Death Care Law Blog : Kansas Death Care and Preneed Lawyer & Attorney : Stalter Legal Services Law Firm : Funeral Law, Elder Law : Kansas City

A “Spend Down” is the transaction where a person seeking public assistance transfers money or insurance to a funeral home to avoid having the “asset” count as a resource. It is a commonly held perception that the Spend Down accounts for many preneed contract purchases. But should all Spend Downs trigger the state preneed law intended to protect the consumer? That question has been the source of disagreement and confusion for Missouri funeral directors since last July when the State Board first began to implement SB1.

The Missouri controversy swirls around the Spend Down that involves an existing insurance policy. It is a fairly common occurrence for a family to approach the funeral director with a small life policy ($10,000 or less) with a request that the policy be held until welfare applicant’s death (when it is to be applied to funeral expenses). Missouri’s public assistance policies are interpreted at the county level, and the result has been widely diverging requirements. Some Missouri counties require the funeral director to provide a contract to the family to evidence the assignment was not made as a gift. The contract requirement also serves to protect the funeral director by setting out the terms and conditions underlying the assignment. For example, the funeral director may not necessarily promise the insurance policy is being accepted as the sole consideration for the future costs. If the policy proves worthless, the family will still be obligated to pay for the funeral.

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has grappled with whether this transaction should be subject to the requirements of SB1. During it’s initial SB1 meetings, the State Board leaned towards excluding the Spend Down from SB1, but in subsequent meetings expressed an intent to include the transaction if a contract were involved.

When the family approaches the funeral director with an existing insurance policy or certificate deposit, and the funeral director receives no compensation in the form of a commission, the Spend Down represents an accommodation to the consumer. Under such circumstances, a regulator should consider whether the licensing requirements are sufficient to protect the consumer. Imposing the requirements of SB1, or any preneed statute with additional fees or costs, on an accommodation transaction burdens both the consumer and the funeral home.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Illinois Division of Insurance made the right call: the IFDA master trust does not have an insurable interest in the lives of the members who participate in the trust.

A preneed trust is intended to fund the liability that arises when the preneed beneficiary dies and a funeral must be provided. Accordingly, it is appropriate for a preneed trust to hold insurance covering the life of the contract beneficiary. At the time of death, the trust will receive insurance proceeds, and if the trust is established correctly, the proceeds are excluded from being taxed pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 101(a). The amount distributed by the trust to the funeral home is treated as ordinary income.

While the funeral director may have a financial interest in the performance of the preneed contract, the director’s death does not create a liability for the preneed trust. In the absence of a risk of loss, the policy held by the preneed trust is taxed as though it were an investment contract. Once the fiduciary factors in the tax consequences and the mortality charge, the decision to dump the key man policies makes sense.

Now the accusations turn to why this wasn’t done sooner. Or, why were these policies purchased in the first place. The broker’s excuse dodges the responsibilities he had to perform research, make inquiries and report accurately to the insurance companies.

Where was the IFDA counsel when these insurance purchases were being made?

Perhaps the regulators have exposure as well, but that may depend on what was disclosed by the IFDA (and when).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As new allegations surface about the Merrill Lynch broker associated with the IFDA master trust, some may appropriately ask why a preneed trust would ever invest in an insurance product. There was a time when the twain shall never meet. That all changed in January 1988, and specifically when the IRS and Treasury decided to apply Rev. Rul. 87-127 retroactively to states ‘that should have known’ the funeral home/grantor method of income reporting was inappropriate.

Prior to the ruling, preneed trustees were taking different approaches to reporting the income earned by the trust. With regard to states such as California and Illinois, the trust was required to accrue income and the Service believed trusts from those states lacked authority for electing the grantor method with the preneed seller as grantor.

Consequently, the Service leveled the boom by serving notice that the ruling would be applied retroactively in certain states. This posed a genuine problem for existing trusts because most lacked the requisite consumer information to report income in compliance with the ruling. Thus started a mad scramble to find an alternative to income reporting, and thus began the exodus to insurance.

Today, preneed trustees can avoid the burden of Rev. Rul. 87-127 by electing taxation pursuant to IRC Section 685. While a few legitimate reasons for preneed trusts to hold an insurance product remain, the insurance transaction merits close scrutiny, particularly when a conversion of existing assets to insurance is involved (NPS and its Missouri trusts).

