Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Profiting from death? Lawsuit filed in Wal-Mart life insurance case
Houston Chronicle ^ | April 15, 2002 | L.M. SIXEL

Posted on 04/16/2002 4:15:37 AM PDT by ValerieUSA

Jane Sims always knew her husband was a valuable employee to Wal-Mart. She just didn't know how valuable. Sims discovered recently that Wal-Mart, the company her husband, Douglas, worked for before he died, had taken out a life insurance policy in his name. When Douglas Sims died in 1998 of a sudden heart attack, Wal-Mart received about $64,000. She got nothing from that policy.
"I never dreamed that they could profit from my husband's death," said Sims, whose husband worked in receiving at Wal-Mart's distribution center in Plainview for 11 years.

Companies routinely take out secret life insurance policies on the lives of their low-level employees and collect thousands of dollars when they die. The families never know the policies are in place and typically receive none of the money.
The policies are called corporate-owned life insurance policies or COLIs for short. But they're better known in the insurance industry as "dead peasant" and "dead janitor" policies.

While many companies buy life insurance on their key officers, so-called "dead peasant" policies are different because the deaths of low-level employees do not affect a company's financial health.
Those kinds of policies are not permitted in Texas anyway because the state Legislature did not want to create an incentive for murder or wagering on human life. But many employers continue to buy them, expecting no one will ever find out.
And they generally don't because there is no way to tell if an employer has taken out a policy on a worker's life.

That has caught the attention of U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, who is looking into the federal jurisdiction of whether employers can be required to notify employees of such policies. Green is also concerned that an employer may have a disincentive to provide a safe workplace because he would profit from the employee's death.

It is impossible to know how many companies purchased COLI policies on their employees because of secrecy surrounding the policies. But an attorney for the Hartford Life Insurance Co. estimated that one-fourth of the Fortune 500 companies have them, which cover the lives of between 5 million and 6 million workers.
For example, Procter & Gamble and AT&T have them, but representatives of both companies would not comment on the details.
While COLIs are usually kept under wraps, they have suddenly become the focus in a lawsuit here against Wal-Mart, one of the city's largest employers, and Camelot Music.

Wal-Mart took out about 350,000 life insurance policies on the lives of its employees payable to the company, according to the lawsuit filed by Sims and other family members of deceased Wal-Mart employees. Hartford Life Insurance Co. and AIG Life Insurance Co. sold the policies to Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart borrowed money from the insurers to pay the premiums, which the company was able to write off as a business expense on its federal taxes.

Scott Monroe Clearman, a Houston lawyer representing the workers, said those policies are used as an "elaborate tax dodge."
Clearman, who specializes in insurance law, is responsible for uncovering the "dead peasant" policies in Texas. After reading in a magazine that Wal-Mart took out policies in other states, he began to wonder if any were on Texas employees.
Through obituary listings in Texas newspapers, Clearman tracked down surviving family members of Wal-Mart employees.

Linda Waller, whose husband, Craig, worked in the automotive department at Wal-Mart's Comanche store before he died, received a letter from Clearman about a $64,000 life insurance policy on her husband.
Waller took it to Wal-Mart's human resources representatives in Comanche. They researched it and assured her that Wal-Mart did not carry insurance that names the company.
A Wal-Mart representative dismissed Waller's suspicions and said they were being stoked by "ambulance chasers."
But Waller discovered that her husband was covered, and she and other relatives of deceased Wal-Mart employees are suing the retailer.

Clearman has proved to U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas that the retailer has no "insurable interest," that Wal-Mart is not entitled to insurance money and that death benefits should go to the deceased workers' estates. But he must determine just how many employees are due the benefit.
That could amount to millions of dollars of liability for Wal-Mart, Clearman said. He could not be more specific because he did not know how many Texas employees died or how much each policy was worth.

The way the companies find out is that the firms who manage the insurance policies for them run sweeps of Social Security numbers or "death runs" to uncover who has died every quarter. The death certificates are located and forwarded to the insurance company.
In Texas, only those with an "insurable interest" can take a life insurance policy out on someone. That would include a spouse or child, a creditor or "one having a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or advantage from the continued life of another."
Texas is unusual, said Barry Chasnoff, a lawyer with Akin Gump in San Antonio who is representing the Hartford Life Insurance Co. In most states, companies have an insurable interest in every employee. (Rules allow an employer to take out a life insurance policy on a key officer. When an executive leaves a company, the insurance lapses.)
When a company well-versed in insurance codes comes to Hartford to buy COLI policies, Hartford does not pay attention to whether "insurable interest" needs to apply, Chasnoff said.

