what looked like smoke and mirrors.
XTitan Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 From an economic stand point, you should consider the accounting attributes as well as they tend to be different between life insurance and taxable assets. Would you or someone else kindly explain what such accounting attributes might be? I have seen some COLI FAS #87 exhibits for example, and have not seen any differences that appeared sustantive beyond what looked like smoke and mirrors. I wouldn't call it smoke and mirrors; I'd call it GAAP, which is sometimes saying the same thing. Depending on the asset and the accounting treatment adopted, you might/might not accrue deferred tax liabilities, you might/might not mark-to-market, you might/might not have fair market valuations, etc. - There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets...
AndyH Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 Thanks. I have seen references to deferred tax liabilities which to the non-GAAP mind looked like mirrors. Any GAAP minded people out there willing to explain what that means and why? Is it an internal accrual issue or does it have tax implications?
Mark Whitelaw Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 John Hancock has an excellent newly published resource piece on accounting for different types of nonqualified plans and the life insurance that may be informally funding the obligations. http://jh1.jhlifeinsurance.com/vgn/images/...al%209-9-09.pdf This may help. Take care - Mark
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now