The preneed trustee should ask certain fundamental questions of those who seek to have the trust invest in insurance:

· How will this product be taxed upon maturity?
· Does this product provide the requisite liquidity to fund cancellations?
· Is a commission paid, and to whom?
· How strong is the policy’s issuer?
 

To the extent a life insurance policy is utilized, the decision invariably becomes an irrevocable election. The policy’s cash value generally precludes getting back out.

Generally, annuities provide a more flexible alternative to life insurance, but pitfalls still exist. In recent years, funeral directors have received solicitations to have their preneed trusts invest in a group, variable annuity product. Trustees still need to ask these fundamental questions, particularly when an investment broker is advising the funeral director.

With regard to the taxation of the insurance product, few seem to realize that the trust is dependent upon Rev. Rul. 87-127 for the desired tax consequence.

For those interested in the history of Rev. Rul. 87-127, and its alternative reporting method (Section 685), Professor Joel Newman provided a fair and accurate account in 80 Tax Notes 711.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In reporting on Forethought’s cut in growth payments last month, the Funeral Service Insider made a curious statement about the taxability. Referencing one of Forethought’s products, the article stated that a funeral home would have received the product’s growth tax free, and now would have to recognize the bonus as income. The article suggests that Forethought’s executive replied by advising that the taxability of the bonus would depend how the funeral home handles it.

Excuse me, but how are insurance proceeds or bonuses not taxable to the funeral home?

If a preneed insurance carrier is suggesting that policy proceeds are not taxable to the funeral home that accepts policy proceeds as consideration for performing a preneed contract, how does that company explain the transfer-for-value rule?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Part of the bad rap against preneed stems from the salesman who is prepared to say anything to close the sale. While, reputable companies build safeguards into their programs to check this behavior, there will be individuals who are prepared to bend the rules. Who should be held accountable when the agent intentionally violates the company’s safeguards? That question was raised, but not answered, during Missouri’s Chapter 436 Review Committee hearings. For some Missouri funeral directors, the issue is being presented in a context that they do not yet appreciate.

NPS’ sudden demise left an aggressive sales force scrambling to find new jobs. Some of the NPS salesmen joined established insurance companies, and others established their own insurance agencies. While some of the former NPS employees were also victims of the company’s misrepresentations, funeral directors need to appreciate that NPS did not think enough of compliance to teach it to its employees. Consequently, funeral directors should be asking whether these salesmen are receiving proper oversight from their new insurance companies.

Some of the former NPS salesmen signed on with a national insurance company that offers a ‘funeral expense trust’. That trust represents a product the insurance company can offer to consumers who cannot purchase the company’s insurance product directly through a licensed agent.

Some preneed sales entities have taken the concept a step further, and are marketing the trust in states where the insurance can be purchased as a preneed product that is independent of the funeral home. Innovative NPS salesmen now seem to have taken the concept even further, marketing the concept as a vehicle available to funeral directors who are not licensed insurance agents. It is not clear whether the sponsoring insurance company has approved of either of these modifications to the funeral expense trust.

One of the persistent rumors regarding NPS’ business practices in 100% trust states, was that the company circumvented insurance licensing requirements by effecting insurance purchases through a trust. The rumors also suggested that NPS found ways to split commissions with the funeral directors even though they are not licensed insurance agents. Funeral directors are beginning to relay similar stories, but with new insurance company names.

So, if these salesmen have formed preneed marketing programs that violate applicable preneed laws, is the insurance company responsible to the funeral director if disciplinary actions are brought against the funeral establishment license? Most state regulators will likely find the funeral director has a duty to understand the licensing requirements and commission restrictions imposed by applicable state insurance laws. Funeral directors are putting their livelihood at stake when they do not question a salesman’s explanation about how ‘we have a way around that problem’.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While the Wall Street bail out plan has many flaws, one of its proposals has wide-based support: the concept of increasing the limit on insured deposits to $250,000.  According to the New York Times, the driving force behind this proposal wasn't the mega-banks, but rather our local banks.  

The Independent Community Bankers of America represents approximately 8,000 local banks, and employed a grassroots approach to prevail over the proposals of the larger financial institutions.  The organization's president stated that "we might be small, but we're pretty nimble."   Words funeral directors may want to keep in mind when they attempt to respond to legislative efforts this winter.  

If the Wall Street bail out passes with the $250,000 FDIC limit, small funeral operators will have more flexibility in using deposit accounts as preneed funding. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

During the long and tedious Chapter 436 hearings, some Missouri funeral directors joined consumer advocates in using the NPS failure as reason for recommending that legislators impose 100% trusting on the preneed transaction.  Those funeral directors generally advocated the use of insurance or joint accounts as safer methods of preneed funding.  During regulatory meetings, comments were also made about how the insurance policies or joint accounts were 'guaranteed'.   The realities are that each of these forms of funding has its advantages and disadvantages, and that there are no absolute guarantees.

The AIG failure underscores that even the largest of insurers may be vulnerable to the current financial crisis.   While most life insurers are safe, the only guarantees offered by insurance are the rates of return promised by the policy terms.  As witnessed by the Texas insolvency proceedings for Lincoln Memorial life, the insurer's promises are only as good as the assets held in its reserve accounts.  After that, the policyholder must look to guaranty funds for assistance.  Consequently, funeral directors should periodically review the financial statements of the insurance companies they use for preneed funding.

With regard to keeping those preneed funds at the local bank, the funeral director is assuming risk (and liability?) when he exceeds the FDIC insurance coverage.   By holding the consumer's payments in a joint capacity, the funeral director is also exposing the funds to the claims of the funeral home's creditors.   Losing a lawsuit for damages that exceed the firm's casualty insurance put the consumers at risk. 

In contrast, the funds placed in a preneed trust are not the assets of the bank or the funeral home.   By virtue of the terms of the preneed contract, the funeral director usually has the risk of investment performance (and under the current circumstances, that's more risk than what some funeral directors want).  But in contrast to insurance and joint account contracts, the trust provides the death care operator some say in how investment risk should be handled.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Concurrent with the hearing held on her Liquidation Plan, the Special Deputy Receiver posted a financial report to the Lincoln Memorial Life/NPS website. As with most financial statements, explanatory notes at the end of the report provide some insights to the failed NPS empire. While prior documents have disclosed that the companies have a deficient of nearly one billion dollars, the SDR report breaks that number down in terms of trust funded contracts and insurance funded contracts. 

Insurance funded preneed contracts account for almost $600 million of the unfunded deficit, twice the number of that for trust-funded contracts ($289 million).   The explanatory notes identify six trusts maintained by NPS. The notes identify Trust VI as that of Iowa, and the size of Trust IV would suggest that it was for Missouri. One of the other trusts may be a special account, and if one were to assume the other three are other ‘state trusts’, that would leave the other 15 NPS states as exclusive insurance funded states. There is no doubt that NPS exploited Missouri’s laws regarding trust funded contracts, but a greater harm was done to consumers through NPS' exploitation of state laws governing insurance funded contracts.

Of the NPS trusts, the Missouri deficit is the largest by far ($248 million). This number has been isolated to Missouri regulators as justification for raising the state’s trusting requirement to 100%. That argument ignores the fact that Iowa also has an 80% trusting requirement, yet only has a deficit of $23.5 million (a tenth of Missouri’s). The difference can be attributed to the difference in oversight and regulatory requirements. The argument also ignores the fact that Kansas, a state with a 100% trusting requirement, has a deficit of approximately $22 million (all of which is based on insurance-funded contracts).

Another explanatory note that may suggest that Missouri’s oversight is lacking is a note payable of $10 million owed by NPS to the Missouri preneed trust.  

Missouri’s Chapter 436 problems will not be fixed by going to a 100% trusting requirement. Oversight should be the state legislature’s top priority, and Missouri preneed sellers need to begin providing ideas and answers.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Preneed companies often reach too far in touting the advantages of their company or product. Such is the case with an article in the June edition of the American Funeral Director. Not to be confused with the infamous Lincoln Memorial Life, Lincoln Heritage Life offers advice why insurance funded preneed is often a better choice for funeral directors and consumers. While the author is correct about there being advantages to the insurance funded product, the article makes several gross generalizations and neglects to address the disadvantages of insurance. The timing of the article couldn’t be worse with the evolving NPS/Lincoln Memorial Life scandal. 

Preneed companies should know better than to make such generalizations. State laws regulate the preneed transaction, and so long as this remains true, the wide variance in these laws precludes simple generalizations.   Preneed laws are confusing, and often contradictory.   Preneed companies should resist giving consumers and funeral directors an impression that is otherwise. Funeral directors are not children, so drop the condescending analogies to the Cookie Monster.   Insurance doesn’t mysteriously create two cookies.

Purchaser payments are used by the insurance company to pay commission, administration, contract forms, state insurance department filings, advertising, taxes, actuary salaries, marketing expenses, and reserve requirements. The insurance company overhead results in a low cash surrender value for the older consumer. The older the consumer, the higher the mortality risk. The higher the mortality risk, the more the insurance company has to charge for the insurance policy purchased with installments. The preneed consumer in his/her 70’s may end up paying premiums that exceed the policy death benefit.   

Under given facts, the insurance policy will out perform a trust. For the preneed contract that has a duration of ten or more years, the properly managed trust often outperforms the insurance product. How does the article’s analysis hold up for the trust that averages 6 percent after taxes and expenses? The problem is that many trusts are not managed well, and the investment return may be the low 4 percent the author describes. Small preneed trusts are often ‘parked’ in mutual funds or government securities.     

What about those licensing requirements? Maintaining individual life insurance licenses can be burdensome for funeral directors. With the NPS/Lincoln debacle, the industry will likely see states pass tougher laws on who can sell insurance. After all, the NPS/Lincoln crisis is as much an insurance problem as it is a trust problem. As the article suggests, funeral directors should look closely at the insurance company’s history and financial strength.   Also consider the ‘associates’ that the insurance company retains. For those NPS providers looking for a new insurance program:  

"Fool me once,
shame on you.
Fool me twice,
shame on me."

--Chinese Proverb

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The dominoes are beginning to fall.  The Texas Department of Insurance has disclosed that Lincoln Memorial and its sister Memorial Service Life have been put into receivership.  The Department's website provides a copy of the order appointing a Donna J. Garrett as the companies' rehabilitator, and a Q&A for consumers. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of the many issues facing regulators in the Clayton Smart debacle was the surrender of thousands of Forethought life insurance policies by a Forest Hill preneed trustee. New light will probably be shed on this issue with revelations that Robert Nelms and Clayton Smart may each have been using the same financial management company: Security Financial Management Company. One needs to consider whether an investment advisor looked at the insurance being held by the preneed trust and boasted ‘we can do better’.

Preneed funeral contracts are generally funded by either insurance or trusts.  Each has its advantages and disadvantages.  However, the respective advantages are generally lost when the preneed trust holds insurance products as investments.  (I will exclude cemetery preneed trusts from this discussion because cemetery merchandise is often delivered prior to the purchaser's death, thus making life insurance impractical.)

 Insurance gets the nod as the preferable funding vehicle for portability, tax consequence (to the purchaser) and consumer savings (if you're under the age of 60-something and in relatively good health).  Trust funding gets the nod for universal availability, long-term performance (if the trust has sufficient assets to permit diversified investments) and refund rights (okay, okay, put the state law variations aside for a minute).  However, each type of funding has its unique 'costs', and combining them may cost the funeral home and consumer in the long run. 

Trustees were first induced to accept insurance products in the late 1980s when annuities were purchased for trusts that could not comply with the retroactive application of Revenue Ruling 87-127.   Many of these trusts lacked the information required to report income to the purchasers.  As a grantor trust, preneed trusts could hold an annuity and have the contract's increase be deferred for tax purposes until the contract's maturity.    

Once the camel's nose was in the tent, insurance companies began to market life insurance and annuities to death care companies as solutions to lagging trust performance.  Corporate trustees often consign smaller preneed trusts to fixed income investments in a conservative approach to avoid market fluctuations. In this era of relatively low interest rates, insurance products can offer a better return than conservative bonds and government securities. And, there is the temptation of a commission on the conversion of the trust's assets to insurance. 

However, insurance products represent problems to the corporate trustee.  As demonstrated by Clayton Smart's short-sighted actions, cashing in life insurance before the purchaser's death will have a significant adverse impact on the trust's value.  Cash surrender values on 70-something year old insureds are typically low.   And if the trustee does hold the policy to maturity, how are the insurance proceeds to be taxed?  Annuities simply defer the income aspect of the contract until maturity.  Life insurance proceeds are not taxable to an individual beneficiary, but are those proceeds taxable to the trust?   More than likely, the answer is yes.  The proceeds must generally flow through the trust, thus adding time and cost to the administration. 

Funeral directors need to consider that rolling a preneed trust into insurance is probably a one-way transaction. Once it has been done, it will be a matter of a few years before an investment advisor recommends that its time to cash those policies in. Two wrongs do not make a right.   In many states, it would be difficult to justify a rollover in the first place.  Funeral directors will only compound any error made if they change their minds and cash the policies in. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks