Life Expectancy vs. Life Insurance

Life expectancy is on the decline due to COVID-19. In a recent report published by the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy (LE) in 2020 for the total U.S. population was 77.3 years, a decline of 1.5 years from 2019. Males and females were both affected by this decline, as the LE for males declined by 1.8 years and the LE for females declined by 1.2 years over the same time period. While this decline is relevant, it’s important to note that LE only represents the average age for someone to pass away. This means that half of the population will live well beyond that age and, with the advancements in medical care, could live for another 30-40 years beyond LE.

This is crucial to be reminded about as it relates to life insurance policies. If the objective is for a life insurance policy to pay out the death benefit upon one’s passing, it’s imperative to ensure that will actually occur at the time it is needed the most. On July 21, 2017, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled “This Life Insurance Isn’t So Permanent”, which discussed instances where an insurance policy is paid out prior to the death of the insured per the terms of the contract. Specifically, they refer to the situation that a 99-year-old is currently in; his family will lose out of $3,200,000 in death benefit proceeds when he turns 100 years old in September. His Transamerica policy states that the policy’s cash surrender value will be paid out to the policy-owner upon the insured reaching maturity age (age 100 in this case). Many policy-owners are probably unaware that this could be a clause of their insurance policy and are in for an unpleasant surprise when their policy is paid out before their passing.

Older policies, such as those issued prior to the early 2000’s, were based on the 1980 Commission’s Standard Ordinary (CSO) mortality tables. These tables reflect the probability that people in various age groups will pass away in a given year. The insurance products that were based on these tables used age 95 or age 100 as the maturity date for the contracts. In some instances, once the client reaches the maturity age, all insurance charges cease at that point and the policy remains inforce until the insured’s passing. If the client can keep these policies inforce until maturity, they are guaranteed the policy’s death benefit will be paid when they pass away. The amount of continued coverage can vary as well depending on the design of the policy and product specifications.

However, other policies state that if the insured has not passed away by the maturity age, then the policy pays out its cash surrender value and will no longer pay out a death benefit. This can be a disastrous consequence for the policy-owner, who now loses out on the tax-free death benefit and the much-needed liquidity. Furthermore, since costs of insurance increase with age, there’s risk that the policy will have minimal cash value at the policy’s maturity. If this is the case, then most or all of the policy premiums that were paid into the policy will be lost as well. Years ago, this was not an issue for most consumers as very few people lived beyond 95 or 100 years old. However, with the improvements in medical care extending mortality, certain people are living longer than ever before. As evidenced in the chart below, the number of centenarians has increased over 43% between 1990 and 2010.

Fortunately, since the mid to late-2000’s, insurance carriers have created products based on the updated mortality tables. These new products now use age 121 as the standard maturity age. The primary reason for the change was to prevent an abundance of policies maturing before the insured’s death, as that is something that neither carriers nor policy-owners want to have happen. However, even with the new standard in the industry, there is an unknown number of older, existing policies that will be paying out their cash value instead of the death benefit.

While these payout provisions shouldn’t be a surprise since they are included in the policy documents, they can be missed or misunderstood by clients. Therefore, it’s imperative for policies to be reviewed frequently after the policy has been purchased. Unfortunately, post-acquisition due care is often one of the most neglected areas of purchasing life insurance. Contrary to popular belief, life insurance is not a one-time purchase that can be set on a shelf until the insured dies. It actually requires thorough, proactive and annual attention, and if it’s not properly cared for, it can be very costly.

If your clients have any older policies, it’s our recommendation a comprehensive policy review be performed to see what options they have for the future of their policies. While these policies may have been purchased under the premise of providing “coverage for life”, the terms and specifications are unique for each policy and will dictate how long the policy remains inforce. If the policy is scheduled to be paid out prior to the insured’s passing, there may be options that can be explored today to alleviate this issue in the future. A careful review of the policy, including the fine print, and a better understanding of the policy’s projected performance is what is required to ensure the policy will be there when the insured needs it the most. Furthermore, transparency and full disclosure at the time of the sale will make sure the policyowner knows exactly what he or she is purchasing.