Camelot Music was also sued in the same case after former employees, including many part-time workers making close to mimumum wage, discovered they were insured for between $273,000 and $368,000 each. All are former employees, who left the company by 1998, and say they are rightful owners of the policies.
Atlas said that even though Camelot did not have an insurable interest in their lives, she did not have the power to convert the ownership to the individual employees. But if the policies were still in effect when the former employees died, the estates would be owed the money.
The Camelot case came to light after it sued the Internal Revenue Service after it disallowed the company's tax deductions on the insurance premiums.

Though Texas law does not permit "dead peasant" insurance, Wal-Mart and Camelot thought they could still insure their Texas employees if the policies were created out of state.
In the Wal-Mart case, the insurance policies were signed in Georgia and the company managing its insurance is in Georgia. But Atlas ruled that the policies are governed by Texas law because the workers lived in Texas, worked in Texas and the death certificates are in Texas.

It's not just a Wal-Mart issue, said Bill Wertz, a spokesman at the company's headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. The company, like many in the Fortune 500, availed itself of the insurance policies because of the tax benefits.
"The company feels it acted properly and legally in doing this," he said. Georgia law, not Texas law, should govern, he said.
Wertz said Wal-Mart acted aboveboard with its employees, that no harm was caused and that employees were notified of the policies through a special "death benefit" offer.
Initially, Wal-Mart gave its employees a special $5,000 death benefit when it launched the program in 1994 through 1996.
But Clearman contended there was no mention that the underlying policy was worth far more. And it appeared that if an employee turned down the "special" death benefit, that worker also must forfeit health insurance, Clearman said.
Wal-Mart contended that the money from the insurance policies went to pay other employee benefits. Clearman said he has no evidence to support that claim.

Meanwhile, National Convenience Stores also has bought accidental death policies on its employees. When an employee died at work, such as in a robbery, NCS received $250,000, Clearman said.
The insurance came to light after an NCS manager died in a car wreck going to get change for the store, said Clearman, who represented the estate of the deceased employee, Ramon Pamez. The case is set for trial beginning Monday in state district court here.
Because it had insurance, NCS did not have incentive to provide security at the convenience stores, Clearman said.
At the same time, Diamond Shamrock was installing bulletproof glass and putting in two employees at night, Clearman said.
Between 1991 to 1995, Diamond Shamrock had one on-the-job death in Texas while NCS had nine, Clearman said.

Camelot Music earned $1.3 million in insurance proceeds from its employees who died, Clearman said. The firm insured 1,400 people, and it had more deaths than mortality tables suggest, he said. "What's the incentive to provide good security?" he asked.

Though Wal-Mart canceled its policies in January, Camelot's policies remain in effect. An attorney for Camelot did not return phone calls for comment.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: camelot; conveniencestores; corporations; employees; scam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
Teenagers who work in fast food places with signs telling would-be robbers that no one is armed inside - these kids are at unreasonable risk - are they insured by the businesses?

This insurance SCAM operation is shocking to me.

1 posted on 04/16/2002 4:15:37 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
After 35+ years in the insurance business, I find this very hard to believe. Even if a company ownes and pays for the premium, the insured MUST sign the application. Even on group life insurance, the insured MUST sign an enrollment form of some type and they indicate a beneficiary.

One of the rules in life insurance is the owner must have an insurable interest - just because a person is an employee, doesn't make them an insurable interest. The company has to PROVE they would be financially harmed by the death of an employee. Walmart would not be harmed by the death of a minimum pay employee.

2 posted on 04/16/2002 4:25:32 AM PDT by BuckeyeOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Scam?! This is a non-story. Wake me up when it's over.
3 posted on 04/16/2002 4:25:34 AM PDT by aardvark1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
So, exactly what is wrong with Wal-Mart (or any company) using its money to take a life insurance policy out on an employee and collecting if that employee dies.
4 posted on 04/16/2002 4:29:01 AM PDT by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeOhio
I didn't think you could take a life insurance policy on someone without their consent. Maybe it's a state-to-state thing.
5 posted on 04/16/2002 4:31:30 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
There is nothing wrong with it as long as they don't profit from actions that could lead to collection. If a massacre happened in a Walmart because no armed people were allowed in the store, I would suspect Walmart would be in trouble.
6 posted on 04/16/2002 4:32:41 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
Read the story before you ask the question.
It's NOT using its money - its borrowing the money to buy the insurance and writing off the purchase as an operating expense.
A company whose employees are at high risk for robbery and murder on the job (convenience stores) and takes out BIG policies on these low-paid employees, then fails to provide adequate safety and security precautions while disallowing them their right to bear arms for self-protection on the job, and collects an untaxable life insurance claim when employees are killed - all without the knowledge of the employee or families - is operating a tax and insurance scam.
7 posted on 04/16/2002 4:35:54 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
So, exactly what is wrong with Wal-Mart (or any company) using its money to take a life insurance policy out on an employee and collecting if that employee dies.

Seems a case can be made for this practice, in terms of the costs involved to hire and train a replacement employee, if nothing else. And why is this the domain of government? More legislative interference that's totally unjustified IMHO.

8 posted on 04/16/2002 4:36:47 AM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Y-A-A-W-W-N
9 posted on 04/16/2002 4:37:36 AM PDT by aardvark1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Third-party policies are very common. Someone could take out a policy on your life, and you'd never know it. Unless there is reason to believe the one who holds the policy cause the death of the person insured, then I don't understand the complaint. This kind of policy has been in practice since insurance was first conceived. Maybe unsavory, but not illegal. Don't be too quick to jump on businesses trying to survive. This country is over-regulated as it is.

With all the laws on the books protecting workers, it's unlikely a company will negligently cause the death or be careless of a worker's life just to cash in on a policy.

ValerieUSA, the example you cite is one I think really does need checking out by authorities. That DOES sound as though the company is deliberately negligent of the workers' lives, knowing they'll cash in on a policy.

If people want to cash in on insurance policies if their loved one dies, then they should take out those policies in the first place. They have no legal right to insurance payout on policies someone else took out.

10 posted on 04/16/2002 4:37:58 AM PDT by WaterDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
And I say again, you must have and insurable interest to get a policy. In other words, you can't take out a policy on a complete stranger so you receive money when they die. I don't believe this is something that is subject to state to state regulations but is a national thing.

My best guess is Walmart had an insurance policy on a department head which the person signed for, this was not something that was done secretly.

11 posted on 04/16/2002 4:39:52 AM PDT by BuckeyeOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: aardvark1
We know - you are bored. Go away and don't come back.
12 posted on 04/16/2002 4:43:09 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeOhio
Read the article.
13 posted on 04/16/2002 4:43:58 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aardvark1
Scam?! This is a non-story. Wake me up when it's over.

If the employees were stealing money, that's dishonest and breaking the law and they rightly should
be punished. If corporate American breaks Texas laws, why would Texans want to "look the other way?"....

14 posted on 04/16/2002 5:11:18 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
So, exactly what is wrong with Wal-Mart (or any company) using its money to take a
life insurance policy out on an employee and collecting if that employee dies.

If if's against Texas laws, there's your answer, FRiend!

15 posted on 04/16/2002 5:13:21 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
If anyone thinks Walmart comes across thier wealth honestly...they need their head examined. Those people rub shoulders with men who know how to swindle and lie to beat the system.
16 posted on 04/16/2002 5:17:18 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
the problem bb is that they write it off the fed taxes so the tax payers are picking up the tab and not reaping the bennies
17 posted on 04/16/2002 5:25:20 AM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Good article! Thanks for posting this.
You just need a little insect repellent for the flies! :O)
18 posted on 04/16/2002 5:26:04 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Every state has an insurance commissioner. Why?
I was happy to learn that Texas objects to this type of scam, but insurance companies apparently have been successful lobbying in most states to allow this kind of transaction.
When families collect on a life insurance policy, the benefit is non-taxable. I think that is great. But for corporations to make non-taxable profits on the deathof minimum wage employees? uh-unh. Do they think they OWN these people?
19 posted on 04/16/2002 5:31:53 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Why should the heirs get the payoff? They didn't pay the premiums. I don't see the scam, here, just lawyers looking for some money. Good thing they don't insure lawyers, we'd have too many reasons to kill them with the reasons we already have!!

Actually, the loss of any employee causes some expense. What I don't quite get is why WM would want to pay these premiums.

20 posted on 04/16/2002 5:55:45 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeOhio
Any company has an interest in the life of any employee - to at least the cost of finding and training a replacement (though I doubt this comes to $64,000 for a low-level emplyee).

