A buy-sell agreement is the document that decides what happens to an owner’s stake in a business if they die, become disabled, get divorced, or simply want out – and most multi-owner small businesses don’t have a real one in place, leaving the outcome to state default law and whatever the remaining owners and the departing owner’s heirs can agree on under pressure.
What a Buy-Sell Agreement Actually Sets
A properly drafted agreement defines the triggering events that force a buyout (death, disability, divorce, retirement, termination, or a voluntary sale offer), the valuation method used to price the departing owner’s interest, and the funding mechanism and payment terms for the buyout itself. Without one, a deceased or incapacitated owner’s shares can pass to a spouse or heirs who have no interest in or knowledge of the business, effectively forcing the surviving owners into a partnership they never agreed to.
Cross-Purchase vs. Entity Redemption
In a cross-purchase agreement, the remaining owners personally buy the departing owner’s interest, typically funded by each owner holding a life insurance policy on every other owner – this gets complicated fast with more than two or three owners, since the number of required policies grows with the square of the owner count. In an entity redemption (or “stock redemption”) agreement, the business itself buys back the interest and owns the funding life insurance policies directly, which is administratively simpler with more owners but changes the tax basis math for the remaining owners differently than a cross-purchase does.
Valuation Is Where Most Agreements Fail
A buy-sell agreement with a valuation method that was never updated after being drafted – a fixed dollar price set years ago, or a formula tied to outdated financials – is one of the most common reasons buy-sell agreements end up in litigation. A workable agreement specifies a valuation method (independent appraisal, an agreed formula, or a periodically updated fixed price) and actually requires the owners to revisit it on a set schedule, not just once at signing.
The Connelly Ruling Changed the Insurance Math
The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Connelly v. United States held that life insurance proceeds a corporation receives to fund a redemption must be counted as a corporate asset when valuing the company for estate tax purposes, and that a mere contractual redemption obligation doesn’t offset that increased value. This means an entity-redemption structure funded by company-owned life insurance can inflate the value of a deceased owner’s remaining or transferred shares for estate tax purposes more than expected – a real reason to review existing redemption-funded agreements with a CPA or estate attorney rather than assume the pre-2024 math still holds.
Funding Beyond Life Insurance
Not every buy-sell obligation is insurance-funded – some agreements use a sinking fund the business builds up over time, or a structured installment note the business or remaining owners pay the departing owner’s estate over several years, which trades certainty of funding for reduced upfront cost.
Affiliate Disclosure: This page may contain affiliate links. If you make a purchase or sign up through these links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Related reading: Holding Company Structures and LLC vs. S-Corp vs. C-Corp Tax Tradeoffs.
Recent Comments