February 27, 2006 by Administrator

If you are considering selling your life insurance policy, it is important you understand the Tax Implications. However, this information if only for basic understanding, we recommend you speak with your tax advisor for a more detailed understanding.

As a life settlement of an insurance policy is in effect the sale of the policy to a third-party, and not a surrender of the policy to the insurance company. Actually, the policy doesn’t need to have a cash value to be eligible for a life settlement transaction. In some cases, the lower the cash value the higher the settlement value is available. A life settlement is only productive if it can produce more than the cash value. The tax implications are twofold, and are relatively complex. While the IRS has not issued definitive guidance on life settlement transactions, it has relied on the application of its laws and regulations that address similar situations.

Basic income tax concepts clearly indicate that gains and losses are computed by taking the selling price of an item and reducing it by any selling expenses and the investment in the item. The investment in the item is known as its “basis.” When dealing with life insurance policies, the basis in the policy is the total of all premium payments made on the policy. The amount of basis in the policy has a direct bearing on the amount of gain to be recognized from both a surrender and settlement transaction. In general, the basis computation is straight-forward, simply being the sum of the premiums paid to the insurance company.

When a surrender of a policy to the issuing insurance company occurs, the difference between the surrender proceeds and the basis in the policy is subject to income tax at ordinary income rates. This concept is important, as it is the first taxable gain computation performed in a settlement transaction. In effect, this surrender value minus basis gain is treated identically whether the policy is surrendered or settled. If the surrender value is lower than the basis, there is no ordinary gain to be reported and the proceeds are treated as a return of basis without a tax cost.

The second taxable gain computation is unique to a life settlement transaction, and results in a gain that is subject to tax at favorable capital gain rates. In this computation, the settlement proceeds are compared to the surrender value used in the ordinary gain determination. Because a settlement transaction involves selling the contract, and the insurance contract is treated as a capital investment, this portion of the gain is treated as a capital gain.

If you have additional questions about life settlement tax implications, please call a Life Settlement Professional at 1-888-973-8377.

February 24, 2006 by Administrator

Coventry First strongly supports the life settlement legislation sponsored by Senator John A. DeFrancisco and Senator James L. Seward that will provide much-needed protection for New York seniors who choose to sell their life insurance policies in the secondary market. Senate Bill 5476, based on the model settlement act of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), protects seniors through comprehensive regulation over life settlements, including numerous disclosures, licensing requirements and strong anti-fraud measures. Twenty-six states have already adopted such NAIC-based laws. The American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) and others have recently suggested that the New York life settlement legislation would not protect New York consumers but would facilitate speculative uses of life insurance. This suggestion is incorrect. At the June 2005 NAIC Life Insurance Committee meeting, Alan Buerger, CEO of Coventry First, was the first to identify the need to have stronger settlement laws and the only witness to suggest that stronger settlement laws could effectively combat investor-initiated life insurance (IILI). It is, in fact, the absence of settlement law that presents the greatest risk of abuses involving life insurance. Senate Bill 5476 materially strengthens the protections contained in the NAIC model by making it illegal for trusts, corporations or charities to sell policies during the 2-year contestability period; it prohibits policies from being moved out of the state to avoid the strict regulation of the New York settlement law. In fact, the bill goes significantly beyond the law of any other state by eliminating nine exceptions to the prohibitions found in the NAIC model. Most importantly, the bill gives the New York Insurance Superintendent broad investigative and enforcement authority over those engaged in these activities. It is because of the addition of these stronger provisions that the bill was supported by Coventry First and the Life Insurance Council of New York (LICONY), a trade association of life insurance carriers. When this legislation becomes law, seniors in New York will be protected by the strongest and most comprehensive life settlement law in the country. About Coventry Coventry (http://www.coventryfirst.com) bridges insurance and capital markets to create groundbreaking products for the financial services industry. The company is the leader in the secondary market for life insurance and pioneered the resulting life settlement industry. Fueled by bold ideas, a deep understanding of life insurance, and impeccable standards, Coventry continues to lead the market by opening new opportunities for consumers and the financial professionals who serve them. Based in Fort Washington, PA, Coventry is the first secondary market company to ever receive Standard & Poor’s highest Servicer ranking and was named the nation’s 10th fastest-growing privately held company in the annual INC. 500 listing.

CONTACT:

Coventry
Kirstin Crouthamel
877-836-8300

February 20, 2006 by Administrator

Ideal candidates for a life insurance settlement are high net worth clients whose insurability has changed since the time the policy was issued. In addition, a decision to either lapse or surrender the policy is under consideration. A life insurance policy becomes unwanted or unneeded due to any number of situations.

A client may need new insurance, an annuity, or long term care. They may have outlived their beneficiaries, sold a business, gone bankrupt, or experienced a divorce. A retirement or a termination may have resulted in the unwinding of a split dollar plan or the timed lapsing of either key employee or buy-sell coverage. The liquidity or size of their estate may have changed. Policy premiums may have become unaffordable. Perhaps the insurance is timed to lapse with a terminating trust.

For whatever the reason, the original purpose of the life insurance may have changed. When that happens, a life settlement in the secondary life insurance market allows the policyholder to recover the true value of their insurance asset.’

Call 1-888-973-8377 to see how you could benefit from a Life Insurance Settlement.

