Report to Congress on 

Charity-Owned Life Insurance 

Department of the Treasury 

April 2010 




TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3

I. EXISTING LAW .............................................................................................................3

A. Tax-Exempt Charitable Organizations ........................................................................3

B. Life Insurance ..............................................................................................................6

II. PENSION PROTECTION ACT .........................................................................................9

A. Statutory Provisions ....................................................................................................9 

B. Implementation of the PPA Provisions .....................................................................10

C. Public Comments ......................................................................................................11

III. CHOLI ARRANGEMENTS ...........................................................................................11

A. Overview of Transactions .........................................................................................12

B. Arrangements Wherein the Charity Owns the Life Insurance Contract ...................12

C. Arrangements Wherein a Trust or Other Special-Purpose Vehicle Owns the Life 

Insurance Contract ................................................................................................14

D. Arrangements Involving Both Annuities and Life Insurance Contracts ...................15

IV. DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................................16

V.              TAX IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY ISSUES .....................................................................19

A. Exempt Status and the Sharing of Insurable Interest ................................................19

B. Income from ChOLI Arrangements as UBTI ...........................................................24

C. Role of Tax Benefits in the Profitability of ChOLI Arrangements ...........................24

D. Excise Tax Proposals ................................................................................................27

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................29

BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................................................................................30

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................34

1 
REPORT TO CONGRESS ON CHARITY-OWNED LIFE 

INSURANCE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) mandated a study of charity-owned life 

insurance (ChOLI) arrangements and required that charities engaging in those arrangements 

report certain information to the Internal Revenue Service during a two-year period. 

Accordingly, the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service solicited public 

comments regarding the study, designed and issued an information return form, and then 

reviewed those returns. 

This report describes various types of ChOLI arrangements, which may involve annuities 

as well as life insurance, owned directly or indirectly by a charity. To date, the arrangements for 

which information reporting has been provided pursuant to the PPA are too few in number to 

constitute a statistically significant sample for analysis. Consequently, the report relies 

principally on information that is otherwise available publicly with regard to these arrangements. 

The report analyzes the Federal tax law implications of ChOLI arrangements under 

existing law and the tax policy issues they present. In particular, the report identifies potentially 

significant conflicts with the requirement that a charitable organization be organized and 

operated exclusively for an exempt purpose, and that it comply with a proscription on substantial 

private benefit. The report further notes that the treatment of a charity's return from participation 

in a ChOLI arrangement as either exempt investment income or taxable income from an 

unrelated business is not entirely clear under existing law, but that it arguably may be viewed as 

unrelated business taxable income in certain circumstances. 

Finally, the report recommends adoption of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2010 and 

2011 budget proposals to revise the "transfer-for-value" rule of Internal Revenue Code section 

101(a) to ensure that investors in a ChOLI arrangement—as well as investors in other types of 

arrangements involving the transfer of life insurance contracts—do not inappropriately benefit 

from the gross income exclusion for death benefits from a life insurance contract in 

circumstances where those investors have purchased an ownership interest in the underlying 

policies. 

2 
INTRODUCTION

 As required by section 1211 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (the PPA),1 the 

Department of the Treasury (the Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (the Service) have 

undertaken a study of the use by certain tax-exempt organizations of certain types of life 

insurance arrangements “for the purpose of sharing with investors the benefits of the tax-exempt 

organization’s insurable interest in individuals insured under such contracts with investors.” In 

addition, as required, the study considered “whether such activities are consistent with the tax 

exempt status of such organizations.” The information contained herein is offered in fulfillment 

of the mandate of PPA section 1211(c)(2) for a report on the study. 

 Part I of the report describes various aspects of existing Federal income tax and other law 

with respect to charities and life insurance that are relevant to the analysis of ChOLI 

arrangements. Part II describes the PPA provisions and their implementation and summarizes 

public comments on the implementation as proposed. Part III outlines various types of ChOLI 

arrangements, and Part IV describes data collection under the PPA provisions regarding ChOLI 

arrangements. Finally, Part V analyzes the federal income tax implications of those 

arrangements, including a discussion of outstanding policy issues. 

I. EXISTING LAW

ChOLI arrangements involve both charities and life insurance, both of which are subject 

to special tax and other laws. This part of the report sets forth the significant provisions of 

Federal income tax law applicable to charities and life insurance, with reference to relevant State 

law, as well. 

A. Tax-Exempt Charitable Organizations 

Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) exempts from Federal income 

tax organizations (or charities) described in section 501(c)(3)2

 in pertinent part as follows: 

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and 

operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, 

literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur 

sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of 

athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or 

animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private 

shareholder or individual . . . . 

 In addition to being exempt from tax, charities are generally eligible to receive 

contributions, gifts, and bequests that are deductible in computing the income, gift, and estate tax 

liabilities of the donors. 

3 

 

1

 Pub. L. No. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780 (2006). 

2

 Unless otherwise indicated, “section” refers to sections of the Internal Revenue Code. 
Organizational and Operational Tests

 An organization qualifies as a section 501(c)(3) charity only if it is organized and 

operated exclusively for exempt purposes. In addition, regulations under section 501(c)(3) 

require that an organization serve a public rather than a private interest.3

 A charity may satisfy the organizational test by adopting certain formal requirements in 

its governing documents.4

 For example, the governing documents must limit the organization’s 

purposes to those exempt purposes described in section 501(c)(3) and must not permit the 

organization to engage in activities that do not further exempt purposes (except to an 

insubstantial extent). An organization is not organized exclusively for exempt purposes, 

however, if its governing documents specify purposes that are broader than the purposes 

specified in section 501(c)(3). The governing documents also must provide that the 

organization’s assets are dedicated to an exempt purpose in perpetuity. An organization’s assets 

are considered to be dedicated to an exempt purpose if, for example, upon dissolution, such 

assets are distributed for one or more exempt purposes, or to a Federal, State, or local 

government entity, for a public purpose. 

 In general, the operational test requires that an organization engage primarily in activities 

that further its exempt purpose.5

 An organization does not satisfy the operational test if more 

than an insubstantial part of its activities fail to further an exempt purpose. In addition, to meet 

the operational test an organization must establish that its activities serve a public rather than a 

private interest. Finally, an organization must not violate the restrictions against inurement, 

lobbying, and political activity. Violation of these restrictions means that an organization fails 

the operational test, is therefore not operated exclusively for charitable purposes, and will not be 

considered exempt from taxation as a public charity. 

Prohibitions on Inurement and Substantial Private Benefit

 Inurement contravenes the section 501(c)(3) statutory requirement that no part of the net 

earnings of the charity inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. The 

regulations define a “private shareholder or individual” as a person having a personal and private 

interest in the activities of the organization, and the term refers to persons in a position to 

influence the decisions of the organization—so-called insiders.6

 Thus, inurement arises when an 

insider receives benefits from the organization greater than those he or she provides to the 

organization in return. In such a case, resources of the organization that should be dedicated to 

the public interest are diverted to private use. A common example of inurement is excessive or 

unreasonable compensation paid to insiders. There is no de minimis or substantiality exception. 

 

3 See Treas. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(1)(ii). 

4 See Treas. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(b). 

5

 See Treas. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c). 

6

 Treas. Reg. § 1.501(a)-1(c). 

4 
 To be recognized as exempt, an organization also must establish that it is not organized or 

operated for the benefit of private interests, such as those of designated individuals, the creator or 

his or her family, shareholders of the organization, or persons controlled, directly or indirectly, 

by such private interests.7

 Private benefit occurs if more than an insubstantial part of the 

organization’s activities or its assets or revenues of an organization benefit a private individual or 

entity. The concept of private benefit stems from the language in the regulations providing that 

an organization is not organized or operated exclusively for exempt purposes “unless it serves a 

public rather than a private interest.”8

 Thus, for example, in a leading case addressing private 

benefit, American Campaign Academy v. Commissioner, the Tax Court held that a school that 

trained students to work for a particular political party generated an impermissible private benefit 

for that party, rather than benefit for the public as a whole.9

 Consequently, the school was not 

organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes, even though it had an educational 

purpose. 

 Private benefit differs from inurement in two principal ways. First, the concept of private 

benefit applies to all private individuals or entities, rather than only to insiders. Second, the 

prohibition on private benefit is not absolute; only private benefit that is more than insubstantial 

is proscribed. 

Unrelated Business Income Tax

 An organization described in section 501(c)(3) (a charity) is exempt from Federal income 

taxation not only on the contributions and gifts it receives, but also on the income that it derives 

from or that is substantially related to the performance of its exempt function.10 Exempt 

function income may include tuition to a school, patient fees to a hospital, or ticket fees to a 

symphony. Mere fundraising is not substantially related to a charity’s exempt function or 

purpose, but activities that contribute importantly or have a substantial causal relatio

accomplishment of those exempt functions or purposes are substantially related.

nship to the 

 

11 For example, 

performances by students at a school for the performing arts that are an essential part of the 

students’ training may be substantially related to the school’s educational function, and therefore 

income derived from charges for admission to such performances would be exempt from tax. 

 This tax exemption does not extend, however, to income derived by a charity from any 

unrelated trade or business regularly carried on by the organization, called "UBTI" or "unrelated 

business taxable income."12 Instead, a charity is taxed at the corporate rate on UBTI,13 which is 

7

 Treas. Reg. § 1.503(c)(3)-1(d)(1)(ii). 

8 Id.

9

 92 T.C. 1053 (1989). 

10 I.R.C. §§ 501(a), 513(a). 

11 Treas. Reg. § 1.513-1(d)(2). 

12 I.R.C. § 511(a). 

13 See, e.g., Elliot Knitwear Profit Sharing Plan v. Comm’r, 614 F.2d 347 (3d Cir. 1980); I.R.C. § 511. 

5 
determined as the gross income derived from such an unrelated trade or business, less the 

deductions otherwise allowed that are directly connected with carrying on that trade or 

business.14 An unrelated trade or business is a trade or business the conduct of which is not 

substantially related to the exercise or performance by the organization of its charitable, 

educational or other exempt purpose or function.15 

 There is an exclusion from UBTI for investment income, such as dividends, interest, 

royalties, rents, and capital gains.16 Thus, a charity may earn tax-free income within an 

investment portfolio. However, as an exception to this exclusion, investment income is included 

in UBTI if it is derived from or on account of debt-financed property.17 For example, dividends 

and gains from securities bought on margin would be included in UBTI.18 Additionally, 

investments funded by withdrawing against the cash value of life insurance policies are 

considered to be debt-financed.19

Reporting

 Under section 6033, organizations exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(a) 

generally are required to file annual information returns. Public charities file their information 

returns on Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax; private foundations file 

Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation or Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable Trust 

Treated as a Private Foundation. Certain exceptions to the filing requirements apply. For 

example, churches are not required to file annual information returns. In addition, organizations 

whose gross receipts are normally $25,000 or less are not required to file Form 990, although 

they are required to file an electronic notice (Form 990-N, Electronic Notice (e-Postcard) for 

Tax-Exempt Organizations Not Required to File Form 990 or 990-EZ) under new section 

6033(j), which was added to the Code by the PPA. 

B. Life Insurance 

Federal Income Tax Treatment

 In general, income earned from a contract that qualifies as a life insurance contract for 

Federal income tax purposes is taxed more favorably than income earned from other contracts or 

 

14 I.R.C. § 512(a)(1). 

15 I.R.C. § 513(a). 

16 I.R.C. § 512(b)(1)–(3). 

17 I.R.C. §§ 512(b)(4) & 514(a). 

18 I.R.C. § 512(b)(4); Henry E. Bartels and Nancy Horton Bartels Trust v. United States, 209 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 

2000). 

19 See Mose and Garrison Siskin Memorial Foundation v. United States, 790 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1986). 

6 
investments. This favorable treatment dates back almost one hundred years, to the earliest days 

of the Federal income tax law.20

 In 1984, Congress enacted section 7702, which defines a life insurance contract for all 

purposes of the Code as a contract that is a life insurance contract under the applicable law, 

provided that the contract either (1) meets the cash value accumulation test of section 7702(b), or 

(2) both meets the guideline premium requirements of section 7702(c) and falls within the cash 

value corridor of section 7702(d).21 A contract is a life insurance contract under the applicable 

law if it is regulated as a life insurance contract under the applicable State or foreign law. The 

cash value accumulation test, guideline premium limitations, and cash value corridor are 

actuarial tests that have the effect of limiting the investment orientation of a contract that may 

qualify as a life insurance contract. 

 If a contract qualifies as a life insurance contract under section 7702, amounts received 

under the contract by reason of the death of the insured are generally excluded from the gross 

income of the recipient.22 In the case of a transferee of the contract for value (such as a 

purchaser), this gross income exclusion is limited to the sum of the amount paid for the contract 

and the premiums and other amounts paid subsequently.23 The gross income exclusion is not 

limited in the case of a carryover basis transaction or in the case of a transfer to the insured, to a 

partner of the insured, to a partnership in which the insured is a partner, or to a corporation in 

which the insured is a shareholder or officer.24

 In addition, if a contract qualifies as a life insurance contract under section 7702, the 

inside build-up under the contract (that is, the increase in the contract's cash surrender value) is 

not taxed to the recipient unless and until it is received. If an amount is received under a life 

insurance contract "as an annuity," an exclusion ratio applies under section 72(b) to determine 

what portion of the amount is excluded from gross income because it is a return of the recipient's 

investment in the contract. If an amount is received under the contract other than as an annuity 

(for example, as a distribution, surrender, or redemption), the amount received is generally taxed 

only to the extent it exceeds the investment in the contract.25

7 

 

20 See, e.g., Income Tax Act of 1913, ch. 16, § IIB, 38 Stat. 114, 167 (gross income exclusion for death benefits 

under a life insurance contract); see also, Revenue Act of 1926, § 213(b)(2) (taxation of inside build-up upon 

surrender, implicitly not before). 

21 Prior to 1984, the definition of life insurance for Federal tax purposes depended on case law as there was no 

statutory definition. See, e.g., Helvering v. LeGierse, 312 U.S. 531 (1941); Ross v. Odom, 401 F.2d 464 (5th Cir. 

1968); Commissioner v. Treganowan, 183 F.2d 288 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Estate of Strauss v. 

Commissioner, 340 U.S. 853 (1950). 

22 I.R.C. § 101(a). 

23 I.R.C. § 101(a)(2). 

24 I.R.C. §§ 101(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B). 

25 I.R.C. §§ 72(e)(5)(C), (e)(5)(A)(ii). 
 Section 264 prevents a taxpayer from deducting premiums on a life insurance contract if 

the taxpayer is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the contract. Section 264 also disallows 

a deduction for interest on policy loans or other indebtedness with regard to a life insurance 

contract unless the contract insures the life of a key person of the taxpayer’s business. The key 

person exception applies only to the extent that the aggregate amount of such indebtedness does 

not exceed $50,000. In addition, the interest deductions of a business other than an insurance 

company are reduced to the extent interest is allocable to unborrowed policy cash values. An 

exception to this pro rata interest disallowance applies with respect to contracts that cover 

individuals who are officers, directors, employees, or 20-percent owners of the taxpayer. The 

reserve deductions of an insurance company are similarly limited.26

 In general, neither the qualification of a contract as a life insurance contract nor the 

application of sections 72 or 101 depends on the tax status (e.g., subject to tax or tax-exempt) of 

the owner of the contract. 

Insurable Interest under State Law

 As indicated above, under section 7702, qualification as a "life insurance contract under 

the applicable law" is a prerequisite to qualification as a life insurance contract for Federal 

income tax purposes. For this purpose, the "applicable law" is the applicable State or foreign law 

under which the contract is regulated. As a practical matter, this requirement means that an 

intended life insurance contract that runs afoul of a State's insurable interest requirements (or any 

other requirements) may not qualify as a life insurance contract and may not be entitled to the tax 

benefits that apply to life insurance contracts. The administration of insurable interest 

requirements by the various States is thus an important component of determining the treatment 

of a life insurance contract in which both a charity and an investor have an economic interest. 

 In order for a life insurance contract to be enforceable, the original policyholder must 

have an interest in the continued life of the insured (an "insurable interest"), rather than simply 

the possibility of gain on the insured's death. Every person has an insurable interest in his or her 

own life. Insurable interest also may arise in family and marriage relationships, and creditordebtor and other business relationships. 27

 The requirement of insurable interest is longstanding and limits the purchase of life 

insurance to those with an interest in the continued life of the insured. Absent such a 

requirement, a life insurance contract could create an incentive for the policyholder to kill the 

insured in order to collect the death benefit under the contract.28

 Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the business of insurance is subject to the laws of the 

several States, and generally is not subject to Federal law.29 Accordingly, the determination 

 

26 See I.R.C. §§ 807(a)(2)(B), (b)(1)(B) (life insurance companies); 832(b)(5)(B)(iii) (non-life insurance 

companies). 

27 See generally Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775, 779 (1881); Life Assurance Act 1774, 14 Geo. 3 c. 48. 

28 See generally Warnock, 104 U.S. 775 (1881).

29 See 15 U.S.C. § 1011 et seq. 

8 
whether an organization (such as a charity) has an insurable interest in an individual (such as a 

donor) is a matter of State law. In a number of States, a charity has an explicit insurable interest 

in a consenting donor. Some such State insurable interest statutes define a charity by reference 

to section 501(c)(3) of the Code;30 some define a charity by reference to a State statute;31 and, 

some define a charity for purposes of insurable interest by describing the activities an 

organization must be engaged in to have such an insurable interest.32

 In practice, it is not uncommon for a charity to own or otherwise be in a position to 

benefit from life insurance on the lives of its donors. For example, a donor may purchase a life 

insurance contract on his or her own life and donate the contract to a charity, or simply name the 

charity as a beneficiary. In this way, the charity will receive the death benefit under the contract 

upon the donor's death. Alternatively, a charity may itself secure life insurance on the life of a 

donor, based on the donor's history of giving, or based on a large but not-yet-fulfilled pledge, or, 

in the case of a celebrity, based on the donor's direct, personal assistance in fundraising. These 

traditional uses of life insurance by a charity generally do not raise public policy, insurance 

regulatory, or tax policy concerns. 

 As described further below, the PPA defined a class of life insurance contracts— 

“applicable insurance contracts”—that are part of certain ChOLI arrangements. An applicable 

insurance contract is generally a life insurance contract that is purchased based on a charity's 

insurable interest in its donor with money provided by an unrelated lender or investor. 

II. PENSION PROTECTION ACT

A. Statutory Provisions 

 From 2004 through 2006, transactions involving charities, investors, and life insurance 

contracts appeared to be widespread and increasing.33 In 2006, the Staff of the Joint Committee 

on Taxation (JCT) released a Technical Explanation of the provisions of the Pension Protection 

Act of 2006 (PPA) after it passed the House, but before it passed the Senate. The Technical 

Explanation indicated that there had been an increase in such transactions, citing 

contemporaneous news articles.34

 Section 1211 of the PPA added section 6050V to the Code, which required applicable 

exempt organizations to make an information return regarding acquisition of an interest in 

9 

 

30 See, e.g., ALASKA STAT. § 21.42.020 (2009); WIS. ADMIN. CODE INS. § 2.45 (2009). 

31 See, e.g., S.C. CODE ANN. § 38-63-100 (2009); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 20-1104 (2009). 

32 See, e.g., KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 304.14-050 (West 2009); OR. REV. STAT. ANN. § 743.030 (West 2009). 

33 See, e.g., Stephanie Strom, Charities Look to Benefit from a New Twist on Life Insurance, N.Y. TIMES, June 5, 

2004, at A10. 

34 Joint Committee on Taxation, “Technical Explanation of H.R. 4, The ‘Pension Protection Act of 2006,’ as 

passed by the House on July 28, 2006, and as considered by the Senate on August 3, 2006,” JCX-38-06, 109th 

Cong., 2d Sess., pg. 211, note 325 and accompanying text (August 3, 2006). 
certain life insurance contracts in a prescribed time, form, and manner. Section 6050V(d)(3) 

defines applicable exempt organizations as generally including religious, charitable, scientific, 

literary, educational, amateur sports or similar organizations, a fraternal society operating on a 

lodge system, a governmental organization (including an Indian Tribal Government), a Veterans’ 

organization, a cemetery company, or an employee stock ownership plan.35 Section 6050V(d)(1) 

defines a reportable acquisition as an acquisition by an applicable exempt organization of a direct 

or indirect interest in an applicable insurance contract in any case in which the acquisition is part 

of a structured transaction involving a pool of such contracts. 

