Beyond Structured Settlements

NSSTA 2015 Fall Conference

Although the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) did not promote a specific theme for its 2015 Fall Educational Conference, one of the speakers succinctly captured the program's overall purpose and accomplishment when he described NSSTA's new Industry Growth Initiative as "changing the focus of our future."

Industry Growth Initiative

NSSTA's website description of its Industry Growth Initiative highlights "a significant decline in production since its peak at $6.3 Billion in 2008" and asserts "we do an excellent job protecting our industry" before announcing that "this year we want all NSSTA members to focus their time, energy and resources on new opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements-to grow our industry."

NSSTA President Michael Goodman utilized his Opening Conference Comments in Phoenix (as well as a preconference interview with S2KM) to describe the status and organizational structure of the NSSTA Industry Growth Initiative.

"My first priority as President of NSSTA," Goodman stated, "is to identify growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry. First, we asked all NSSTA members to submit ideas for growth at [email protected]. . Second, I tried to put together a NSSTA Growth Committee consisting of a highly talented cross section of industry leaders with diverse perspectives. Third, the Committee evaluated all of the 28 (to date) NSSTA member growth proposals and selected three for NSSTA Board of Directors approval to develop immediate implementation plans with success metrics."

Goodman introduced the NSSTA Growth Committee members including co-Chairmen William Goodman, Sean Coleman, John McCulloch and John Arendt. Speaking for the Committee, Coleman enthused: "I love our change of focus. Historically, NSSTA has been reactive, dodging bullets. The Growth Initiative redirects our mindset and focus. It encourages us to become proactive. The Growth Committee has already surpassed by highest expectations."

Goodman and the Committee co-Chairmen identified the following three NSSTA Growth Initiatives already selected and approved:

• Rejuvenate Defense Programs (including casualty insurers, commercial insureds and TPAs) - Originally the prime movers for structured settlements, many defense insurers have reduced or completely abandoned their structured settlement programs citing a variety of reasons. Beginning with three target carriers, the Committee plans to analyze the causes, and ultimately revitalize the programs, to create new prototype defense program models. Note: NSSTA recently commissioned surveys of Senior Claims Executives; and front line Claims Professionals which S2KM summarized and evaluated in prior blog posts.
• Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) - FECA, which provides workers compensation like benefits for federal workers, currently does not permit structured settlements. With payouts totally approximately $4.5 billion per year, FECA represent an attractive potential market for structured settlements with administrative cost savings being one justification for a legislative amendment. Based upon preliminary interviews, the Growth Committee believes FECA stakeholders view structured settlements favorably. The Committee is gathering statistical data to support its proposal and building grassroots support.
• Convertible Deferred Lump Sums - As a sales response to "low interest rates", the Growth Committee is proposing a new structured settlement feature. As envisioned, the convertible deferred lump sum would allow a structured settlement recipient to select a future lump sum that would automatically convert on its payment date into a series of predetermined periodic payments payable at whatever annuity rates offered at the time of conversion by the issuing life company. A Canadian broker attending the NSSTA conference stated that at least one Canadian life company already offers this structured settlement product feature. The Committee anticipates whichever annuity provider introduces this product feature in the U.S. will probably also seek an IRS private letter ruling.
• Note: NSSTA's Growth Committee identified a fourth preliminary initiative (Dissipation Study) - to confirm that injury victims squander lump sums. However, this initiative is currently on hold. For background, see this 2009 S2KM review of Jeremy Babener's legal research paper analyzing historic dissipation studies.

Factoring Update

Goodman also addressed the state of the structured settlement industry including a "factoring update". As part of this report, Goodman confirmed that NSSTA and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) have agreed to cooperate legislatively in several states to seek the following consumer protection amendments for state structured settlement protection statutes:

• No forum shopping.
• Payee required to attend hearing.
• Stricter application of approval requirements.
• Advanced notice of transfer.
• Required disclosure of prior transfers.

Supporting this cooperative initiative, NSSTA has begun offering its members a new Judicial Education Training Seminar - taught in Phoenix by John McCulloch and Stephen Harris. Goodman also announced he will be a featured speaker at NASP's 2015 Annual Conference next week in Las Vegas - the first serving NSSTA President to do so. Perhaps anticipating his NASP appearance, and cognizant of the recent Washington Post article ("a perfect storm for factoring"), Goodman advised the NSSTA Conference attendees: "Factoring is not a zero sum game. What is bad for them is not always good for us."

Additional Conference Presentations

Many structured settlement participants believe control of the primary structured settlement market, and future market growth, have shifted from the defense to plaintiff attorneys and their injury victim clients. Although NSSTA has been slow to embrace plaintiff-focused personal injury settlement planning, NSSTA's Fall Conference included two presentation featuring plaintiff representatives:

• A Trial Lawyer Panel - moderated by Ryan Garrison with plaintiff attorneys Julio Zapata and Francisco Gutierrez; plus
• An introduction to the National Association of Trial Lawyers Executives (NATLE) by Gayle Bennett, Deputy Director of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association.

Both plaintiff presentations emphasized opportunities to expand the market for structured attorney fees. Both plaintiff attorneys expressed a preference for advisors who are "knowledgeable not just about structured settlements but also other investment vehicles."

In addition to the Judicial Education Training session mentioned above, three other NSSTA presentations addressed educational issues and programs:

• Best Practices for Structured Settlement Case Resolution - During her excellent review of structured settlement fundamentals, Betty Gregware expressed serious concern about the general quality of structured settlement documentation and the need to increase competence across the industry.
• Professional Broker Education - Gregware, Melissa Price and Debbie Sink introduced a new educational program NSSTA is developing primarily for individuals who are new to the structured settlement industry. They also provided an administrative overview of "NSSTA University" whereby NSSTA partners with members to secure CE credits for member-sponsored educational seminars for insurance claims departments or law firms.
• MSSC Paper Presentation - Mal Deener moderated a panel featuring Trish Fairhurst, Richard Carroll and other members of the first graduating class of NSSTA's new Masters Structured Settlement Consultant (MSSC) professional designation. Each MSSC graduate is required to submit a paper and these papers will be published on NSSTA's website. NSSTA will offer its next MSSC program beginning April 27, in conjunction with its Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) program, at the University of Notre Dame

Separate from, but related to, NSSTA Growth Initiative, NSSTA's Board of Directors has appointed a Special Needs Attorney Task Force to develop strategic relationships with special needs attorney professional associations and to identify collaborative marketing opportunities with special needs attorneys more generally. NSSTA member Carola Davis and Special Needs Alliance attorney Patty Sitchler initiated a NSSTA presentation/discussion in Phoenix which hopefully will continue and expand to the benefit of both professional communities.

A critical factor, both challenge and opportunity, for growing the primary structured settlement market concerns succession planning. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), or business models, will emerge (and when) to replace and build upon the accomplishments of the pioneering generation (now in their 60s and 70s) who originated the structured settlement market in the late 1970s? NSSTA's Fall Conference featured two presentations addressing these issues:

• Succession Planning - Presenter Jim Early looked at the succession issue primarily from the point of view of the individual producer. Among his observations: "nepotism works in the structured settlement industry" and "a lack of capital has prevented the primary market from bringing in and training new people."
• Diversity Discussion - Angel Viera and Stacy McCall offered a convincing case for promoting greater diversity among new structured settlement professionals as a key component for future growth. Their presentation included and elicited several thought-provoking observations including: 1) "From a demographic perspective, our industry should mirror the people we serve" and 2) "Our industry suffers from a lack of diversity of thinking. Where do we find new voices and perspectives?"

Lifetime payments represent a valuable, optional structured settlement benefit which can be further enhanced from a pricing perspective when rated ages are applicable. Kevin Puckett and Ken Kiefer expounded on these important issues during their presentation about Mortality, Morbidity & Rated Ages.

NSSTA members Susan Clark and Robert Caples introduced Arnie Begler and Scott Henry, representing Pipitone Group, NSSTA's new public relations firm, and together they discussed NSSTA's Communications Program. Because journalists, as well as their readers, frequently confuse the primary and secondary structured settlement markets, Pipitone's "first test" was responding to the aforesaid Washington Post article. Pipitone's stated assignment is "to find the best communications practices and bring them to NSSTA" which will include designing a new NSSTA website. Among NSSTA's priorities, and Pipitone's challenges, will be attempting to reclaim the "structured settlement" brand inclusive of Google searches which currently are dominated by secondary market companies.

NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn concluded NSSTA's Fall Conference with a Government Relations Update - his characteristically insightful and energizing overview of structured settlement legislative and regulatory activities. Among other accomplishments, Vaughn was recently named Vice Chairman of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD).

Other recent NSSTA-related S2KM blog posts:

• Michael Goodman Interview
• NSSTA Marketing Surveys
  • Senior Claim Executives
  • Claim Professionals
  • Plaintiff Attorneys
• NSSTA 2015 Structures 202 Conference
• NSSTA 2015 Annual Conference

Structured Settlement Surveys - 2

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), in partnership with CLM Advisors, has recently completed a three-part structured settlement survey project of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3) the results of which provide NSSTA members with marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

Complementing NSSTA's surveys, NSSTA member and structured settlement provider Prudential recently published the results of its own 2013 survey of 400 claimants who had entered into a settlement of a physical injury or workers’ compensation claim of at least $100,000 from 2003 to 2013.

Considered together, these four surveys provide valuable insights into how key stakeholders currently view the structured settlement market. They also provide a point of reference for, and comparison with, other structured settlement market surveys several of which have been completed or updated since S2KM published this previous blog post in November 2008.

What follows are brief summaries of prior structured settlement surveys. In subsequent blog posts, S2KM will review and evaluate the most recent NSSTA and Prudential surveys.

• NSSTA 2006: Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys and Structured Settlement Recipients - This NSSTA-sponsored survey was titled: "A Study of the Structured Settlement Process Conducted on behalf of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association" and was directed by Robert E. Hoyt, the Dudley L. Moore, Jr. Chair of Insurance at the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. It consisted of attorneys involved in structured settlements (43 telephone surveys) and structured settlement recipients (1275 telephone and Internet surveys). Among the reported results:
  • Only 7% of personal injury settlements between $75,000 and $100,000 include structured settlements; and only 30% of personal injury settlements above $1 million included structured settlements.
  • When asked: "Whom do you prefer to use for purposes of financial planning for your clients?" , surveyed attorneys responded: trust company/department - 30%; Financial planner - 28%; Structured settlement consultant - 23%; No response - 19%.
• American General 2007: Survey about Structured Settlement Public Awareness - Sponsored by AIG American General and conducted by Esearch.com, Inc. in September 2007, this survey included 1000 U.S. participants - 80% had no connection with any personal injury case; 20% had previously been involved directly or indirectly through a family member in a personal injury case. Respondents who had no connection to a personal injury case were asked to read two hypothetical scenarios and answer questions on how they would react.Those with a direct connection to a personal injury case were not only asked to read the hypothetical scenarios, but also to answer questions based upon their real life experience. AIG's conclusion: the structured settlement industry needs to better educate Americans about structured settlements.
• J.G. Wentworth 2008: Survey of Structured Settlement Recipients - The survey consisted of 115 structured settlement recipients who had previously sold payment rights to J.G. Wentworth. The survey questions addressed both primary and secondary market issues, focusing upon the reasons the respondents: 1) first agreed to a structured settlement; and 2) then subsequently sold (transferred) some or all of their structured settlement payment rights. S2KM's prior reporting about the survey's primary market questions, responses plus related S2KM comments appears here. S2KM's prior reporting about the survey's secondary market questions, responses plus related S2KM comments appears here.
• Jeremy Babener 2009: Dissipation Legal Research Paper - Titled "Justifying the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy: The Use of Lump Sum Settlements," this paper examines and challenges the myth of the squandering injury victim. In it, Babener refutes the existence of any published study supporting the statistic that "90% of lump sum recipients dissipate their recoveries within five years" and identifies 12 existing dissipation studies relevant to structured settlements that reach a contradictory conclusion: injury victims have no greater propensity to dissipate money than non-injury victims.
• Towers Watson 2011: "Update of U.S. Tort Cost Trends" - The 2011 update represents the 15th study of U.S. tort costs, and the most recently published, by Towers Watson. Note: a Tower Watson representative has informed S2KM it has no current plans to publish further updates. The 2011 study reported $264.6 billion of 2010 U.S. tort costs and excluded: 1) no-fault auto insurance; 2) property coverages; 3) workers compensation; 4) certain extraordinary (one time) costs. Tower Watson's 2002 study had previously translated overall tort costs in 2001 into these additional cost categories and percentages: 1) administrative costs - 21%; 2) defense costs - 14%; 3) plaintiff attorneys -19%; 4) economic loss - 22%; and 5) non-economic loss - 24%. Based on the 2011 study and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM has estimated that since 2011 more than $170 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys.
• Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) 2011: "National Litigation Management Study" - This survey of litigation management executives analyzed 30 litigation-related service areas including structured settlements. Commissioned by CLM (formerly the Council on Litigation Management ) and conducted by Revere Advisory, it identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives. CLM membership includes: corporations, insurance companies, government agencies, defense attorneys and law firms plus individuals "who participate in litigation and the management thereof (Corporate Counsel; Risk, Claims and Litigation Managers; Adjusters and Service Providers etc.)."
• Daniel Durbin 2013: Survey of Structured Settlement Brokers - Durbin, a former NSSTA President and Senior Structured Settlement Sales Manager with Allstate Life, conducted an informal survey with a group of leading structured settlement brokers to obtain their input and evaluate their interest in representing a potential new structured settlement product provider. Durbin identified himself as part of an investor group of individuals including insurance executives who see underdeveloped opportunities in the structured settlement primary market. Although Durbin has not published the results of his survey, he has presented to several industry groups and stated that the survey showed the interest is high as long as the new firm is financially strong with competitive rates.
• Melissa Evola Price 2002-2015: Quarterly Reports of NSSTA Member Structured Settlement Annuity Provider Sales - Melissa Evola Price's quarterly structured settlement report, selectively distributed to NSSTA members, is now copyrighted by her company, Structured Financial Associates, Inc. (SFA). Price and SFA have granted S2KM permission to publish selected portions of her report on both S2KM's blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") and the structured settlement wiki. Her reports include historical data from 1975-2001 which is sourced with permission from "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).  Evola Price most recently reported 2015 first quarter structured settlement annuity premium of $1,332,047,252, an increase of more than $230 million (21%) compared with the 2014 first quarter structured settlement annuity premium of $1,101,839,529.