February 9, 2006 by Administrator

Viatical Settlements did not begin as an actual business until the mid-1980′s, when the AIDS epidemic was beginning to explode. The number of ill patients was increasing due to this new outbreak, and it was acknowledged that many of these patients lacked the money to pay for their medical bills, yet had life insurance policies worth large sums. Because their life expectancies were inevitably short, they simply needed the money to pay for their cost of living and necessary medical treatments due to their illness. This was when small firms began offering viatical settlements. Patients were funded and investors were compensated. The viatical industry’s commencement was successful.

By 1996, the industry was flooded with new companies and investors. It had become difficult to distinguish which companies were legitimate and which were not. Many of the companies beginning to sell viaticals were paying no attention to state security laws, insurance laws, or registration requirements. They were also using money from investors, instead of jeopardizing their own funds. Money ended up getting distributed incorrectly, and the business was getting out of hand.

In order to create stability and integrity within the industry, regulations became stricter and viatical brokerages began working to mediate between buyers and viators.

February 2, 2006 by Administrator

SEC fines, attorney costs leave little for victims

The Securities and Exchange Commission has reached settlement agreements to make the top executives of Mutual Benefits Corporation pay millions of dollars in fines and “disgorgement” of their ill-begotten gains in a death-benefits investment scheme.

The settlements still leave 59,000 investors in the corporation’s so-called “viatical” investments holding empty bags for their nearly $1 billion in investments.

They include at least two area residents who say they aren’t satisfied with the outcome.

Ron Gillis of Venice and Garry Brandt of Rotonda said this week they’ll be lucky to see 10 cents on the dollar for their investments, despite claims by their broker that “nobody has ever lost any money” on viatical investments.

“I think it’s a crime, an absolute crime,” Brandt said. “The product was totally misrepresented, and somebody ought to be held accountable.”

A viatical is an investment in which investors buy shares in the life insurance policies of terminally ill patients.

The investments are purchased, usually through a broker, from a “viatical provider” such as Mutual Benefits Corporation. The provider pays the insurance premiums for the patients.

The investments allow the patients, who are known as “viators,” to receive a lump sum for their insurance policies before they die.

The price of the viatical is based on the life expectancy of the viator, which is determined by a physician.

Once the patient dies, the life insurance policy pays the viatical provider, which then distributes a percentage of the proceeds to the investors.

MBC became the target of dozens of complaints that the vast majority of its viators had outlived their life expectancies. That left investors still waiting for payoffs years later.

Investigators also have alleged that the company’s medical doctor misrepresented material facts in estimating the life expectancies of the viators.

Gillis, for example, said he bought $10,000 in viatical investments on two AIDS patients in 1997. One patient died, but the other disappeared for a period of years.

The viator was apparently located in another state, but has since refused to cooperate with MBC representatives seeking information about his health, Gillis said.

“So no one knows whether he has AIDS or not because the doctor who said he has AIDS went to jail,” Gillis said.

When the company sold him the investments, he was told the viators were expected to live only 6 months to a year, Gillis said.

The Securities & Exchange Commission placed MBC into receivership in May 2004. A trial was set to begin Oct. 31, but was canceled after several of the corporation’s top officers agreed to settle out of court.

Under the settlements, the company’s former president, Peter Lombardo, agreed to pay the SEC $6 million, including a $120,000 fine and $5.8 million in “disgorgement.”

Also, MBC executives Joel and Leslie Steinger, who are brothers, agreed to pay $9 million each. The agreements also forbid the executives from misrepresenting investments or selling securities in the future.

However, the payments will do little to offset the losses of investors. In fact, the court receiver filed a motion in December to temporarily block the settlements.

The receiver, Roberto Martinez, said the settlement orders lifted a freeze on the defendants’ bank accounts. That would allow the defendants to withdraw additional assets that potentially could be seized to pay back investors, the receiver argued.

“The receiver has been contacted by a number of banks that the Steingers have already sought to close out their existing accounts,” Martinez wrote in his motion.

Among the losers is one investment group, identified as the Ynals Corp. of Colombia. However, the government doesn’t view the group as a victim.

The group had invested $169,000 in a $4 million life insurance policy that “matured” with the viator’s death. However, the government seized the funds, saying the money for the investment “represents the proceeds of narcotics trafficking, making the policy and its associated death benefits subject to forfeiture,” according to the receiver’s court records.

Martinez has authorized payments from MBC’s frozen assets to pay the premiums on the insurance policies and the legal costs for the corporation. Some 42 law firms are listed as involved in the case.

In a Sept. 14 order, Miami U.S. District Court Judge Federico Moreno concluded that MBC doesn’t have enough cash to continue paying the premiums much longer.

On Jan. 13, the court gave investors three options:

* consent to selling their shares through an auction process.

* assume responsibility for paying the premiums that MBC was obligated to pay.

* allow the investments to “lapse.”

Gillis said he questions whether it’s ethical to sell his shares, considering that his viator has refused to cooperate with MBC representatives.

Brandt also said even if viators die, the receiver will seize most of the funds to pay the bills of the corporation until the case is resolved.

As a result, he expects no investor would be willing to pay more than “5 to 10 cents on the dollar.”

Gillis said he could challenge both the legality of his investment and the fairness of the settlement options, but the cost of litigation “would throw good money after bad.”

“I’m sick for so many people being hurt and I’m sick the only people that benefited are the people who sold these illegal investments and the attorneys that sucked the well dry,” he said.

More prosecutions could come in the future.

Attempts to contact both receiver Martinez and Linda Schmidt, lead attorney for the SEC, for comment were unsuccessful Tuesday.

Source: Sun Herald