 Section 6050V(d)(2) defines an applicable insurance contract as any life insurance, 

annuity, or endowment contract in which both an applicable exempt organization and a person 

other than an applicable exempt organization have directly or indirectly held an interest (whether 

or not at the same time). Exceptions apply if (i) all persons directly or indirectly holding an 

interest in the contract (other than the applicable exempt organization) have an insurable interest 

in the insured that is independent of the exempt organization, (ii) the sole interest of the exempt 

organization is as a named beneficiary, or (iii) the sole interest in the contract of each person 

other than an exempt organizations is as a trustee or beneficiary of certain trusts.36 

 Additionally, section 1211 of the PPA enacted penalties for failure to file an information 

return required by section 6050V of the Code. In addition to the traditional failure to file 

penalty, it imposed a penalty of the greater of $100 or 10 percent of the value of the benefit of 

any contract with respect to which information was required to be included on the return, in the 

case of intentional disregard of either the filing or correct information reporting requirement.37

The reporting requirement applied only to reportable acquisitions occurring after August 17, 

2006, and prior to August 18, 2008. Finally, the PPA also required the Treasury and the Service 

to undertake a study of ChOLI arrangements. 

B. Implementation of the PPA Provisions 

 To gather data for the study, and to facilitate the reporting requirements for applicable 

exempt organizations with respect to applicable insurance contracts under section 6050V, the 

Treasury and the Service designed proposed Form 8921, Transactions Involving a Pool of 

Applicable Insurance Contracts, and proposed Form 8922, Applicable Insurance Contract 

Information Return (for Tax-Exempt Organizations and Government Entities under Section 

6050V). 

The Service publicized the reporting requirements and requested comments on proposed 

Forms 8921 and 8922 by issuing Notice 2007-24.38 The Notice also solicited public comments 

on the congressionally-mandated study to be conducted by the Treasury and the Service under 

10 

 

35 Generally, this definition includes organizations described in § 170(c), 168(h)(2)(A)(iv), 2055(a), or 2522(a). 

36 See I.R.C. § 6050V(d)(2). 

37 See I.R.C. § 6721(e)(2)(D) as amended by PPA § 1211. 

38 2007-1 C.B. 750. 
PPA section 1211. In response to the notice, members of the public submitted four comment 

letters. 

 After reviewing the public responses, the Treasury and the Service simplified the 

reporting requirement by consolidating the required information on a single return, Form 8921, 

Applicable Insurance Contract Information Return (for Tax-Exempt Organizations and 

Government Entities under Section 6050V). Applicable exempt organizations were required to 

complete Form 8921 for reportable acquisitions of applicable insurance contracts which took 

place after August 17, 2006, but on or before August 17, 2008. 

Most applicable exempt organizations are required by section 6033 (discussed above) to 

file Form 990. The 2007 Form 990 (line 89f) and the instructions to the 2007 Form 990 (page 

49) called attention to an exempt organization's obligation to file Form 8921. The instructions to 

the 2008 Form 990 (page 69) again identified Form 8921 as one of several "Other Forms that 

May Be Required." 

C. Public Comments 

The following is a summary of the comment letters responding to Notice 2007-24. 

First, one comment letter argued that ChOLI arrangements pervert the spirit of charitable 

tax law and State insurable interest laws and enrich investors at the risk of the charities’ taxexempt status. 

Second, a comment letter from a trade association supported the use of life insurance 

products as a fundraising method by charities. While the comment stated that this is good public 

policy when supported by State insurable interest laws, the letter expressed concern with abusive 

arrangements where third parties without an insurable interest finance the life insurance policy. 

The comment letter opposed the use of life insurance policies in arrangements where any party 

with an insurable interest serves as an accommodation party or conduit. 

Third, a comment letter from an industry consultant stated that life insurance is a 

traditional and respected instrument for philanthropy for non-profit organizations. The comment 

letter supported full reporting to the Service of information regarding these insurance 

arrangements, provided the information is kept confidential by the Service. The comment letter 

requested that the forms used for reporting not be too onerous. 

Finally, a comment letter from a charitable organization stated that it relies heavily on 

insurable interests in its members. The comment letter proposed a modified single form to 

replace the original two forms proposed by Notice 2007-24. This comment letter also expressed 

concern about the confidentiality of the information reported. 

III. CHOLI ARRANGEMENTS

Having reviewed the applicable law, the report now outlines various types of ChOLI 

arrangements. ChOLI arrangements have been described in various sources (compiled in the 

Bibliography, below). An overview of these arrangements is presented in this part, followed by 

more specific descriptions of several different types. 

11 
A. Overview of Transactions 

 Notwithstanding the wide differences among the known ChOLI arrangements, each 

transaction at issue here, at a minimum, includes four elements: (1) a charity that has an 

insurable interest in a large number of donors; (2) investors who seek a profitable return on 

capital by investing, directly or indirectly, in life insurance contracts; (3) promoters and sponsors 

of ChOLI arrangements; and (4) a pool of life insurance contracts insuring the lives of a pool of 

individuals.39 In general, the charity provides its insurable interest in donors, investors provide 

capital to purchase life insurance contracts, the promoters bring the parties together (for a fee), 

and the charity and investors divide the return on the contracts (primarily death benefits) 

according to the terms of the particular arrangement. There may also be a financing group, 

independent of the investors, that provides funds needed to pay premiums prior to any sale or 

assignment of the contract. 

 The popularity of reported ChOLI arrangements appears to have been concentrated 

during the period from 2000 through 2005. Since then, these transactions appear to have drawn 

less attention and the number may have declined. Moreover, the required reporting under section 

6050V did not generate much information, as discussed in Section IV of this report. 

Nevertheless, it is possible to categorize ChOLI arrangements as follows. The most basic form 

of ChOLI arrangement involves the direct ownership of life insurance contracts by a charity. 

More complex arrangements involve the indirect ownership of life insurance contracts by a 

charity through a trust or other special purpose investment vehicle. In addition, some ChOLI 

arrangements—typically those involving indirect ownership through an investment vehicle—

include the purchase of annuity contracts as well as life insurance contracts. These various 

categories of ChOLI arrangements are discussed further below. 

B. Arrangements Wherein the Charity Owns Life Insurance Contracts 

 The simplest form of ChOLI (or FOLI, referring to Foundation-Owned Life Insurance) 

arrangement involves the direct ownership of life insurance policies by a charity. Most of the 

reported transactions involve bona fide charities with an established roster of committed donors. 

For example, a New York Times article discussed an 81-year-old woman who had donated 

millions of dollars to the United Way over the course of her lifetime.40 To benefit the United 

Way upon her death, she allowed herself to be insured for $70 million in return for some portion 

of the death benefits going to the charity.41 The article’s details on the transaction are sparse, but 

there were investors involved who received a large portion of the death benefits. The article 

noted that the woman had participated in more than one of “such pools.”42

12 

 

 A small number of transactions may involve "charities" that were specifically formed in 

order to participate in life insurance programs. For example, the founder of the Coachella Valley 

39 In the remainder of this report, references to ChOLI are to arrangements that include at least these four elements. 

40 Stephanie Strom, Charities Look to Benefit from a New Twist on Life Insurance, N.Y. TIMES, June 5, 2004. 

41 Id.

42 Id.
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in California has acknowledged that 

“[t]he charity itself was really housed to form a home for this [ChOLI] program.”43 

 The structure of the ChOLI arrangement wherein the charity owns the policies directly is 

fairly straightforward but typically involves the charity borrowing the funds used to purchase the 

life insurance policies. For example, in the case of the Coachella Valley SPCA, the charity 

recruited some one thousand participants (based on their age, gender, and the insurance 

company’s estimate of their remaining life expectancy) each of whom agreed to have life 

insurance purchased on his or her life in return for allocation of a $25,000 death benefit to the 

beneficiaries of the participant. The SPCA then borrowed about $5 million annually at 6.5 

percent interest from the Insurance Co. of North America (at that time a unit of Cigna Corp.) to 

pay the premiums on policies of $275,000 on each of the participants’ lives. On the death of the 

last of the participants, $275 million in death benefits would have been paid, of which $25 

million would have been paid to the beneficiaries of the participants. About $190 million dollars 

was expected to be paid to Insurance Co. of North America to repay the annual $5 million loans 

used to finance the premium payments. The remainder, expected to be $60 million, would 

belong to the charity. 

 The Coachella Valley SPCA was a client of a company named FOLI that, beginning in 

1995, marketed plans that called for the charity to borrow or otherwise provide the funds used to 

purchase the life insurance policies.44 Pursuant to such an arrangement, another FOLI client, the 

Osteopathic Medical Center of Texas, borrowed $6 million and put up $2 million of its own 

money to purchase 1,239 life insurance policies on its employees and supporters.45 The Center 

expected to net roughly $200 million over forty years, the bulk of which would start to accrue in 

thirty years.46

 In general, the investors in a ChOLI arrangement are seeking the profit potential that 

actuarial arbitrage can provide but that is otherwise inaccessible due to the insurable interest 

requirement. In some cases, for example, investors may seek an investment return that is not 

correlated with the performance of equities, bonds, commodities, or other financial products. 

The investors’ returns may instead be correlated with mortality of a group of individuals.47

In other cases, assuming the participants die at the actuarially determined rate, the profits 

from this class of ChOLI arrangement derive from what is arguably underpricing of the life 

insurance policies. Underpricing can occur because of a difference between the assumed lapse 

rate anticipated by the actuaries and the actual lapse rate if the policies are owned by investors. 

13 

 

43 Theo Francis & Ellen E. Schultz, Dying to Donate: Charities Invest in Death Benefits, WALL ST. J., February 6, 

2003. 

44 Debra E. Blum, For Charities, a New Twist in Raising Money: Corporate Investors in Life-Insurance Policies, 

CHRONICLE OF PHILANTHROPY, August 12, 1999. 