Does this discourage safe working conditions? Not theoretically. It just transfers the benefit of safety to the insurance company - which would charge more for the policy if the workplace is unsafe.

This sounds more like a taz dodge than anything else. Are insurance payments treated "off book", when figuring profits, while insurance premiums are "on book"?

21 posted on 04/16/2002 6:18:28 AM PDT by Ross Amann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
What annoys the hell out of me about this is these same companies provide pitiful health insurance packages to their workers yet cash in big time when one dies. As much as I hate labor unions, I'll cheer if they organize Walmart employees.
22 posted on 04/16/2002 6:26:00 AM PDT by flying Elvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
If the cost of the policy is deducted, I believe the benefits are taxable. Can anyone else confirm this.

Some one is always crunching the numbers in that the cost of the policy is probably cheaper than the cost of adequate serurity measures.

23 posted on 04/16/2002 6:34:25 AM PDT by mutchdutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
I recall my late wife telling me that, at least in Illinois, third-party life insurance requires the consent of the 'insured'. I don't think there must be an insurable interest necessarily, but I don't think secret policies are kosher.

[FYI, I may be misremembering or misunderstanding what my wife told me, but since worked in the industry and passed her LOMA courses, she should have known].

24 posted on 04/16/2002 6:54:22 AM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mutchdutch
The corporation could not deduct the premiums if it is the beneficiary.
25 posted on 04/16/2002 7:04:23 AM PDT by tdscpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
aardvark1 member since February 4th, 2002

26 posted on 04/16/2002 7:22:28 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeOhio
And I say again, you must have and insurable interest to get a policy.

Seems like insurance would constitute illegal gambling in many states, otherwise.

27 posted on 04/16/2002 7:33:09 AM PDT by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Thanks for this most disturbing find. I knew about KeyMan insurance, but this dead janitor stuff is truly reprehensible.
28 posted on 04/16/2002 7:43:39 AM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Very well said. I think this situation is actionable by the families of people who were insured in this manner.
29 posted on 04/16/2002 7:45:12 AM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tdscpa
They try.

Camelot Music was also sued in the same case after former employees, including many part-time workers making close to mimumum wage, discovered they were insured for between $273,000 and $368,000 each.... The Camelot case came to light after it sued the Internal Revenue Service after it disallowed the company's tax deductions on the insurance premiums.

30 posted on 04/16/2002 7:49:06 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I didn't go past LOMA 1, however I think you are correct.
31 posted on 04/16/2002 7:50:33 AM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister
I'm wondering.... even though he had resigned from Enron before he died - did Enron still have a corporate life insurance policy out on Baxter? Would they collect even in the event of suicide? My guess on both questions for now is YES.
32 posted on 04/16/2002 9:10:24 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: lodwick
bump
33 posted on 04/16/2002 10:08:41 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: flying Elvis
As much as I hate labor unions, I'll cheer if they organize Walmart employees.

I don't hate labor unions, at least not in theory, and things like this are the reason why. I remember a guy I used to work for who absolutely hated labor unions, and we kind of agreed to disagree on the issue. Later I found out that our company and several competitors in town were in effect bargaining collectively against the employees of all the firms, as they had agreed not to solicit or consider for employment anyone employed by any of the other firms. I had no particular problem with this, but I had a BIG problem with this guy doing this while wailing about the evils of organized labor. For him it was a crime for the mice to bargain collectively with the cat, but the cats needed to band together to counter the influence of individual mice. What a Dasch-hole.

34 posted on 04/16/2002 1:14:12 PM PDT by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; Darlin'; gogeo; wardaddy; COB1
bump
35 posted on 04/16/2002 2:19:53 PM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
I'm guessing these are some sort of equity producing policies perhaps and they can write off the premiums as an expense, borrow against the equity in the policies as owners of said policies, and then reap the windfall upon death of the insured.

It may seem morbid and it might look a bit bad if insured parties start dropping like flies but it looks to me like an economy of scale investment/tax deduction plan and not anything sinister.

I don't know about Wal-Mart enough to comment but I do know enough about trial lawyers to know whose side I generally am not on.

Why is this different than corporations paying huge KeyMan policy premiums of which the Company is the owner and beneficiary?