S2P2J Release 54

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates an October 2013 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for Release 54 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update simultaneously at no additional charge.

Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability as well as link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

First published in 1986 and updated semi-annually, S2P2J is co-authored by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs. 

Release 54 Highlights - Release 54 will feature new, updated and/or expanded sections addressing the following structured settlement topics:

• Negotiating structured settlements vs. cashing out
• Defendant disclosure issues
• Business practices of consultants
• Insurance company insolvencies
• Medicare set-aside arrangements
• Re-cycled structured settlement payment rights
• Securitization of structured settlement payment rights
• Australia structured settlement update

Negotiating Structured Settlements vs. Cashing Out - Why and when should defendants agree to structured settlements as opposed to lump sum settlements? Do defendants save money using structured settlements and, if yes, why and how? Do structured settlements result in additional costs and risks for defendants and, if yes, how do defendants reduce these costs and risks? Release 54 examines these questions in the context of existing state statutes and case law and offers recommendations for defendants when they review their traditional structured settlement policies and business practices. The recommendations include new sample structured settlement Mission and Disclosure Statements for liability insurers.

Defendant Disclosure Issues - Release 54 substantially expands and re-organizes S2P2J's existing coverage of defendant structured settlement disclosure issues. Topics addressed:

• State structured settlement protection act requirements
• Product disclosures and representations
  • Cost or Value
  • NAIC Annuity Disclosure Model Regulation
  • NAIC Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation
  • Compensation disclosure
  • "Guaranteed" payments
  • Dissipation studies
  • Public assistance
  • Annuity ownership and rights
  • Taxation
  • Financial condition of funding entities
• Conflicts of interest
• Medicaid/Medicare disclosures
• Securities issues
• Class action lawsuits vs. defendants
• Meeting professional responsibilities

Structured Settlement Consultants - Release 54 expands and updates S2P2J's coverage of structured settlement consultants to address: consultant selection criteria; structured settlement product suitability; and consultant business practice issues including laws and regulations, industry standards, commission disputes, privacy rules, and disclosure and representation requirements.

Insurance Company Insolvencies - Release 54 expands and updates S2P2J's already extensive coverage of insurance company insolvencies including state insurance guaranty associations and the most recent developments impacting Executive Life of New York [ELNY] and Reliance Insurance Company. Following ELNY's 22 years of New York State supervised "rehabilitation", S2P2J's Release 54 identifies lessons that potential structured settlement recipients and their attorneys and advisers can and should learn from the ELNY debacle.

Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements - Release 54 re-organizes and promotes S2P2J's coverage of Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) with updated materials for both workers compensation (WC) MSAs and liability MSAs. These updates include an extensive summary and analysis of the structured settlement provisions in the new CMS WCMSA Reference Guide as well as conclusions and recommendations for utilizing MSAs in personal injury liability cases.

Re-cycled Structured Settlement Payment Rights - As low interest rates continue to negatively impact the primary structured settlement market, new products featuring re-cycled structured settlement payment rights have begun to proliferate as funding alternatives for personal injury periodic payment settlements. Release 54 features a new section with detailed diagrams and charts (designed by Timothy Morbach) to explain the several variations of these products. In addition, this new section compares the features of these products with traditional structured settlements and summarizes recent investor warnings about these products issued by the SEC and FINRA.

Securitization of Structured Settlement Payment Rights - S2P2J already includes a detailed Chapter 16 titled "Transfers of Structured Settlement Payment Rights" which provides comprehensive coverage of most structured settlement secondary market issues. This coverage includes: the history of the secondary market; summary and analysis of IRC section 5891 and the state structured settlement protection acts; and how judges review (or should review) transfer applications. Release 54 adds a new section, with detailed diagrams and charts (designed by Timothy Morbach), explaining how securitization of structured settlement payment rights works.

Australia Structured Settlement Update - S2P2J continues to track structured settlement developments in countries outside the United States including Canada, the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Release 54 highlights a recent legislative development in Australia called “The Lifetime Care and Support Scheme” which provides treatment, rehabilitation and attendant care services to people severely injured in automobile accidents. At least one Australian structured settlement expert believes this legislative development could prevent an annuity-funded structured settlement market from developing in Australia anytime soon.

"Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" is a complete reference work for attorneys, settlement planners, structured settlement consultants, risk managers, liability insurers, annuity providers and secondary market participants. It is available in both hardcopy and online versions which are updated semi-annually. For highlights from previous S2P2J updates, see the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlement Metrics - 2

Why should defendants or liability insurers ever agree to settle a personal injury case using a structured settlement?

Although this question may seem counter intuitive to current structured settlement stakeholders, it represented a fundamental issue when structured settlements were introduced in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The historic sales rationale for defendants and liability insurers to endorse, promote and fund structured settlements:

• Studies show 9 out of 10 lump sum recipients "squander" their entire settlement within five years.
• Structured settlements enable recipients to live free of public benefits.
• Structured settlements reduce claim costs.
• Structured settlements help defendants settle cases that would otherwise go to trial.
• Structured settlements represent good public policy.

Although still marketed by some sales persons, the first two justifications for defendants and liability insurers to promote and fund structured settlements have been exposed as "myths" by Jeremy Babener and David Lillesand respectively. No studies exist that show 9 of 10 lump sum recipients dissipate their lump sums within five years. Worse, frequent use of the pejorative term "squander" in the context of this dissipation study myth attaches an unfair and unwarranted stigma to injury victims. Even assuming injury victims dissipate lump sums, the reasons could be as varied as payment for justifiable expenses with inadequate settlements (compared with actual lost wages, medical expenses and inflation) or pay down strategies to qualify for Medicaid.