We remain focused on working hard to set ourselves apart in the marketplace by delivering the value our Clients and Advisors have come to expect from us. If you have any clients with this or a similar type of policy, we would be happy to perform a review to determine the impact these provisions or changes may have on their policies.
Note: Experience of clients with life insurance products will depend on their unique facts and circumstances and we cannot guarantee the same results for all clients. Certain content from this post was re-published from our August 1, 2017 post.

Wealth Transfer Under the Biden Tax Plan

President Joe Biden is proposing to eliminate “stepped-up basis” on property transferred at death. Under his plan, unrealized appreciation would be subject to capital gains tax at the time an asset is transferred by gift or bequest. This change, which reverses a century of tax law, would have far-reaching ramifications for investors.

This white paper considers the implications of a repeal of stepped-up basis, as well as other changes Congress might make to the gift and estate tax regime. The paper also sets out potential planning strategies for investors to consider to blunt the effects of the new rules.

Biden’s Proposal

Under current law, heirs take a basis in a decedent’s assets equal to the value of those assets on the date of the decedent’s death (a stepped-up basis). Thus, an heir never pays tax on unrealized appreciation that accrued during the decedent’s lifetime.

Biden’s proposal would require a deceased owner of an appreciated asset to recognize capital gain and pay tax on unrealized appreciation that accrued during the decedent’s lifetime. The gain would be recognized at the time of death. Similarly, an owner of appreciated property transferred by gift would recognize capital gain and pay tax at the time of the gift. These changes would be effective for gain on property transferred by gift after December 31, 2021, and gain on property owned at death by decedents dying after December 31, 2021.

Following are some of the details of Biden’s proposal:

• An individual would have a $1M lifetime exclusion ($2M for couples) from recognition of gain on property transferred by gift or held at death. In addition, the $250K per-person ($500K per couple) annual exclusion for capital gain realized on the sale of a principal residence would continue to apply.

• Gain would not be recognized on a transfer of property to a spouse. The spouse would assume the decedent’s basis in the property and would recognize gain upon disposition or death.

• Transfers of appreciated property to a charity would not generate a taxable capital gain.

• Tax on the appreciation of family-owned and -operated businesses and farms would not be due until the interest in the business is sold or the business ceases to be family-owned and operated.

• Taxable gain would be recognized when property is transferred to a trust or distributed by a trust. An exception is provided for transfers to a revocable trust wholly owned by the donor. In the case of a revocable trust, gain is recognized when the trust distributes property to someone other than the grantor (including on the death of the grantor).

Dynasty Trusts

The Biden proposal would curtail the tax benefits of “dynasty trusts”, a popular planning technique used to avoid estate tax through multiple generations.

A dynasty trust remains in place for many future generations, or even indefinitely. A donor transfers to the trust property with a value not exceeding the lifetime exclusion (currently
$11.7M), incurring no gift tax. Because the trust never terminates, estate tax (and generation- skipping tax) is never due.

In many states, a “Rule against Perpetuities” limits the number of future generations that a trust may remain in existence. But some states have repealed the Rule against Perpetuities. In those states, dynasty trusts potentially may avoid paying tax through an infinite number of generations.

Biden’s proposal would require a trust (or other non-corporate entity) to recognize gain on a trust-held asset no later than ninety years from the date gain on that asset was last recognized. Under a transitional rule, the ninety-year period would begin on January 1, 1940, so the first possible recognition event would be December 31, 2030.

Planning Strategies

If final legislation does include a repeal of stepped-up basis, investors could consider these potential planning strategies to blunt the adverse effects of the new rule.

• Gift assets before they appreciate, thereby minimizing the capital gains tax on the transfer. Under current law, it typically makes sense for an owner to hold rapidly appreciating assets until death, when stepped-up basis will avoid recognition of gain. If stepped-up basis is repealed, the opposite strategy would be more advantageous.

• Transfer low basis assets to a spouse to defer recognition of gain, and transfer high basis assets to other beneficiaries, who will recognize gain. Under current law, there often is little difference whether a decedent bequeaths low basis assets to a spouse or to other beneficiaries, as basis will be stepped up in either case. But if stepped-up basis is repealed, it might make sense to transfer low basis assets to the spouse to defer recognition of gain until the spouse’s later death.

• Use the lifetime exclusion to avoid some capital gains tax.

• Consider purchasing life insurance. Because life insurance death benefits are not subject to income tax, no capital gains tax is due. For more details on life insurance as an estate planning technique, see Permanent Life Insurance as a Planning Strategy below.

Most important, investors should consider making gifts this year before the new law would go into effect (presumably at year-end), and while the gift tax exemption is $11.7M.

Complexities of Repeal Proposal

Stepped-up basis has been a staple of the tax policy for many decades. The provision is necessary to avoid imposing both estate and income tax on inherited assets, thereby effectively taxing them twice.

Repealing stepped-up basis also presents challenges. Recognition of gain on gifted assets imposes a tax before the donor has the sales proceeds to pay. And determining a decedent’s basis in assets acquired potentially generations ago can be difficult, especially for assets that are not readily traded, such as partnership interests, real estate, art, crypto currencies, and collectibles.

An Alternative: Changing the Estate Tax

Congress will decide the terms of the final bill, albeit with deference to Biden’s suggestions. Some Democrats in Congress already are raising concerns about the proposal to repeal stepped- up basis. The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee has proclaimed the plan “untenable.” Other representatives have expressed similar reservations.

Other Democrats are beginning to put forth their ideas for tax policy changes. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill to reduce the estate tax exemption to $3.5M and the gift tax exemption to $1M. The Sanders bill calls for a progressive estate tax rate: 45% for estates up to $10M, 50% for estates up to $50M, 55% for estates up to $1B, and 65% for estates over $1B. (The bill retains stepped-up basis, except for transfers in trust.)


Given the objections to, and complexities of, repealing stepped-up basis, we believe that a final tax bill may retain stepped-up basis in favor of broadening the application of the estate tax. Changing the parameters of the estate tax is far easier than establishing a new regime to track basis through generations. This approach is consistent with Biden’s objective to increase taxes on the affluent. If final legislation does alter the estate tax, we expect it will provide an exemption in the $5.5M-$6.5M range and a tax rate in the 40%-45% range, although it is far too early to predict with any certainty.

Planning Strategies

If it appears that final legislation might retain stepped-up basis but lower the estate and gift tax exemption, investors should consider making gifts this year, while the lifetime tax exemption is $11.7M. In the past, the IRS has not taxed (“clawed back” into the estate) gifts made in a year with a high exemption, even if the gift exceeds the exemption in effect when the donor later dies.

Permanent Life Insurance as a Planning Strategy

Although not discussed at length in this paper, investors should evaluate the uses of permanent life insurance as a tax-efficient source of funds for their clients. In calling for higher tax rates, Biden’s tax plan enhances the benefits of life insurance as both an income-generating and wealth transfer planning tool.

Absent unusual circumstances, life insurance death benefits are not subject to income tax. Insurance proceeds may be used to offset or pay capital gains or estate taxes, thereby preserving the decedent’s assets for heirs. The resulting liquidity is particularly important when the estate holds illiquid assets, such as a family-owned business, real estate, or collectibles.

Certain life insurance policies also allow the owner to access the policy’s cash value as a source of non-taxable income during life. The owner may borrow against the policy without incurring income tax. Thus, life insurance can provide income tax-free access to funds both during life and at death.

To minimize estate tax, a life insurance policy should be purchased by an irrevocable trust, which keeps policy proceeds outside the insured’s taxable estate. A donor may fund the trust without gift tax by making a single contribution up to lifetime gift tax exemption, or by making yearly contributions up to the annual gift tax exclusion. The trust then may use these funds to pay annual premiums on the policy.

In sum, a life insurance policy held in an irrevocable trust can provide liquidity at death — and even during life — without the imposition of income or estate tax. The potential for an increase in taxes enhances the value of life insurance as a planning tool.


It is uncertain whether Congress will pass tax legislation this year. In the final analysis, we believe that the Democrats will keep their caucus together and muscle through a tax bill over Republican objections. The final tax bill, however, is likely to be less extensive than Biden’s proposal. Wealth transfer provisions will be added, changed, and removed as Congress formulates the final bill. For this reason, investors should follow the Congressional deliberations closely, and be prepared to consider the planning suggestions detailed above.

Note: This information does not reflect the political views of WealthPoint, LLC or any of its employees or affiliates. WealthPoint, LLC does not provide any tax or legal advice. The discussion herein is general in nature and is provided for informational purposes only. There is no guarantee as to its accuracy or completeness. It is not intended as legal or tax advice and individuals may not rely upon it (including for purposes of avoiding tax penalties imposed by the IRS or state and local tax authorities). Individuals should consult their own legal and tax counsel as to matters discussed herein and before entering into any estate planning, trust, investment, retirement, or insurance arrangement.

Andrew H. Friedman is the founder and principal of The Washington Update LLC and a former senior partner in a Washington, D.C. law firm. He and his colleague Jeff Bush speak regularly on legislative and regulatory developments and trends affecting investment, insurance, and retirement products. They may be reached at
Copyright Andrew H. Friedman 2021. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Maturity Age for an Insurance Policy

On July 21, 2017, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled “This Life Insurance Isn’t So Permanent”, which discussed instances where an insurance policy is paid out prior to the death of the insured per the terms of the contract. Specifically, they refer to the situation that a 99-year-old is currently in; his family will lose out of $3,200,000 in death benefit proceeds when he turns 100 years old in September. His Transamerica policy states that the policy’s cash surrender value will be paid out to the policy-owner upon the insured reaching maturity age (age 100 in this case). Many policy-owners are probably unaware that this could be a clause of their insurance policy and are in for an unpleasant surprise when their policy is paid out before their passing.

Continue reading “Maturity Age for an Insurance Policy”

WealthPoint Announces New Insurance Partner

DENVER, March 16, 2017 – WealthPoint, a leading provider of business and life insurance advisory services with a focus on succession, exit and wealth transfer planning to entrepreneurial family groups and affluent clients throughout the U.S., expands into the Denver market with the hiring of Kevin McMahon, its newest Insurance Partner. “Adding Kevin to our team enables us to provide our insurance and business advisory services to the Denver market,” said WealthPoint’s Managing Partner, Ryan Barradas. “Kevin brings a tremendous amount of respect within the Advisor community. His reputation and experience in the insurance industry put us in a position for sustained success.”

Kevin brings a wealth of experience in both employee benefits and life insurance. In 1980, Kevin founded McMahon & Co., an employee benefits consulting business, and successfully managed it for 30 years until he sold it. Since then, he founded KMM, LLC, an independent, client focused insurance practice. He has a proven track record of consistently identifying the best solutions for his clients, which he has demonstrated throughout his successful career. His core belief and determination to put his client’s needs first, are directly aligned with WealthPoint’s mantra, Know your story.

“I’m excited to take the next step in my career with WealthPoint,” says Kevin. “I look forward to joining a firm that has the staff, processes and resources in place to allow me to best service our entrepreneurial and affluent clientele.”

Initial Thoughts on the Presidential Election

Last week, America witnessed the conclusion of one of the most talked about elections in recent memory, as Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton and was elected to become the 45th President of the United States. Not only did Trump win the toss-up states he needed to in order to capture 270 electoral college votes, he even turned some states red that had historically been blue. While we await to see which promises made during Trump’s campaign become true, we wanted to share our initial thoughts on the election and the potential impact of those promises on America’s tax code and fiscal policy.


First, we must acknowledge that Trump is becoming President at an opportune time, with the economy and unemployment rates being in significantly better positions than when President Obama took office in 2008. In addition, Republicans have gained control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, providing a seemingly unobstructed pathway for his legislative initiatives to be passed into action. However, Trump does face some pushback within his own party and must deal with the Republicans not having 60 votes in the Senate. Although the “reconciliation” process (whereby most spending and tax legislation can be passed with a simple majority) can be utilized to pass some of his tax reform, he will have more difficulty passing non-budgetary items, which include the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate or altering the Dodd-Frank legislation.