36 posted on 04/16/2002 3:00:07 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tdscpa
Companies that insure high ranking officers or owners and are both the owner and beneficiary can indeed charge the premiums as an expense. Some of these premiums are so huge that if they can't deduct them, I don't see how they can justify them.
37 posted on 04/16/2002 3:03:50 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I guess they can justify them. Possibly due to the fact that if they collect on the death of an officer, the proceeds are tax free. If they insure enough officers, the tax-free nature of the proceeds makes it a wash, taxwise.

Believe me, except for group term life insurance limited to $50,000 of coverage per insured, or some type of life insurance purchased through a pension plan, life insurance premiums are not deductible.

38 posted on 04/16/2002 3:13:03 PM PDT by tdscpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
When families collect on a life insurance policy, the benefit is non-taxable. I think that is great. But for corporations to make non-taxable profits on the deathof minimum wage employees? uh-unh. Do they think they OWN these people?

Yep!

39 posted on 04/16/2002 3:35:33 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tdscpa; wardaddy
They borrow the money to buy the premiums. It's debt. A write-off.
40 posted on 04/16/2002 3:38:30 PM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
"Debt" is not deductible.
41 posted on 04/16/2002 6:32:30 PM PDT by tdscpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tdscpa
from the article:
Wal-Mart borrowed money from the insurers to pay the premiums, which the company was able to write off as a business expense on its federal taxes.
42 posted on 04/16/2002 6:44:42 PM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Well, the article says the IRS disallowed Camelot's tax deduction. Perhaps the IRS did not catch Wal-Mart, yet, since they are apparently hiding this from everyone.
43 posted on 04/16/2002 7:18:54 PM PDT by tdscpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA, tdscpa
The following is from a site called smbix.com:

Premiums on certain life insurance: You can deduct premiums on life insurance policies if the corporation is the beneficiary. That applies to term life and premiums on keyman whole life policies to the extent they exceed the increase in the cash surrender value.

I'm sure like all tax code there is plenty of ambiguity in the big picture which will naturally benefit the IRS.

Ironically, I'm meeting my tax/financing advisor tommorow and will ask him. My bank is waffling over carrying a construction loan to commercial perm at prime(payments to be set fixed on todays rate..4.62%) for a 5 year balloon.(20 year amor.) No suprise there...LOL. They don't want to get "upside down" if rates rise which of course they will eventually. I asked my banker if he would have given me the same consideration had the prime risen in his favor during the construction loan term period. LOL...Banks...can't live with 'em...can't live without 'em...at least not in commerical real estate development. Scalawags.

tdspca:, I'm not questioning your knowledge...I just want to know more about this.

Regards.

44 posted on 04/16/2002 8:49:33 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I would like to read more about this, however, my browser can not find smbix.com.
45 posted on 04/16/2002 9:00:45 PM PDT by tdscpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
bump
46 posted on 04/17/2002 7:55:03 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I recall my late wife telling me that, at least in Illinois, third-party life insurance requires the consent of the 'insured'. I don't think there must be an insurable interest necessarily, but I don't think secret policies are kosher.

I think it says somewhere in the article that the employees were told about and signed onto a $5000 "free" death benefit without realizing that Walmart would get the rest of the $64k.

47 posted on 04/17/2002 8:08:21 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA;wardaddy
Note the last line of the article: Wal-Mart has cancelled its policies...

Perhaps they discovered they can not deduct the premiums and can therefore not justify the program on economic grounds.

48 posted on 04/17/2002 11:47:30 AM PDT by tdscpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tdscpa
After my meeting today with my finance/tax advisor: You Sir are quite right about what you stated on deducting the premiums as a business expense. Nope, can't do it except in a few instances of "split???...I've forgotten...policies.

You da man!!!!

49 posted on 04/17/2002 6:08:33 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Thank you. I used to know this stuff pretty well. However, since retirement, my knowledge is getting outdated.

Could your agent have said "split-dollar insurance"? That is the only "split" insurance I can think of. Under that type of plan, the employer buys a whole-life policy on an employee, and pays the part of the premium that is equal to the annual increase in cash surrender value. The employee pays the rest (the pure insurance part). The employee gets the equivalent of term insurance at a lower cost, and his beneficiary collects the policy proceeds, less its cash surrender value. The employer just builds up an asset (the cash surrender value) which it recovers at the employee's death. There really isn't any tax deductible life insurance here that I can see, just a legal subsidy of an employee's life insurance.

50 posted on 04/17/2002 11:08:22 PM PDT by tdscpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson