Connect with us

Accounting

Buy-sell agreements and their tax and insurance considerations for surviving partners

Published

on

There are two significant reasons for a client to have an updated and funded buy-sell agreement. One is to allow the surviving partner to maintain sole control of the business if one of the owners or partners were to die prematurely or become disabled. 

The other is to provide an immediately available sum of tax-free dollars to pay the deceased partner’s family for their share of the business or practice. A written agreement would establish an updated value of the business, how much money the deceased’s partner’s family would receive, over what period of time and most importantly, where the funds needed to pay the deceased partner’s family would come from. 

Having discussed the value, terms, mechanics and funding beforehand would not only provide for an orderly transition of the business but also avoid unnecessary disputes settled by costly litigation. 

Doing so would also prevent key people, employees, vendors and customers from leaving the business, thereby maintaining the full value of the business or practice for the surviving partner and their family. Lastly, a properly drafted, funded and annually updated valuation of the business could peg the value of a business for estate tax purposes. 

There are basically three types of buy-sell agreements: cross-purchase, stock redemption, and wait and see. For the purposes of this article, we’ll focus on the two most popular: the cross-purchase and stock redemption. The wait and see has components of both types of agreements but doesn’t require a decision until death occurs. The cross-purchase agreement is an agreement made directly between the partners of a business or practice. Each partner is the owner, beneficiary and premium payor of the other partner’s life Insurance policy. As always, there are benefits and detriments to any planning options and the cross-purchase is no exception. 

In a cross-purchase agreement, the distinct tax benefits to the surviving partner are that at their subsequent death, their family would receive a step up in basis to the current value of the business. For example, if a business is initially valued at $1million and then over 20 years later it’s worth $3 million, there would be no capital gains tax at the subsequent death of the surviving partner on the $2 million gain as the surviving partner in a cross-purchase agreement would receive a stepped-up basis at death to the $3 million. 

One of the detriments of such an agreement is that the value of the personal shares of the business are subject to the claims of the creditors. In addition, if there are three partners, there could be as many as six life insurance policies required, and 12 policies if there were four partners involved. That aside, there would be disparities as to the cost of a particular amount of life Insurance coverage for a partner in their 60s in excellent health, as opposed to a partner in their 70s in not such good health. Equalizing the individual costs for a business or practice with four or more partners could be an administrative burden. 

The second type of a buy-sell agreement is called a stock redemption. In this type of an agreement the mechanics work differently. Instead of the partners owning the policies on each other’s lives, paying for one another’s premiums and being each other’s beneficiary, the business is the owner, premium payor and beneficiary of each partner’s policy. This type of arrangement makes the administration easier and equalizes the different policy charges as well as reduces the number of policies required to provide the insurance coverage for several partners. It also shields the value of the shares of the business from personal creditors.

However, the detriment to that type of an agreement is severe in that at the death of a partner there is no step up in basis in the value of the business for the surviving partner’s family at their passing. Using the prior example, if the initial value of the business or practice was $1 million and then over 20 years later, upon the death of the first partner, the value of the business was determined to be $3 million, the estate of the surviving owner would be required to pay a capital gains tax of $2 million with a basis of $1million rather than the $3 million it would have been with a cross-purchase agreement. 

The Supreme Court ruling on June 6 in the case of Connelly v. U.S. added another significant detriment in that it determined that there should be no offsets for the life insurance funding a stock redemption agreement. This would mean that the value of the life insurance is added to the value of the partner’s share of the business and both amounts would be included in the value of a partner’s estate for estate tax purposes. This, as the court stated, would not have been the case in a cross-purchase agreement.

Buy-sell agreements frequently utilize life insurance to provide the funding mechanism for payment of the purchase price upon death, disability, retirement or a specifically mentioned triggering mechanisms outlined in the buy-sell agreement such as divorce, unresolvable differences or bankruptcy. This source of funding is designed to have the surviving partner receive the tax-free death benefit in the most tax efficient manner, which would then be used to purchase the shares of the deceased partner from their family.

Since we’ll be focusing on the use of four different types of life insurance, a brief explanation of each type of life insurance policy that could be used is in order. Term life insurance can be purchased with a five- to 40-year term of coverage where the death benefit, the premium and the duration of coverage are all guaranteed. Term insurance provides a death benefit only and is the most popular and least expensive type of coverage simply because the coverage contractually ceases to exist at the ages of 80 to 82. As a result, only 2% of term insurance coverage is ever paid out as a death benefit. However, for business owners who intend to retire or sell their business or practice before the age of 80, and only want to be protected in the event of death, term insurance is a good choice. Since a disability is more likely to occur than a premature death, it’s a good idea to address a disability by funding it with a disability buyout policy.

If one wants to guarantee their coverage beyond age 82, they can utilize a guaranteed universal life insurance policy, which for a higher annual premium can guarantee the death benefit, cost and duration of coverage up to age 120. It should be noted that the longer one wants their coverage guaranteed to last, the higher the cost.

For those business owners and partners of a practice that want to utilize life insurance for its living benefits as well as its death benefit, they can use a whole life policy with a guaranteed premium and tax- free death benefit, based on a fixed return. Another option would be a variable life policy. This type of policy’s return is based on the returns of the stock market and is not guaranteed but may provide a higher or lower return. In either case, in addition to having provided an income tax-free death benefit during the partner’s working years, the policy could have accumulated a significant build-up of tax deferred internal cash value. Then at retirement (beyond age 59 and a half) when the death benefit is no longer needed, the partners could begin withdrawing the policy’s cash value to supplement their retirement on a 100% tax-free basis, utilizing a strategy of loans and withdrawals that never have to be paid back as long as the policy survives the insured. This and other split-dollar arrangements (such as premium sharing) are an extremely popular strategy for those businesses with an adequate cash flow. This is known as a private pension. or supplemental owners retirement plan.

Similar steps can also be taken to ensure a key employee remains in the business during any such turbulent times by providing them with a deferred compensation plan. Such a plan can merely provide a death benefit only using simple term insurance, or arrangements can be made to use a whole life or variable life insurance policy that in addition to providing a death benefit, also accumulates cash value on a tax-deferred basis. This accumulation can, upon the key person’s retirement, be used to supplement their income with tax-free distributions, but only if they fulfill their end of the bargain, i.e., remaining at their place of business for a specified number of years set at the owner’s discretion. This strategy is commonly called a supplemental executive retirement plan. 

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

on

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

on

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Trending