Unfortunately, there is still tremendous uncertainty about the specifics of all of Trump’s proposals for tax reform. Some of these proposals are in alignment with the House Republicans’ plan while others are in misalignment. Trump’s Tax Plan website lists the following proposals:

  • “Low-income Americans would have an effective income tax rate of 0%”
  • Income tax brackets would be simplified and tax rates would be reduced
    • Less than $75,000: 12%
    • More than $75,000 but less than $225,000: 25%
    • More than $225,000: 33%
  • Carried interest would be taxed as ordinary income
  • The Affordable Care Act would be repealed, including the 3.8% tax on net investment income
  • The corporate and personal Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would be repealed
  • The standard deduction would be increased and personal exemptions would be eliminated
  • The estate tax would be repealed, but capital gains on property held until death and valued over $10 million would be subject to tax
  • Corporate tax rate would decrease from 35% to 15%
  • Deemed repatriation of corporate profits held offshore at a one-time tax rate of 10%
  • “Most corporate tax expenditures” would be eliminated (except for research and development)

In all likelihood, there is going to be some form of substantial tax reform during Trump’s presidency. The questions are how significant will the reform be and in what method will the reform take place. For example, the repeal of the estate tax has occurred a few times in the history of the United States, with it being reinstated in times of war or as part of a budget or tax reform. The last time there was a repeal of the estate tax was in 2010 as part of the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001. This Act called for a phase-out of the estate tax over a 10-year period. However, additional legislation in 2010 and 2012 led us to our current estate tax policy. Therefore, will Trump be able to repeal the estate tax or possibly reform it over a period of time? The answer will come down to a careful negotiation between Trump and Congress and the balancing act of tax reform, entitlement reform (which Trump has said he will not change), and managing the federal deficit.

For our insurance practice, the potential repeal or even reform of the estate tax may change why and how insurance policies are purchased in the future. However, even if the estate tax is repealed, Trump has proposed there would be capital gains taxes on assets held until death (with capital gains not applying to the first $10 million of assets). Even if the reason to own insurance to provide liquidity for estate taxes is minimized, there is still a need for liquidity. The death benefit could offset the capital gains tax incurred on the sale of the inherited property.

The other reasons for having life insurance remain valid, such as providing spousal security, income tax diversification, supplementing your retirement income, succession planning for a business, estate equalization, creating a family legacy or funding philanthropic objectives. Given Trump’s proposal to reduce income tax rates in the near future, we will likely see a surge of individuals purchasing insurance policies to serve as a cash accumulation vehicle to supplement their retirement planning. Generally, most qualified retirement plans only make economic sense when you defer paying taxes at a higher tax bracket and withdraw the funds at a lower tax bracket. However, if income tax rates are decreased, it may make more sense from a tax planning perspective to participate in more after-tax planning as opposed to continuing to promote and invest in qualified retirement plans. It really comes down to two questions; would you rather pay taxes at a higher or lower tax rate and would you rather pay taxes on a higher or lower amount? Utilizing insurance would result in investing after-tax dollars to purchase a policy, allowing those funds to grow tax-deferred and withdrawing those funds income tax-free.1

The concern of many, including Paul Ryan and other members of the Republican Party, is how much will these potential tax cuts add to the federal deficit. Trump has also discussed increasing military spending, which would further exacerbate the federal deficit problem. Some argue that his tax reform lowers tax rates but increases the tax base so there shouldn’t be any change in overall tax revenue. There were also discussions during the campaign of imposing tariffs to generate additional revenue for the government. Although monetarily this may work, trade agreements would have to be negotiated which could have severe political ramifications and strain our relationships with Allies across the globe. While it’s still unclear what impact these changes will have, most Americans agree there needs to be a defined path for how we are going to navigate our ever-increasing debt burden. Potentially decreasing tax revenue and increasing spending does not appear to be in alignment with reducing our country’s debt. In fact, while increasing our revenues or decreasing spending on their own would be a start, it will most likely take both actions to change our fiscal policy, make an impact on our national debt and put the U.S. on a path towards financial stability. It seems that any other path will compound the debt burden and lead us toward an unsustainable and uncertain financial future.