45 Id.

46 Id.

47 For a discussion of this issue in the context of Stranger-Owned Life Insurance, see Robert A.N. Cudd, Recent 

Developments Affecting Investors in Life Insurance, TAX NOTES, February 8, 2010, at footnote 3. 
The calculations that factor into policy pricing assume that a certain percentage of policyholders 

will allow their policies to lapse at some point. For instance, often parents will allow life 

insurance policies on their own lives to lapse once their children reach adulthood and/or financial 

independence.48 In contrast, because investors’ returns rely on holding the policies until the 

deaths of the insured, investors generally do not allow policies to lapse. If a lapse assumption is 

used to price an insurance policy, and the policy is never allowed to lapse, the policy will have 

been underpriced relative to the price at which it would have been offered had the actuaries 

known that the policy definitely was going to be renewed until the death of the insured. 

Although the profit potential may be small on a single policy (and the longevity risk prohibitive), 

recruiting enough participants to provide for a reasonably predictable death rate can, in theory, 

lead to a predictable return. In 2006, a presenter at the annual meeting of the Society of 

Actuaries noted that one way to deal with an expanding definition of “insurable interest” and life 

insurance held for investment by charities or others would be to assume a higher percentage of 

renewal (i.e., a lower lapse rate).49

 If the policies in ChOLI arrangements were priced “properly” (e.g., assuming a lapse rate 

more appropriate for policies held by investors), these arrangements generally would provide the 

returns promised to the charities only if the participants die earlier, on average, than the actuaries 

anticipated. For instance, Vaughn Henry, an estate planner who has written on ChOLI 

arrangements, has noted that life insurance as an investment will do better than other investment 

vehicles “only if people are willing to die early.”50

 There is no information available about the long-term success of plans such as those 

marketed by FOLI for the participating charities. As of 2003, the participants in the FOLI 

arrangement entered into by the Osteopathic Medical Center of Texas had not died at the rate 

anticipated. The arrangement entered into by the Coachella Valley SPCA ended in 1999 when 

the Insurance Co. of North America was acquired and the policies were “surrendered” in 

connection with the acquisition.51

C. Arrangements Wherein a Trust or Other Special-Purpose Vehicle Owns the Life 

Insurance Contract 

14 

 

 In more complex ChOLI arrangements, the charity does not directly own the life 

insurance policies but rather holds them through a trust or other special-purpose vehicle (SPV) 

set up specifically to hold the policies. Investors can then own fixed-income shares or debt 

instruments issued by the trust or SPV. 

48 See Charles Duhigg, Late in Life, Finding a Bonanza in Life Insurance, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 17, 2006. 

49 John Tiller, You Bet Your Life: Insurable Interest in Life Insurance 19–20, presentation to the Society of 

Actuaries, Oct. 17, 2006, http://www.soa.org/files/pdf/094bk_rev-annual.pdf; see also Thomas F. A. Hetherington et 

al., SPIN Life: Hedging Insurable Interest, at 7, White Paper Authored by Attorneys then with Bracewell & Giuliani 

LLP, available at www.bracewellgiuliani.com (search “SPIN Life”). 

50 Theo Francis & Ellen E. Schultz, Dying to Donate: Charities Invest in Death Benefits, WALL ST. J., February 6, 

2003. 

51 Id.
 In the so-called L.I.F.E. Heritage plan, for instance, the proceeds from the sale of fixedincome shares or debt instruments were used to purchase five thousand life insurance policies 

totaling more than $2 billion on the lives of the charity’s donors.52 Each year for thirty years, the 

first $1 million of death benefits goes to the charity with the remainder (roughly $2.2 billion) 

going to the investors at the end of the 30-year period (a return of roughly 8.3 percent on an 

annual basis).53 The donors agreed to the arrangement in return for a modest amount of life 

insurance coverage provided to the donors at no cost.54 Capital Partners, the plan’s sponsor, 

netted $1.4 million when the plan was put in place.55 Assuming the payouts occur as the L.I.F.E. 

Heritage sponsors project, a charity would receive approximately $30 million simply for 

providing access to the insurable interest that the charity has in its donors. 

 Depending on the terms of the trust or other special-purpose vehicle, the motivations of 

both the investors and the charity may be the same as motivations of those parties in an 

arrangement wherein the charity is the direct owner of the underlying policies. As in the case of 

charity-owned policies, the returns from these arrangements are not guaranteed. Success, from 

the point of view of the charity and the investors, depends upon a fundamental mispricing of the 

policies. 

D. Arrangements Involving Both Annuities and Life Insurance Contracts 

 Certain ChOLI arrangements involve combinations of life insurance and life annuities, 

referred to in this report as “combination arrangements.” In these arrangements, the potential for 

earnings is based on economic arbitrage between a life insurance policy and a life annuity on the 

same individual. Thus, combination arrangements may anticipate that the charity market the 

program to its older donors with “excess insurance capacity.”56 Generally, combination 

arrangements are funded by borrowing from a bank or a coalition of investors, and promotional 

materials may describe them as a method for fundraising involving no cash outlay by either the 

charity or the individual insured. 

 In a typical combination arrangement, charities or licensed insurance agents solicit the 

participation of consenting individuals who allow a statutory business trust or other entity to 

15 

 

52 J. J. MACNAB, WRITTEN STATEMENT BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 15 (June 22, 2004). 

53 “At the end of 30 years, investors would expect to receive $2.2-billion – or a return of 8.3 per cent. What the 

investors receive can vary, though, as the cash value of the policies would depend on investment performance over 

30 years.” Debra E. Blum, For Charities, a New Twist in Raising Money: Corporate Investors in Life-Insurance 

Policies, CHRONICLE OF PHILANTHROPY, August 12, 1999. 

54 Id.

55 Id.

56 The underwriting guidelines for most life insurance companies typically limit the total amount of life insurance 

that may be in force with regard to the life of an individual, based on factors that are specific to that individual. See

Kenneth E. Black, Jr. & Harold D. Skipper, Jr., LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE 650 (13th ed. 2000). A frequently 

cited guideline is that aggregate life insurance on an individual should not exceed a stated percentage of an 

individual’s net worth. 
purchase life insurance and life annuity contracts on their lives.57 Investors purchase securities 

of the trust or other entity, and charities own a second class of securities. The payments received 

from the annuity contracts are partially taxed according to the usual life annuity rules, while the 

net-of-tax proceeds are used to provide investors returns on their investments, to pay the trust’s 

expenses, and to pay the premiums on the life insurance contracts. As consenting individuals 

die, the death benefits primarily are used to repay investors the portion of their initial investment 

represented by the policies on the deceased individuals. 

 In general, approximately 5 percent of the death benefits are paid to the charities 

specifically designated by the consenting individuals.58 When the last consenting individual 

dies, the trust pays any remaining expenses and then distributes any remaining funds to the 

designated charities. The trust then dissolves. As structured, the consenting individuals do not 

provide any direct contributions and incur no risk to participate in the combination arrangement. 

Their participation simply allows the trust to use the insurable interest they have in their lives. 

 Combination arrangements take advantage of pricing differences in the life insurance and 

annuity markets. They produce a profit if: (1) the annuity payments exceed the periodic life 

insurance premiums and debt service paid to investors or other lenders; and (2) the death benefits 

will exceed the amounts initially invested (and then used to pay promoter fees and to procure the 

life insurance policies and annuities). This can occur by virtue of arbitrage based on the 

differing mortality assumptions used in pricing life insurance policies versus life annuities. 

Acting conservatively, insurers would tend to exaggerate longevity for pricing annuity contracts 

and exaggerate mortality for the purpose of pricing life insurance contracts. For successful 

arbitrage to occur under a combination arrangement, effectively the opposite must occur; annuity 

pricing must reflect a relatively higher expected mortality than life insurance. 

 Under a combination arrangement, the arbitrage profits are guaranteed, in the sense that 

the rate of return to investors on a combination arrangement is independent of the date of death 

of the insured. This means the promised investment returns are guaranteed (given solvency of 

the insurance companies), but the maturity of the investor’s investments is subject to uncertainty. 

Thus, under a combination arrangement, the promoter need not “outpredict” the insurance 

company actuaries; the promoter needs only to find inconsistent pricing across different insurers. 

Under other types of ChOLI, the uncertainty of mortality extends to investment return risk; in 

general, the longer-lived is the insured, the lower is the resultant return on the investment. 

IV. DATA COLLECTION

As noted above, section 1211 of the PPA added section 6050V to the Code, which 

required applicable exempt organizations to make an information return regarding acquisition of 

an interest in certain life insurance contracts pursuant to certain ChOLI arrangements. In 

response, the Service issued Form 8921, Applicable Insurance Contract Information Return (for 

Tax-Exempt Organizations and Government Entities under Section 6050V). Applicable exempt 

16 

 

57 Tenn. Op. Att’y Gen. 04-168 (Nov. 23, 2004). 

58 See id.
organizations were required to complete Form 8921 for reportable acquisitions of applicable 

insurance contracts that took place after August 17, 2006, but on or before August 17, 2008. 

Through December 2009, the Service has received Form 8921 submissions from fewer 

than ten filers. Under taxpayer privacy laws, disclosure of information from individual returns is 

not permitted, and the small number of responses precludes analysis or aggregation in any 

meaningful fashion.59 In any case, such a limited data set would not support significant 

inferences. Instead, this part of the report discusses possible reasons for the small number of 

submissions. 

It is not clear why so few Form 8921 filings were received by the Service. It is unlikely 

that applicable exempt organizations were unaware of the section 6050V reporting requirement. 

In Notice 2007-24, the Service highlighted the reporting requirement and requested comments 

both on the study that was to be prepared by the Treasury and the Service and on proposed Form 

8921 (and 8922, as discussed above). Additionally, in 2007, both Form 990 (line 89f) and the 

instructions to Form 990 (page 49) called attention to an exempt organization's obligation to file 

Form 8921. In 2008, the instructions to Form 990 (page 69) again identified Form 8921 as one 

of several "Other Forms that May Be Required." 

In particular, the 2007 Form 990, on line 89f, asked: “Did the organization acquire a 

direct or indirect interest in any applicable insurance contract?” There was an affirmative answer 

on over five hundred returns, representing a wide variety of types of organizations, such as 

hospitals, corporations, trusts, universities, educational organizations, community foundations, 

internationally-oriented charities, fraternities and sororities. It is unclear why these returns 

answered yes but did not file the required Form 8921. 

