on Insurance Uncategorized

Split-Interest Strategies: How Insurance Can Leverage Multigenerational Philanthropy

High-net-worth (HNW) families in the United States increasingly combine split-interest charitable vehicles (Charitable Lead Trusts — CLTs, Charitable Remainder Trusts — CRTs, and other split-interest arrangements) with life insurance to achieve three concurrent goals: maximize philanthropic impact, reduce estate and income taxes, and preserve wealth for heirs across generations. This article explains practical structures, real-world cost considerations (with representative pricing), and U.S.-specific tactical guidance for advisors and donors in key markets such as New York, California, Texas, and Florida.

What are split-interest strategies and why pair them with life insurance?

Split-interest strategies divide economic benefits between charity and non-charitable beneficiaries:

  • Charitable Lead Trust (CLT): Charity receives income for a term or for life; the remainder passes to family (or other non-charitable beneficiaries).
  • Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT): Non-charitable beneficiaries (often the donor or spouse) receive income for life or a term; the remainder goes to charity.

Pairing life insurance with these trusts lets HNW donors:

  • Replace wealth passed to charity so heirs receive equivalent economic value.
  • Pay estate taxes, liquidity needs, or provide targeted bequests without disturbing the charitable structure.
  • Amplify the charitable impact by using life insurance proceeds as a trust asset or as an estate replacement.

For legal/tax mechanics of CRTs, see the IRS guidance on charitable remainder trusts: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-remainder-trusts. For practical trustee and payout considerations, see this overview from Fidelity: https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/personal-finance/charitable-remainder-trust.

Typical structures used by HNW families

  1. ILIT + CLT (Estate Replacement)

    • Donor creates a Charitable Lead Trust funded with appreciating assets (or cash), which pays a fixed annuity or unitrust amount to charity for a term of years.
    • An Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) owns a life insurance policy sized to replace the value the heirs forgo by funding the CLT.
    • Result: Charitable gift stream is funded and heirs get an insurance payout income-tax-free (typically estate-free if ILIT is properly drafted).

  2. CRT + ILIT (Capital-Gains Mitigation + Heir Replacement)

    • Donor funds a CRT with highly appreciated stock/property, which sells inside the trust tax-free, providing income to donor or family.
    • Donor purchases life insurance (owned by ILIT) to pass equivalent value to heirs after death.
    • Result: Donor receives income stream and income-tax deduction; heirs receive insurance proceeds; charity ultimately receives the remainder.

  3. Naming Charity as Policy Beneficiary (Direct Pledge with Hybrid Replacement)

    • Life insurance policy names a charity (or charities) as beneficiary for part of the death benefit, and family members as contingent beneficiaries.
    • This simplifies administration but requires careful legal/tax design to secure desired estate and charitable deductions.

For implementation examples and deep dives on combining CLTs and CRTs with life insurance, see:

Example: How insurance restores heir value — an illustrative U.S. case

Scenario (New York resident, age 68, married):

  • Donor funds a CLT with $4,000,000 of highly appreciating stock. CLT pays charity $200,000/year for 20 years.
  • The remainder interest (after 20 years) will pass to the donor’s children, but because the donor removed $4M from the taxable estate, the estate’s immediate value is reduced.
  • The family wants heirs to still receive ~$4M (inflation-adjusted). Instead of leaving other taxable estate assets, the donor funds an ILIT that purchases a permanent life insurance policy with a $4,000,000 death benefit.

Result:

  • Charity receives $200k x 20 = $4M total over the term (timing and discounting will affect charitable deduction values).
  • The ILIT’s insurance proceeds (generally income-tax-free) provide heirs with the replacement amount outside of the donor’s estate, assuming correct ILIT operation.

Tax/valuation mechanics are governed by federal rules and IRS present-value factors; donors should consult estate counsel and tax advisors. See IRS CRT rules: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-remainder-trusts.

Pricing realities: life insurance cost ranges for HNW uses (U.S. market examples)

Insurance cost depends on age, health, product type, underwriting class, carrier, and face amount. Representative pricing (U.S., typical 2024–2025 market examples):

  • Term life (20-year term, $1,000,000 face):

  • Permanent life — Guaranteed Universal Life (GUL) or Survivorship policies (used frequently in estate planning for HNW):

    • GUL for a healthy 55-year-old male, $2,000,000 face: annual premiums commonly range from $10,000 to $25,000 depending on carrier and guaranteed period.
    • Survivorship Second-to-Die (used for estate tax liquidity to pay estate taxes for a couple) $5,000,000 face: premiums often run $30,000–$120,000/year depending on ages and underwriting.
      Sources: product and cost discussion — Policygenius universal life cost overview: https://www.policygenius.com/life-insurance/universal-life-insurance-cost/ and carrier product pages (e.g., New York Life, MassMutual, Prudential).

Common carriers serving HNW donors:

  • New York Life — strong in guaranteed universal and whole life (product-specific illustrations available through advisors).
  • Northwestern Mutual, MassMutual — large mutual insurers popular for custom whole-life and participating products.
  • Prudential, Lincoln Financial — known for survivorship and GUL options.

Price point note: permanent insurance illustrations are underwriting-dependent; large-face amounts ($2M–$50M) used in multigenerational plans are typically placed through private placement or negotiated blocks via major carriers with broker/wholesale channels. Always obtain carrier-specific illustrations.

Comparison: CLT vs CRT vs Direct Insurance Gifts (Quick reference)

Feature Charitable Lead Trust (CLT) + Insurance Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT) + Insurance Name Charity as Policy Beneficiary
Primary tax benefit Estate and gift tax reduction Income tax deferral/avoidance of capital gains; income tax deduction Immediate simplicity; donor may still have estate inclusion issues
Cash flow to charity Yes — during lead period Remainder only (after income payouts) Death benefit at policy maturity/insured death
Benefit to heirs Remainder after lead; insurance replaces lost inheritance Heirs may get less — insurance replaces replacement value Heirs receive contingent portion if named
Typical HNW use-case Multigenerational legacy planning, estate tax mitigation Monetizing appreciated assets while supporting charity Smaller bequests or partial philanthropic designations
Complexity & cost High — requires trust set-up, ILIT, insurance placement High — CRT administration + ILIT for replacement strategy Low–medium; simpler to execute but less flexible

Key implementation considerations for U.S.-based donors

  • Jurisdiction matters: state law variations (New York vs. California vs. Texas) affect trust taxation, GST planning, and asset protection. Use local counsel in the donor’s state of residence.
  • Valuation and assumptions: expected investment return, IRS discount rates, and payout rates materially affect charitable deduction and remainder calculations.
  • Insurance underwriting and product selection: large-face permanent products require individualized underwriting, often with required medical exams and secondary market considerations for very large or older cases.
  • Documentation and ILIT mechanics: carefully drafted ILITs with Crummey powers (when needed), gift-tax filings (Form 709), and trustee instructions are essential to keep proceeds out of the estate and obtain intended tax benefits.

Actionable next steps for advisors and donors (U.S. focus: NY, CA, TX, FL)

  • Run parallel illustrations: trust cash-flow modeling + insurance illustrations from multiple carriers (NY Life, MassMutual, Prudential, Northwestern Mutual).
  • Coordinate team: estate attorney (state-licensed), tax advisor (CPA experienced in charitable planning), and an insurance broker with HNW placement experience.
  • Consider timing: funding trusts now vs. later (interest-rate environment affects CLT/CRT present-value calculations); premium payment options and estate liquidity needs.

For deeper tactical models and case studies showing how insurance can be used to amplify gifts with CLTs and CRTs, review these articles:

Sources and further reading

If you’re planning a split-interest strategy in New York, California, Texas, or Florida, work with a multidisciplinary advisory team and obtain carrier-specific insurance illustrations to confirm the premium, underwriting timeline, and placement strategy for the policy sizes required by your multigenerational philanthropic goals.

Recommended Articles