The idea that seriously injured structured settlement recipients can survive without public benefits is nonsense - a Tea Party pipe dream. At least prior to health care reform, no insurance company would offer medical insurance at any price for brain damaged babies, serious burn victims, or quadriplegics. Medicaid represents the only medical insurance available for seriously injured (special needs) claimants whether they settle with a lump sum or a structured settlement. As underscored by Lillesand, "without Medicaid, seriously injured accident victims die" because they cannot gain access to our medical system without an insurance card. Completely contrary to this public benefit myth, how best to integrate structured settlements with Medicaid and Medicare represents an increasingly important focus for personal injury settlement planning.

Based upon the above sales rationale, however, most U.S. liability insurers and self-insured defendants have developed structured settlement programs. According to a 2011 "National Litigation Management study" commissioned by the Council on Litigation Management (Litigation Management Study), structured settlement represents the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.

Many structured settlement programs endorsed and promoted by liability insurers and self-insured defendants (defense structured settlement programs) share certain common characteristics including:

• Approved lists of annuity providers (life companies).
• Approved "brokers" who also serve as agents for the approved life companies.
• Proactive case identification of "good candidates" for structured settlements.
• "Early involvement" by the defense structured settlement broker.
• Defense broker attendance and participation at negotiations and mediations.
• Structured settlement funding by defendants or their liability insurers utilizing annuity financing ("buy and hold') or qualified assignments.

Some defense structured settlement programs also feature:

• Defense funding utilizing an affiliated annuity provider;
• Commission sharing by the defense broker with the defendant or liability insurer. Note: such commission sharing generally utilizes a life insurance agency affiliated with the defendant or liability insurer and may or may not be disclosed to injury victims, their attorneys, mediators and/or judges.

The National Litigation Management Study also found that "litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them." When asked "how effective are your metrics in measuring the effectiveness of your litigation program", more than 74 percent of the study's participants rated their available metrics as "Fair" or worse. In the words of Mike Saltman, President of Esquire Corporate Solutions: "to be truly successful, national service programs must be able to deliver the very metrics and analytics that participants said they are seeking: quality, performance, and satisfaction levels. These are the metrics that a national service provider must be able to give to its clients in today's environment."

Many defense structured settlement programs do include performance metrics of which the most common are:

• Annuity premium generated by the structured settlement program; and
• Success ratio - the percentage of targeted structured settlement cases that ultimately settle with a structured settlement.
• Note: some defense structured settlement programs also attempt to measure the cost savings resulting from the use of structured settlements.

Why, when and how should defendants or liability insurers ever agree to settle a personal injury case using a structured settlement?

Bottom line: to answer that question and to evaluate the "quality, performance and satisfaction" of their structured settlement programs, defendants and liability insurers should analyze (and perhaps re-think):

• Program justification
  • Structured settlements reduce claims costs.
  • Structured settlements help defendants settle cases that would otherwise go to trial.
  • Structured settlements represent good public policy.
• Program characteristics
• Program metrics
  • Annuity premium generated by the structured settlement program.
  • Structured settlement success ratio.
  • Cost or cost savings.

S2KM will continue to discuss "structured settlement metrics" in subsequent blog posts which also will be featured on the structured settlement wiki.

Joseph Dehner Interview

Joseph Dehner is a partner in the Frost Brown Todd law firm and co-author of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J). He has been studying and writing about structured settlements since 1977 and agreed to be interviewed for this S2KM blog post.

S2KM: Your Frost Brown Todd biography highlights your expertise in multinational securities and business disputes. How do structured settlements fit into your legal practice?

Dehner: Through some of my clients, I was part of the birth of the structured settlement industry many years ago. It is great to see the structured settlement industry evolve into a robust part of the U.S. economy. I continue to advise attorneys and firms on structured settlement and periodic payment judgment issues. One example was the honor of serving as the U.S. Government’s expert witness in the criminal trial of James Gibson, who besmirched the good names of structured settlements and US Government bond trusts, and is now serving a long prison term.

S2KM: William T. Robinson lll, your Frost Brown Todd partner and President-Elect of the American Bar Association (ABA), was be a featured speaker at the NSSTA 2011 Annual Meeting. In addition to Robinson and yourself, does Frost Brown Todd have other attorneys with structured settlement expertise?

Dehner: We have a large litigation department, but I am the primary person specializing in structured settlement matters within our firm.

S2KM: You and your co-authors have been writing and updating S2P2J since 1986. Who is your target audience and how to you track new developments?