Any organization that is found to be delinquent in filing Form 8921 would be subject to 

penalty under section 6721(a), or in the case of intentional disregard of the filing requirement or 

correct information reporting requirement, a penalty under section 6721(e)(2)(D), equal to the 

greater of $100 or 10 percent of the value of the benefit of any contract with respect to which 

information is required to be reported. Regardless of how the value of that benefit is determined, 

there appears to have been little incentive for an applicable exempt organization to risk the 

penalty, since no tax liability was at stake60 and compliance costs were limited to completing a 

two-page form for each applicable transaction. The potential applicability of a penalty in any 

particular case would be ascertained in the course of ongoing compliance activity that, depending 

on the confidential facts and circumstances of any particular organization or taxpayer, could 

involve correspondence, compliance checks, or examination. Unless there is reasonable cause 

for failure to file Form 8921, a penalty for failure to file would follow. 

One possible explanation for the discrepancy between the number of affirmative answers 

to the question on Form 990 and the number of Forms 8921 is that some organizations 

misinterpreted the question. The Instructions clarify that the question refers to “an applicable 

17 

 

59 For provisions governing public reports based on return information, refer generally to I.R.C. § 6103(a), (b)(2); 

Church of Scientology of Calif. v. IRS, 484 U.S. 9, 16 (1987), aff’g 792 F.2d 153 (D.C. Cir. 1986). 

60 Under section 6050V, the status of a contract as an applicable insurance contract does not increase the tax 

liability of the applicable exempt organization. 
insurance contract which is a part of a structured transaction involving a pool of such contracts.” 

However, it may be possible for an organization to acquire an applicable insurance contract 

within the meaning of section 6050V(d)(2), but not in a "reportable acquisition" within the 

meaning of section 6050V(d)(1) (i.e., not in a structured transaction involving a pool of such 

contracts). An organization that interpreted the question more broadly than intended (i.e., to be 

seeking information about all applicable insurance contracts, whether or not part of a structured 

transaction) could have answered line 89f affirmatively without filing a concomitant Form 8921. 

The Service is making the appropriate inquiries to determine if these responders should also have 

filed Form 8921. 

Alternatively, the small number of Forms 8921 received (assuming for this purpose that 

the proper number was received) may be attributable to one or more of the following factors: 

First, the market for investor-owned pools of life insurance contracts may have shifted from 

contracts originated by charities to contracts originated directly by insured individuals. Since 

2006, the market has seen an increase in transactions in which an individual is approached by a 

promoter and encouraged to purchase a life insurance policy with a nonrecourse premium loan. 

If the individual dies during the term of the loan, a portion of the death benefits under the policy 

is used to pay off the loan and the remainder is paid to the individual's heirs. If the individual is 

still alive at the end of the loan term, the policy is sold or transferred to the lender. The 

individual thus enjoys either free insurance protection or some other economic benefit for 

participating in the program.61 It is possible that an increase in these transactions—and in 

traditional life settlement transactions in which existing policies are purchased from elderly 

individuals who no longer need them—reduced the need for investors to recruit exempt 

organizations and their donors to gain access to large pools of life insurance policies. 

Second, some exempt organizations may have grown concerned about the negative 

publicity surrounding these arrangements. For the same reason that gambling on human lives 

has long been contrary to public policy, a number of publications have questioned the propriety 

of a charity's participation in a transaction in which it essentially sells to investors insurable 

interests in its donors.62 Concern about such negative publicity may have deterred some exempt 

organizations from moving forward with arrangements involving investors and life insurance on 

their donors. 

Third, it is possible that some transactions were either accelerated before the effective 

date of the reporting requirement, or deferred until after it terminated. Even though the reporting 

requirement had no effect on the income tax liability of the applicable exempt organization, 

some organizations may have preferred not to engage in these transactions during the two-year 

information reporting period to avoid scrutiny of the transactions or of their other activities. It is 

also possible that the number of transactions began to drop as early as 2005 in response to 

various related excise tax proposals. 

Additionally, as noted above, many of the arrangements rely on exploiting potential 

mispricing in the life insurance and life annuity markets. Because profits from these types of 

18 

 

61 See Anne Tergesen, The High Price of Free Insurance, BUSINESS WEEK, April 23, 2007, at 106. 

62 See, e.g., Stephan R. Leimberg, Stranger-Owned Life Insurance: Killing the Goose That Lays Golden Eggs, INS.

TAX REV. 811 (May 2005). 
arbitrage come at the expense of the life insurance companies, some large life insurance 

companies have encouraged their agents to cease entry into combination arrangements.63 It is 

also possible that the companies have begun to change the assumed lapse rate used to price life 

insurance policies, as at least one actuary suggested in 2006 at the Society of Actuaries annual 

meeting.64 This would reduce the amount of profit that can be gained by entering into these 

arrangements and therefore would be expected to cause a decrease in the number of 

arrangements. 

Whatever the reason for the small number of filings, the Forms 8921 received provide 

insufficient data to draw conclusions about the participation of charities in these arrangements. 

Section 1211 of the PPA directs that the study address (1) the use by tax-exempt organizations of 

applicable insurance contracts for the purpose of sharing with investors the benefits of the 

organization's insurable interest in individuals insured under such contracts, and (2) whether such 

activities are consistent with the tax-exempt status of such organizations. The number of 

responses received represents too small a sample to meaningfully inform the tax policy debate 

concerning the propriety of an exempt organization’s raising funds by participating in these 

transactions. 

V.TAX IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY ISSUES 

This part of the report discusses federal income tax implications of ChOLI arrangements 

and tax policy issues that may be of continuing concern to Congress. 

A. Exempt Status and the Sharing of Insurable Interest 

 As described in Part I, an organization's qualification as a charity bears on both its 

Federal tax exemption and its insurable interest in its donors under State law. Generally, an 

organization that is organized and operated as a charity according to section 501(c)(3) of the 

Code, Treasury Regulations and common law is exempt from Federal income tax. Moreover, if 

the Service recognizes an organization as a charity, i.e., a tax-exempt organization described in 

section 501(c)(3), the organization may have an insurable interest in its donors pursuant to State 

insurance law. 

 Because a charity has an insurable interest in a potentially large group of people 

(generally, its donors), the charity may purchase a large number of life insurance contracts, 

benefiting from the inside build-up under the contracts and the death benefits ultimately 

received. To generate this return, however, capital is necessary to pay premiums on the 

contracts. ChOLI arrangements are designed to allow investors to supply the necessary capital, 

while the charity supplies the insurable interest. Ultimately, the charity and investors can divide 

the proceeds. 

19 

 

63 See id. at 817 (noting that the American Council of Life Insurers, Association for Advanced Life Underwriting, 

and National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors all have spoken out strongly against arrangements 

combining life insurance and annuities). 

64 John Tiller, You Bet Your Life: Insurable Interest in Life Insurance 19–20, presentation to the Society of 

Actuaries, Oct. 17, 2006, http://www.soa.org/files/pdf/094bk_rev-annual.pdf. 
 Significant public policy and insurance regulatory issues may arise, however, with regard 

to life insurance contracts, such as applicable insurance contracts, that are purchased based on a 

charity's insurable interest in a pool of its donors but in which investors with no relationship to 

the donors also have an interest.65 In the regulatory context, for example, the State of New York 

Insurance Department concluded that an arrangement in which a trust would be sponsored by 

one or more charities (the Sponsor) for the purpose of borrowing money and purchasing life 

insurance policies (Policies) and single-premium annuities (Annuities) on a pool of donors did 

not conform with that State's insurable interest requirements. The Department's opinion letter 

noted, in particular, that "a significant portion of the proceeds of the Policies and Annuities must 

be diverted to provide the bondholders with a return on their investment," and that the Sponsor's 

ownership interest" is compromised by the fact that the Sponsor must assign its rights under the 

Policies and Annuities to the Issuer Trust, which in turn must pledge them as collateral."66

 For similar reasons, an organization's involvement in a ChOLI arrangement may call into 

question its compliance with the organizational and operational tests for exempt status, i.e., 

whether the organization is organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes, and 

whether it has violated the prohibitions on inurement and substantial private benefit. 

Organization and Operation Exclusively for Exempt Purposes

A ChOLI arrangement may be viewed as a sharing of insurable interest in donors, which 

is a charitable attribute, with investors, who are not charities. At some point, the pool of life 

insurance contracts in which a charity invests may be so large, may cover so many individuals, 

and may require so substantial an investment by unrelated investors, that the organization can no 

longer be treated as organized and operated "exclusively" for charitable purposes, as required by 

section 501(c)(3). Rather, the organization may effectively be serving an unrelated purpose—the 

facilitation of investment by private investors in life insurance contracts. Even though some 

States treat a charity as having an insurable interest in any consenting donor, in some cases the 

charity's actual relationships with its insured donors may be so attenuated that those relationships 

in fact are more valuable in enabling the purchase of life insurance than in providing funding for 

the charity's operations. This issue is even more relevant where the charity must borrow funds in 

order to afford the premiums paid to insure its donors. Although the fact of borrowing does not 

necessarily bear on insurable interest, such leverage permits the purchase of life insurance that is 

arguably beyond the means of the charity or the needs of the charity (other than to meet financial 

obligations to lenders or investors) and disproportionate to the contributions of the underlying 

donors. 

Resolution of this issue may depend in part on whether the charity's financial 

involvement in the arrangement is viewed on a "gross" basis (taking into account the total death 

benefits and other returns on the underlying life insurance contracts), or on a "net" basis (taking 

 

65 The lack of a relationship between the investors on the one hand, and the donors and charities on the other, 

distinguishes such a transaction from that commonly referred to as a "charitable split dollar" arrangement. See, e.g.,

I.R.C. § 170(f)(10).

66 State of New York Insurance Department, opinion letter dated July 7, 2003. Other States have interpreted their 

insurable interest requirements less strictly, as evidenced by the number of reported transactions involving charities 

and unrelated investors. 

