- 84 -
record to suggest that the same trust also was the beneficiary of
Ms. Lo’s policy. Nor has respondent pointed us to any part of
the record that would support such a finding.
We ask whether Dr. Lo is a direct or indirect beneficiary of
Ms. Lo’s term life insurance policy given the fact that the
Marlton Plan is the named beneficiary. We conclude that he is.36
In the event of Ms. Lo’s death, the face value of her life
insurance policy would be paid to the Marlton Plan, for which Dr.
Lo and Edward Lo would be the remaining beneficiaries. Although
Dr. Lo would not be the sole beneficiary of those death benefits,
section 264(a)(1) requires only that he be a beneficiary in order
to render the premiums nondeductible. See Keefe v. Commissioner,
15 T.C. 947, 952-953 (1950). Nor does it matter for purposes of
section 264(a)(1) that he was not expressly listed on Ms. Lo’s
policy as the beneficiary thereof. See Rieck v. Heiner, 25 F.2d
453 (3d Cir. 1928).
Dr. Lo, as opposed to Edward Lo, also stood to gain the most
from the plan assets, were Ms. Lo to have died. Whereas Edward
Lo had a fairly inexpensive term life insurance policy, Dr. Lo
had a fairly expensive universal life policy. Ms. Lo’s life
insurance proceeds also could be used to pay the premiums on the
36 For the same reasons as stated infra, we also conclude
that Dr. Lo is a direct or indirect beneficiary of Edward Lo’s
term life insurance policy, and, hence, that Marlton may not
deduct the contributions that it made to its plan to pay his
premiums.
Page: Previous 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011