Perhaps more than we have seen in recent memory, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty surrounding what the future will hold. The capital markets reflected this on election night, as we saw the futures market predict the market would be down 5% the day after the election. Anytime there is uncertainty and especially after a Presidential election, the markets usually act negatively. Throughout history, we have seen this occur, such as when the markets dropped by 5.27%, 4.61% and 4.42% the day after President Obama, President Truman and President Roosevelt were elected. However, maybe there is reason for optimism as the markets actually gained by 1.40% the day after Trump was elected and continued that upward trend the rest of the week.

Trump will also be the first President to have never served in a government position. However, Trump’s supporters showed they are less concerned about his lack of political qualifications and more concerned about challenging and changing the status quo. They were dissatisfied with Washington and felt alienated amongst all of the change that has been occurring around them. As Andy Friedman pointed out on his Washington Update blog, Trump supporters “see a political system that at best has ignored them and at worst is stacked against them.”

Whether you voted for Trump, Clinton or anyone else, we need to be reminded that our government was designed on a system of checks and balances to serve in the best interests for all Americans. It was structured this way to prevent one man or woman from making unilateral decisions. Trump must work closely with our elected representatives in the House of Representatives and Senate in order to pass legislation. Furthermore, he must work collaboratively with his Cabinet members to navigate the multitude of domestic and foreign issues he will face while in office. Regardless whether Trump or Clinton was elected the 45th President of the United States, we should look optimistically toward the future and remember that we live in a country where our opinions are heard and our votes can inspire change.

Should you have any questions about how President-elect Trump’s proposals may affect your individual, estate or corporate tax situation, please feel free to give us a call.

This information does not reflect the political views of WealthPoint, LLC or any of its employees or affiliates. WealthPoint, LLC does not provide any tax or legal advice. The discussion herein is general in nature and is provided for informational purposes only.  There is no guarantee as to its accuracy or completeness.  It is not intended as legal or tax advice and individuals may not rely upon it (including for purposes of avoiding tax penalties imposed by the IRS or state and local tax authorities).  Individuals should consult their own legal and tax counsel as to matters discussed herein and before entering into any estate planning, trust, investment, retirement, or insurance arrangement.

1 Subject to policy performance and product specifications.

 File #: 1861-2016


What is the Generation Skipping Transfer Tax?

Recently, M Financial posted a brief blog on the generation skipping transfer tax.  Please copy and paste the link below into your internet browser to read.Transfer Tax the Generation Skipping Transfer Tax


Life Insurance in a Rising Tax Environment

In March, we posted an article about investing in a rising tax environment.  We at WealthPoint thought the article in the link below would be a good follow up to that article.  Please take a moment to read through it.

Rising Tax Environment

Please click the link below.

WP_Marketing Intelligence Report – Life Insurance in a Rising Tax Environment

Life Insurance Basics

M Financial put together a piece on life insurance basics that we thought our readers would find educational.  Please take a moment to read through it and use it as a reference.

To view the file, select the link below:

WP_Life Insurance Basics

Life Insurance Policy



US House of Rep

By Richard Cowan and David Lawder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday ignored a White House veto threat and passed legislation to repeal the estate tax that hits inherited assets worth $5.4 million or more.

By a mostly partisan 240-179 vote, the Republican-backed bill will be sent to the Senate, where Democrats are expected to use procedural hurdles to try to block it. Even if it passes the Senate, it would likely fail to achieve a two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

House passage was timed for the week when most Americans file their tax returns. Conservatives, who refer to the estate tax as the “death tax,” have long railed against it, arguing it hurts the families of small business owners and farmers.

“It’s past time to repeal this unacceptable tax. Every American deserves the ability to pass their life’s savings to their kids,” said Representative Tom Graves, a conservative Republican from Georgia.

Repealing the tax would boost the federal deficit by about $269 billion over 10 years, according to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.

Few Americans pay the 40 percent tax on assets above the $5.4 million exclusion amount. About 5,400 estates, equal to 0.2 percent of taxpayers, will owe such taxes in 2015, according to the JCT.

(Reporting By Richard Cowan and David Lawder; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Common Life Insurance Mistakes

We at WealthPoint continually strive to provide insight to our clients and advisory community.  The attached piece was written by M Financial and discusses life insurance policy issues that have been encountered through the years.  Please click the link to review the white paper.


 WP_AMI_Common Life Insurance MistakesMistake