20 
into account only the financial returns that are enjoyed by the charity). Existing legal authority 

does not address this question. A "net" approach, however, would arguably obscure in many 

cases the extent of a charity's role in facilitating private investment and the significance of that 

role relative to the charity's exempt functions—difficult though that may be to measure. While it 

is impossible to generalize in the absence of meaningful data, it would appear that a charity's 

participation in a ChOLI arrangement may conflict in many cases with the "exclusive” purpose 

requirement. 

Inurement and Private Benefit

 By all accounts, the amount of money that flows to charities from ChOLI arrangements is 

much smaller than that which is anticipated to go to the private investors.67 For example, in the 

L.I.F.E. Heritage plan discussed above, at the beginning of the arrangement, the charity 

anticipated $30 million over the course of thirty years ($1 million per year).68 The investors, 

however, expected to receive $2.2 billion over that same time period.69 Thus, at the beginning of 

the arrangement, in undiscounted terms, the charity expected to receive only slightly more than 1 

percent of the benefits from the arrangement. Similarly, in the life insurance/annuity 

combination arrangements described above, only approximately 5 percent of the death benefits 

went to the participating charities.70

 The disparity in the relative returns derived by the investors in a ChOLI arrangement and 

the participating charity raises the question of whether these arrangements inherently violate the 

proscriptions on inurement and substantial private benefit. On the one hand, the respective 

contributions of the charity (insurable interest) and the investors (capital) may be hard to value, 

and thus there may be no obvious principle by which to prorate the proceeds between them. On 

the other hand, if the effect of the arrangement is that the charity serves merely as a vehicle 

through which investors can generate profits, that presents a question of charitable status. 

Inurement. As discussed previously, Federal tax law provides that no part of the net 

earnings of a charity shall inure to the benefit of any individual who has a private interest in the 

charity’s activities (a so-called insider). Assuming that a ChOLI arrangement is otherwise 

permissible, it could run afoul of this proscription on inurement if charity officers or other 

individuals in a position to influence the charity’s operation became investors or otherwise 

profited from the arrangement. This determination would necessarily be made, however, on a 

case-by-case basis, taking into account the facts of the particular situation. While new general 

restrictions could be devised to preclude all charity officers and other persons with influence 

 

67 One commenter has said that after the death of the insured and the payment of all expenses, “the charity 

receives little, or nothing.” VAUGHN W. HENRY, WRITTEN STATEMENT TO SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 5, 

available at http://finance.senate.gov/Roundtable/Vaughn%20Henry.pdf (last accessed November 2, 2009). 

68 J. J. MACNAB, WRITTEN STATEMENT BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 15 (June 22, 2004). 

69 Debra E. Blum, For Charities, a New Twist in Raising Money: Corporate Investors in Life-Insurance Policies, 

CHRONICLE OF PHILANTHROPY, August 12, 1999. 

70 See, e.g., J. J. MACNAB, WRITTEN STATEMENT BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 17 (June 22, 2004) 

(detailing four life insurance/annuity combination arrangements in which the payout expected to reach the charities 

were approximately 5 percent of the total death benefit anticipated in the arrangements). 

21 
from investing in ChOLI arrangements, the Treasury and the Service are not aware of any 

evidence to suggest that inurement is a systemic problem with these arrangements or that 

existing law is insufficient to address it. 

Private Benefit. Treasury Regulations also stipulate that a charity may not be organized 

or operated for the benefit of private interests. A private benefit may be permissible if it is 

merely incidental to charitable activity, but a substantial private benefit is impermissible.71 

 A ChOLI arrangement is designed as an investment vehicle and by its nature benefits 

private investors. This private benefit derives in large part from the use of the charity's insurable 

interest in its donors, an attribute it would not have in the absence of its charitable activities and, 

in most cases, its concomitant tax-exempt status. Questions presented by this circumstance 

include whether this private benefit may be substantial enough in any particular case, in 

comparison to the charity’s exempt activities, to justify revocation of the charity’s tax-exempt 

status or, more generally, whether charities should simply be prohibited from engaging in these 

transactions in order to preclude this possibility.72 

 Although particular arrangements differ, the fact that most ChOLI arrangements involve 

a large pool of insurance contracts tends to mean that the value of the overall investment is 

substantial. Moreover, as noted above, the proportion of the overall return from the arrangement 

that is allocated to the investors is typically much greater than that allocated to the charity. 

 Two factors may explain this disproportionality. First, in many of the arrangements, the 

charity bears no risk of loss. For example, in the L.I.F.E. Heritage plan, the charity receives the 

first $1 million each year in death benefits.73 Thus, if there is a substantial risk that annual death 

benefits will be $1 million or less, the investors would bear a much greater amount of risk than 

the charities do. That greater risk may justify a correspondingly larger expected return. 

 Second, charities often do not have the financial ability (or, perhaps, the risk-tolerance) to 

enter into ChOLI arrangements with their own funds. At least one of the charities entering into a 

FOLI with outside investors did so because it could not afford to pay the premiums on its own.74 

Thus in at least some cases the presence of the investors is necessary for the charity to receive 

any returns. 

22 

 

It is not clear, however, that alternative investments could not provide charities with 

returns of comparable magnitude and risk, without requiring the involvement of substantial 

numbers of a charity’s donors and substantial amounts of third party funds. In fact, the apparent 

decline in the popularity of ChOLI arrangements over the past five years or so suggests that 

charities have indeed opted for alternative investments. Comparison of the private benefit from 

any particular ChOLI arrangement to the exempt activities of the charity involved necessarily 

71 See generally Treas. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(1)(ii). 

72 Cf. United Cancer Council, Inc. v. Comm’r, 165 F.3d 1173 (7th Cir. 1999). 

73 J. J. MACNAB, WRITTEN STATEMENT BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 15 (June 22, 2004). 

74 See, e.g., Theo Francis & Ellen E. Schultz, Dying to Donate: Charities Invest in Death Benefits, WALL ST. J., 

February 6, 2003 (quoting Executive Director of Texas hospital who said the hospital “didn’t have the money” to 

invest in a FOLI plan without borrowing). 
requires an examination of the particular facts. Moreover, as described earlier, relatively little 

information was provided through the PPA information reporting requirement. Nonetheless, the 

available evidence suggests that the private benefit from ChOLI arrangements tends to be 

substantial in absolute terms and that potentially offsetting benefits to the charities, such as 

providing a type of investment return that would otherwise be unavailable, are not significant. 

B. Income from ChOLI Arrangements as UBTI 

 As described earlier, an organization described in section 501(c)(3), a charity, is exempt 

from Federal income taxation not only on the contributions and gifts it receives, but also on the 

income it derives from the performance of its exempt function. This exemption does not extend, 

however, to UBTI, which is the gross income derived from an unrelated trade or business 

regularly carried on by it, less the deductions otherwise allowed that are directly connected with 

carrying on that trade or business. 

 Whether a charity's returns under a ChOLI arrangement constitute UBTI is not entirely 

clear, due in part to factual differences among the various arrangements and in part to the UBTI 

provisions themselves. In some cases, the arrangement may be treated as debt-financed, because 

the charity has borrowed funds in order to acquire the life insurance policies and, in the case of 

combination arrangements, annuities. In those cases, net returns from the arrangement would be 

UBTI, except to the extent they are otherwise excluded from gross income pursuant to the Code 

provisions governing the taxation of life insurance. Thus, UBTI would not include the death 

benefits under a life insurance policy or the value of the inside buildup, both of which are 

generally excluded from gross income.75 If, however, the charity receives payments under 

annuities acquired with borrowed funds, those payments generally would be taxable as UBTI. 

 In the absence of debt-financing, UBTI would include gross income from the 

arrangement only if it constitutes an "unrelated trade or business" that is "regularly carried on." 

Although many ChOLI arrangements may not rise to the level of a "trade or business" that is 

"regularly carried on," it is possible that in some cases the business activities conducted in 

insuring a charity’s donors could rise to the level of a regularly carried on trade or business.76

 Moreover, if the charity is not the owner of the life insurance contracts, it is necessary to 

determine not only whether the charity's involvement rises to the level of a "trade or business" 

that is "regularly carried on," but also the nature of the charity’s return under the arrangements, 

i.e., whether it constitutes investment income. Economically, the better characterization of a 

23 

 

75 I.R.C. § 61(a) defines gross income to include income from whatever sources derived, including income from 

life insurance and endowment contracts, except as otherwise provided in subtitle A (Income Taxes). I.R.C. § 101(a) 

excludes from gross income amounts received under a life insurance contract by reason of the death of the insured, 

or a lesser amount in the case of a transferee of the contract for value. I.R.C. § 101 is part of subtitle A of the Code. 

76 See, e.g., United States v. American Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105 (1986) (a bar association’s activities in 

operating a group life insurance plan were substantial enough to give rise to UBTI). Additionally, in TAM 

9223002, a charity provided a list of its members to an insurance company, advised its members of the availability 

of insurance coverage, and received a share of net profits from a rebate program operated by the insurance company. 

The IRS ruled that the three-prong UBTI test was satisfied, and therefore the rebates were UBTI. I.R.S. Tech. Adv. 

Mem. 92-23-002 (1992). 
charity's return under many ChOLI arrangements may be as compensation from investors for 

providing access to the charity's insurable interest in its donors. This would suggest that, for tax 

policy purposes, any funds received by the charity may be best characterized as services income, 

rather than investment income. 

Alternatively, if an insurable interest were considered property, the appropriate 

characterization would be by analogy to rent or the sale of property. In Grigsby v. Russell,

77

Justice Holmes wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court that a life insurance policy could be transferred 

to a person without an insurable interest because “[t]o deny the right to sell except to persons 

having such an interest is to diminish appreciably the value of the contract in the owner’s hands.” 

Because life insurance policies had become “one of the best recognized forms of investment,” 

the Court saw fit to consider the policy “property.”78 If an insurable interest similarly should be 

characterized as property, then for tax policy purposes, it may be more appropriate to analogize 

funds that charities receive in a ChOLI arrangement to funds received from the rent or sale of 

property—and thus potentially as investment income. As discussed previously, however, that 

property—the charity's insurable interest in its donors—exists solely by virtue of the 

organization's charitable and tax-exempt status. Thus, an approach which views a ChOLI 

arrangement as involving the rent or sale of a charity's insurable interest necessarily implicates 

the other issues discussed previously relating to the organization's exempt status, i.e., potential 

conflict with the requirement of organization and operation exclusively for an exempt purpose 

and the prohibition on substantial private benefit. 

C. Role of Tax Benefits in the Profitability of ChOLI Arrangements 

Another important question for purposes of this report is whether the profits derived from 

ChOLI arrangements rely in any way on the tax benefits provided to charities or to the benefits 

paid upon death from a life insurance policy. In other words, do the investors receive any tax 

benefits (whether directly or indirectly) by entering into these arrangements? The analysis 

differs somewhat depending on whether the ChOLI arrangement involves direct ownership of 

life insurance (and possibly annuity) contracts by the charity, or indirect ownership by the 

charity through a trust or other investment vehicle. 

Direct Ownership 

The most significant benefit associated with owning a life insurance contract is the 

exclusion from gross income of amounts received under the contract by reason of the death of 

the insured. This exclusion from gross income is generally not a factor where the owner of the 

contract is a tax-exempt organization (unless the income is debt-financed) or otherwise 

indifferent to the receipt of taxable income. Rather, as discussed earlier, profitability depends on 

either underpricing of the policies or the early deaths of the arrangement’s participants. 

More specifically, in a transaction in which the policies originate and are at all times 

owned only by the charity, neither the exclusion from gross income of death benefits under 

section 101(a) nor the exemption under section 501(a) for charities seems to play a role in the 

 

77 222 U.S. 149 (1911). 

78 Id. at 155. 

24 
profitability of the arrangement. Because charities are already tax-exempt (except in the case of 

UBTI, discussed above), the tax exemption afforded death benefits does not provide any added 

benefit to charities engaged in a ChOLI arrangement.79 While the exclusion can be beneficial in 

situations where a charity chooses to borrow funds in order to acquire life insurance policies (so 

that returns would otherwise be debt-financed UBTI), it does not appear that leverage is essential 

to the profitability of the arrangement. 

In fact, it is possible that the exclusion under section 101(a) may make life insurance 

policies less attractive to charities. To the extent life insurers can price their policies higher 

because of the tax-preferred nature of their returns, charities would pay a higher price with no 

accompanying tax benefit. At least one estate planner has pointed out that because charities are 

already tax-exempt, “they are usually better off with other investment vehicles.”80 

Indirect Ownership and Transfer-for-Value 

 The analysis is essentially the same with respect to the charity in a transaction in which 

the insurance policies are held by a trust or other special purpose investment vehicle (SPV). 

Again, the ChOLI arrangement does not provide any tax benefit to the charities, which are 

already tax-exempt. 

 In those situations, however, investors may have an interest in the trust or SPV through 

ownership of either equity interests or debt instruments. Few of the published reports about 

ChOLI arrangements have focused on tax reporting by the investors, and less is known about this 

aspect of the arrangements. One commenter has stated that part of the financial success of 

combination arrangements “depends on the favorable tax treatment of the annuity and life 

insurance as separate” in a situation where the trust is set up by the charity and would therefore 

be tax-exempt.81 Other commenters, however, have characterized combination arrangements as 

being profitable by virtue of exploiting inefficient pricing of the life insurance and life annuity 

contracts, without mentioning any tax benefits.82 If, for instance, the life annuity contract is 

purchased with a high mortality assumption (i.e., the annuitant is expected to die quickly) while 

the life insurance contract is purchased with a low mortality assumption (i.e., the annuitant is 

expected to live for a longer period of time), then the disparity would provide for an arbitrage 

opportunity that does not depend upon the annuity income being tax-exempt or otherwise taxpreferred. If the returns provided to investors were tax-exempt, the returns would, of course, be 

greater (except to the extent those returns go to already tax-exempt investors). Promoters of the 

plans generally maintain, however, that tax benefits do not contribute to the profitability of the 

plans.

 

79 Theo Francis & Ellen E. Schultz, Dying to Donate: Charities Invest in Death Benefits, WALL ST. J., February 6, 

2003. 

80 Id.

81 Stephan R. Leimberg, Stranger-Owned Life Insurance: Killing the Goose That Lays Golden Eggs, INS. TAX 

REV. 811, 815–16 (May 2005). 

82 See, e.g., J. J. MACNAB, WRITTEN STATEMENT BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 17 (June 22, 2004). 

25 
26 

shareho

y 

e 

s a 

to 

e 

re 

ipates 

at investors in these transactions will be treated as transferees for value 

e 

 

Due to the insufficiency of the data resulting from information reporting under the PPA, 

the Treasury and the Service could not independently verify whether investors (or anyone else) 

were in fact claiming the benefit of the gross income exclusion for death benefits in ChOLI 

arrangements. However, to the extent that a contract was purchased based on a charity's 

insurable interest in its donor, and was later owned (including through an investment vehicle) by 

an investor with no other relationship to the donor, one would expect the transfer-for-value rule 

to limit the availability of that exclusion. As described previously, a transferee-for-value under 

section 101(a)(2) is permitted to exclude death benefits from gross income only to the extent of 

the consideration paid for the contract, plus premiums and other amounts paid subsequently.83 

In this way, a transferee for value (i.e., a purchaser) is taxed on the economic income from 

owning the contract. Exceptions apply in the case of transferred basis transactions, or 

transactions in which a life insurance contract is transferred to the insured, a partner of the 

insured, a partnership in which the insured is a partner, or a corporation in which the insured is a 

lder or officer. 

Where a ChOLI arrangement involves ownership of life insurance contracts through a 

trust that includes investors unrelated to the insured or the original policyholder, the applicabilit

of the transfer-for-value rule may be unclear, in part due to the possible absence of a "transfer" 

within the meaning of the rule and in part due to the possible applicability of one or more of th

exceptions noted above. For example, a transfer of a life insurance policy to a partnership in 

which the insured is a partner is excepted from the transfer-for-value rule, even if the transfer i

sale. And in some cases a transfer by a charity of an ownership interest in a trust holding life

insurance contracts may not rise to the level of a "transfer" under the transfer-for-value rule. 

 The Administration's Fiscal Year 2010 and 2011 Revenue Proposals include a proposal 

modify the existing exceptions to the transfer-for-value rule of section 101(a)(2) to ensure that 

exceptions to the rule would not apply to buyers of policies.84 Under the proposal, the transferfor-value rule would limit the gross income exclusion for death benefits even if, for example, th

transfer is to a partner of the insured or to a partnership in which the insured is a partner. The 

proposal primarily addresses transactions involving sales of life insurance contracts that we

entered into based on the insured individual's insurable interest in his or her own life. For 

example, in a life settlement transaction, an individual may sell to a life settlement company a 

cash value life insurance contract that has been in force for many years and is no longer needed. 

Or, in a so-called stranger-originated life insurance (StOLI) transaction, an individual may enter 

into a life insurance contract using funds borrowed with an up-front arrangement that antic

the contract will revert to the lender, typically after a two-year contestability period. The 

proposal would ensure th

under section 101(a)(2). 

 Although the proposal is not specifically directed at charity-originated arrangements, 

similar tax policy issues arise in those variations of the transactions in which the underlying lif

insurance contracts are originated based on the charity's insurable interest in its donor, but are 

83 See I.R.C. § 101(a)(2). 

84 Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2010 Revenue 

Proposals, pg. 112; General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 Revenue Proposals, pg. 69. 
27 

a 

rly 

s, 

e 

roposal is designed to ensure this result and, 

by its terms, would apply to ChOLI arrangements. 

D. Excise Tax Proposals 

posals advanced in recent years in 

respons

nder 

e 

t 

ive economic benefits to the charity 

and non 85

economically transferred to unrelated investors. From the standpoint of an investor who owns 

life insurance contract but has no relationship with the insured individual, it is not particula

relevant whether the contract was originally purchased based on the individual's insurable 

interest in his or her own life or based on a charity's insurable interest in the individual as a 

donor. What matters is that the investor receives a death benefit without regard to any financial 

or other relationship with the insured individual. The case for a gross income exclusion for death

benefits grows still weaker in situations where the investor owns not one, but dozens, hundred

or thousands of such life insurance contracts on strangers, at which point the stream of death 

benefits represents little more than a contingent cash flow on an investment. In such a case, the 

transfer-for-value rule should operate to ensure that the investor is taxed on its economic incom

from the transaction, i.e., the excess of the death benefits received over the total amounts paid 

with regard to the contracts. The Administration's p

Finally, this section summarizes several excise tax pro

e to general concerns similar to those outlined above. 

In February 2005, the Treasury proposed an excise tax on ChOLI arrangements. U

the proposal, an excise tax of 25 percent would have been imposed upon any person who 

received death benefits, dividends, withdrawals, loans, or surrenders under a life insurance 

contract, if (i) a charity ever had a direct or indirect ownership interest in the contract, and (ii) a 

person other than a charity ever had a direct or indirect interest in the same contract (including an 

interest in an entity holding an interest in that contract). The proposed excise tax would not hav

been deductible for Federal income tax purposes, and the amount of excise tax paid would not

have been included in the policyholder's investment in the contract. The proposed excise tax 

would not have applied to situations in which: (i) each non-charity involved in the arrangemen

had an insurable interest in the insured independent of the charity; (ii) each non-charity's only

interest in the life insurance contract was as a named beneficiary; or (iii) the transaction was

exempt from the excise tax under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, based on factors 

including the arms' length nature of the transaction, the relat

-charity participants, and the likelihood of abuse.

On May 10, 2005, Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) 

introduced a bill, S. 993, that would have amended the Code to impose an excise tax on certain 

tax-exempt organizations or other non-exempt persons which acquire a direct or indirect interest 

in any life insurance, annuity, or endowment contract, in the amount of 100 percent of the 

acquisition costs of the interest. Senate bill S. 993 would have allowed an exception from the 

excise tax for individuals with insurable interests, named beneficiaries, and trust beneficiaries. 

S. 993 would have required these tax-exempt organizations and other non-exempt persons to file 

certain 

 

information returns with the Service. 

85 Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2006 Revenue 

Proposals, pps. 116–17. 
On November 18, 2005, the Senate passed a bill, S. 2020, the Tax Relief Act of 2005, 

which contained a proposal, in section 312, that would have imposed an excise tax on certain 

tax-exempt organizations that acquire a direct or indirect interest in any life insurance, annuity, 

or endowment contract, in the amount of 100 percent of the acquisition costs of such interest. S. 

2020 would have allowed an exemption from the excise tax for individuals with insurable 

interests, named beneficiaries, and trust beneficiaries. S. 2020 would have required these 

organizations to file information returns with the Service relating to the acquisition of the 

interests. 

None of the three proposals described above has been enacted into law,86 although 

legislative interest in imposing an excise tax along these lines may have dissuaded charities

investors from establishing new ChOLI arrangements. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that th

imposition of an excise tax (unless its magnitude is so large as to be clearly punitive) may 

indicate implicitly that ChOLI arrangements are not improper under existing law but instead 

should merely be discouraged in the circumstances to which the excise tax would apply. To the 

extent that specific tax policy concerns can be identified, an approach that applies appropriate 

restrictions or prohibitions—p

 and 

e 

erhaps accompanied by an excise tax to be imposed on violation of 

those restrictions and prohibitions—may ultimately be more understandable by affected parties 

and therefore more effective. 

 

86 See generally Joint Committee on Taxation, Description of Revenue Provisions Contained in the President’s 

Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal (JCS-3-05), pps. 252–56. 

28 
CONCLUSION 

This report has discussed ChOLI arrangements, based on public comments, reports, and 

other sources. It is apparent that there are a number of respects in which ChOLI arrangements 

may be viewed as inconsistent with the policies underlying the Federal income tax benefits for 

charities and life insurance. 

A ChOLI arrangement may be appealing to a charity as a creative way to raise funds to 

finance its charitable activities. It may appeal to investors by producing a rate of return that is 

not correlated with other investments and that, in some cases, permits the exploitation of 

mispricing inherent in an insurer's product offerings. The magnitude of the investors' interests in 

the insurance policies, compared with the charities' interests, raises questions, however, that are 

critical to the charity's exempt status, including potentially significant conflicts with the 

requirement of organization and operation exclusively for an exempt purpose and with the 

prohibition on substantial private benefit. Further, as discussed in the report, the treatment of a 

charity's return from participation in a ChOLI arrangement is not entirely clear in all cases, but 

arguably may be viewed as unrelated business taxable income in at least some circumstances. 

Finally, the report recommends adoption of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2010 and 

2011 budget proposals to revise the "transfer-for-value" rule of Internal Revenue Code section 

101(a) to ensure that investors in a ChOLI arrangement—as well as investors in other types of 

arrangements involving the transfer of life insurance contracts—do not inappropriately benefit 

from the gross income exclusion for death benefits from a life insurance contract in 

circumstances where those investors have purchased an ownership interest in the underlying 

policies. 

29 
Bibliography 

Allen, James R. (2001). “Using ‘ChOLI’ to Spice Up a Planned Giving Program,” National 

Underwriter, Life & Health/Financial Services Edition, 105(49): 6-8, 

December 3. 

American Council of Life Insurers (2004). “ACLI Responds to Senators Smith, Conrad on 

Investor-Owned Life Insurance,” News Release, June 8. 

American Council of Life Insurers (2004). Written Statement Before the Senate Finance 

Committee on Issues Related to Tax-Exempt Organizations, June 22. 

Bell, Allison (2007). “IRS Looks at Charity Interests in Life Insurance Policies,” National 

Underwriter, Life & Health, 111(9): 10, March 5. 

Bell, Larry (2004). “Charities and Insurance: ‘The Next Big Thing?’” Steve Leimberg’s Estate 

Planning Newsletter #671, May 20. http://www.leimbergservices.com. 

Blum, Debra E. (1999). “For Charities, a New Twist in Raising Money: Corporate Investors in 

Life-Insurance Policies,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, August 12. 

Buggs, Shannon (2003). “Texas Considers Teacher Pension Plan that Depends on Death,” 

Houston Chronicle, December 5. 

Clack, Cary (2003). “Disbelief Greets State Plan to Profit from Dead Teachers Society,” San 

Antonio Express-News, December 13: 1B. 

Clack, Cary (2003). “Texas Could Turn a Profit by Insuring Dead Teachers Society,” San 

Antonio Express-News, December 10: 1B. 

Cudd, Robert (2010), “Recent Developments Affecting Investors in Life Insurance,” Tax Notes, 

February 8. 

Duhigg, Charles (2006). “Late in Life, Finding a Bonanza in Life Insurance,” New York Times, 

December 17. 

30 
Edwards, Greg (2005). “Insurers Cry Foul Over Life Insurance Policies Sold to Strangers,” 

Richmond Times-Dispatch, January 29: C1. 

Francis, Theo and Ellen E. Schultz (2003). “Dying to Donate: Charities Invest in Death 

Benefits,” Wall Street Journal, February 6. 

Gascoyne, Tom (2003). “Death Dividends or Creative Financing?” Chico News and Review, 

February 20. 

Hansard, Sara (2004). “Washington to Nip LILAC in the Bud?” Investment News, July 19. 

Henry, Vaughn W. (2004). Statement to Senate Finance Committee on “Charity Oversight and 

Reform: Keeping Bad Things from Happening to Good Charities,” July 22. Tax Analysts Doc. 

No. 2004-15159; Tax Analysts Electronic Citation No. 2004 TNT 143-97. 

Henry, Vaughn W. (2004). Written Statement to Senate Finance Committee, available at 

http://finance.senate.gov/Roundtable/Vaughn%20Henry.pdf (last accessed November 2, 2009). 

Hetherington, Thomas F. A. et al. (2007). “SPIN Life: Hedging Insurable Interest,” White Paper 

Authored by Attorneys then with Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, available at 

www.bracewellgiuliani.com (search “SPIN Life”). 

Holbrook, Dan W. (2004). “Free Money: How Insurance + Annuity = Big Profit,” Tennessee 

Bar Journal, December: 22–27. 

Jensen, J. Alan and Joshua E. Husbands (2004). “Current Developments in Funding, Financing, 

Buying, and Selling Life Insurance,” presented at the Thirty-Ninth Annual Southern Federal Tax 

Institute, September 27–October 1, Atlanta. 

Joint Committee on Taxation, “Technical Explanation of H.R. 4, The ‘Pension Protection Act of 

2006,’ as passed by the House on July 28, 2006, and as considered by the Senate on August 3, 

2006,” JCX-38-06, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. (August 3, 2006). 

Keating, Frank (2004). Letter to Senators Gordon Smith and Kent Conrad regarding State 

Expansion of Insurable Interest, June 7, available at http://www.logos4me.com/Life Ins 

News/IOLI Conrad Smith Keating ltr.pdf (last accessed Nov. 2, 2009). 

31 
Kies, Kenneth (2005). Letter to Helen Hubbard, Tax Legislative Counsel, Department of the 

Treasury and Susan Brown, Deputy Tax Legislative Counsel – Regulatory Affairs, Department 

of the Treasury, regarding Proposed Excise Tax on Amounts Received Under Certain Life 

Insurance Contracts, April 29. Tax Analysts Doc. No. 2005-9354; Tax Analysts Electronic 

Citation No. 2005 TNT 86-20. 

Lacy, Ben R. (2005). “SOLI or IOLI Dies in Virginia,” Federation of Regulatory Counsel, Inc. 

Journal, 16(2), available at http://www.forc.org/pdfs/vol16-ed2-art4.pdf (last accessed Nov. 2, 

2009). 

Leimberg, Stephan R. (2005). “Stranger-Owned Life Insurance: Killing the Goose That Lays 

Golden Eggs!” Insurance Tax Review, May: 811–20. 

Levinson, Mason (2007). “Oklahoma State to Raise $250 Million in Alumni Life Insurance,” 

Bloomberg News, March 1. http://www.wealth.bloomberg.com/apps/news? 

pid=20601079&sid=aWpIrv1BvgOM. 

MacNab, J. J. (2004). Written Statement Before the Senate Finance Committee on “Charity 

Oversight and Reform: Keeping Bad Things from Happening to Good Charities,” June 22, Tax 

Analysts Doc. No. 2004-12952. 

Nelson, Mike (2004). “Insurable Interest Under Siege,” Steve Leimberg’s Estate Planning 

Newsletter #671, May 12. http://www.leimbergservices.com. 

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (2004). “Interagency Statement on the Purchase and 

Risk Management of Life Insurance.” OCC 2004-56. 

Oxman, Allan S. (2004). “Lending Lives to Make the Charity Sale,” Senior Market Advisor, 

December. 

Postal, Arthur D. (2009). “Rep. Barney Frank Voices More Optional Charter Support,” National 

Underwriter Property & Casualty, March 6. 

Silverman, Rachel Emma (2005). “Letting an Investor Bet on When You’ll Die,” Wall Street 

Journal, May 26: D1. 

32 
Smith, Gordon H. and Kent Conrad (2004). Letter to Frank Keating, President and C.E.O. of the 

American Council of Life Insurers, regarding State Expansion of Insurable Interest, May 26, 

available at http://www.logos4me.com/Life Ins News/IOLI Conrad Smith Keating ltr.pdf (last 

accessed Nov. 2, 2009). 

Strom, Stephanie (2004). “Charities Look to Benefit from a New Twist on Life Insurance,” New 

York Times, June 5: A10. 

Tergesen, Anne (2007). “The High Price of Free Insurance,” Business Week, April 23. 

Tergesen, Anne (2008). “Source of Cash for Seniors Is Drying Up,” Wall Street Journal, 

November 13. 

Tiller, John (2006). “You Bet Your Life: Insurable Interest in Life Insurance”, presentation to 

the Society of Actuaries, October 17, available at http://www.soa.org/files/pdf/094bk_revannual.pdf (last accessed November 2, 2009). 

U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (2005). “Grassley, Baucus Announce Bill Cracking Down 

on Life Insurance Deals Via Charities,” Press Release, May 3. 

33 
34 

APPENDIX

Notice 2007-24, 2007-1 C.B. 750, with proposed Form 8921, Transactions Involving a Pool of 

Applicable Insurance Contracts, and proposed Form 8922, Applicable Insurance Contract 

Information Return (for Tax-Exempt Organizations and Government Entities under Section 

6050V) 

Form 8921, Applicable Insurance Contract Information Return (for Tax-Exempt Organizations 

and Government Entities under Section 6050V) with Instructions