- 8 -
wife’s rights in the policy. She lost her rights to the policy
proceeds if she predeceased her husband, attained the age of 65,
or remarried. See id. We stated that the mere peace of mind
afforded the wife by the pure term life insurance did not
constitute a taxable economic gain. See id.
The instant case is distinguishable from Wright. Wright
concerned a pure term life insurance policy with additional
restrictions placed on the wife’s rights to the policy proceeds.
See Wright v. Commissioner, supra at 398. In the present case,
the policy is a whole life insurance policy. The policy is
captioned “Increasing Premium Whole Life Non-Participating–-No
Annual Dividends Policy”. The policy began to build up a
substantial cash surrender value in the 16th year, and the values
accruing each year from the issuance of the policy were
guaranteed as long as the premiums were paid. The policy was
immediately assignable by the wife, and she was entitled to the
policy proceeds even if she remarried or attained the age of 65.
She was also the owner and irrevocable beneficiary of the policy.
This is not like the situation in Wright where it was more
doubtful whether the wife would ever receive an economic benefit
from being the owner of the policy.3 See id. Here, looking at
the policy in toto, we conclude the wife received presently
3 In fact, at the time of trial, the policy in question
here was in its 17th year and had a cash surrender value of
$10,500.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011