Dehner: Our target audience includes attorneys, as well as structured settlement consultants, judges and funding providers. We review on a monthly basis all reported cases and news reports about structured settlements and periodic payment judgments, and follow information as it flows about case and other developments.

S2KM: Having recently completed S2P2J Release 49, what important legal issues and developments do you see emerging?

Dehner: There is a growing experience of post-settlement issues emerging from a variety of directions – including fights among beneficiaries of holders of structured settlement rights, factoring company fights and disputes arising from Protection Act hearings, tax rulings (e.g., wrongly incarcerated persons can receive tax-free payments, despite prior uncertainty whether they suffered a “physical” injury), rights in bankruptcy, whether structured settlement rights are marital property, and many other issues that are being resolved over time by individual case rulings. The growing use of structured settlements outside the “tax-free” arena represents recognition that settlement is a time to put into place good financial planning.

S2KM: How do structured settlements in the United States differ from structured settlements in other countries?

Dehner: Many countries have more of a safety net philosophy and less of a litigation-driven means of addressing the needs of injured persons. But for common law countries, many have moved well ahead of the USA in insisting that compensation meet needs – meaning that payments should correspond over time to the actual needs of injured persons. So, in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere, we are seeing a conversion from the ancient lump-sum one-time system to what we in the USA would find normal in the workers compensation context. This is a real sea shift in thinking.

S2KM: Are there any lessons or ideas the United States structured settlement industry can gain from other countries?

Dehner: Sure – read Chapter 1 of our book about other country experiences and approaches.

S2KM: How do you view the secondary market? Are structured settlement transfers good or bad for the industry generally - and more specifically for structured settlement recipients?

Dehner: It’s not a question of bad or good. It’s a question of how individuals react in the real world. People who hold structured settlement rights chose to take money over time at one point, and then decide for various reasons to get cash now in exchange for giving up future rights that have greater value overall. But that’s their choice. The reality is that high-pressure tactics, coupled with what would have been viewed as usury and heresy in the Middle Ages, robbed those individuals of a truly fair and efficient secondary market when the factoring industry arose. Protection Acts now exist in 47 states. When you review the reported decisions about transfers of structured settlement rights, virtually every case where a judge wrote an opinion rejects the transfer and recites in pointed language why discount rates and other factors compel denial of a transfer application. Most transfers go through anyway because of no real contest and no real focus by the court on the underlying issues. I would hope that the impact of factoring over time does not dissuade Congress from maintaining favorable government support for structured settlements through a continuation of 104(a)(2) treatment.

S2KM: What factors, in your opinion, have contributed to the recent decline in growth of the structured settlement annuity premium?

Dehner: It’s pretty simple really. Interest rates are so low for so long that structured settlements have not stood out as bargains compared to receiving a lump sum and investing it for potentially greater returns (though the performance of the US equity markets should cause a reasonable observer to think twice).

S2KM: Do you have any thoughts or ideas about how to improve and/or grow the structured settlement industry?

Dehner: Greater focus on its basic point is where to start. Regardless of tax treatment, putting into place a compensation plan that actually aims to match needs with resources makes sense. Although there is no solid statistical evidence to support the concept that recipients of windfalls have nothing left after five years, we all know the realities that confront anyone who obtains a large sum as a first time experience with wealth. Charities, friends and relatives want a piece. It’s easy to spend money sitting in the bank. And then at some point there is nothing left to deal with what in some cases is a lifetime of needs. My favorite structured settlement example was an elderly fellow I represented who was pushed over in a grocery store, broke his hip and ended up in a nursing home that at the time cost about $1100/month. He would have run out of money from his savings in about two years. Instead of getting a small lump sum settlement for what happened, the insurer provided a structured settlement that paid $1400/month for the rest of his life. The cost was minimal, given his age and the magic of actuarial science. He died 15 years later, but never had to worry about his nursing home bills. Keep the focus on this example and what it represents, and the structured settlement industry merits a bright and expanding future.

S2KM: What lessons, if any, do the Spencer v. Hartford and Macomber v. Travelers class action settlements provide for the structured settlement industry?

Dehner: Transparency. As long as underlying economic realities are known and disclosed to those involved, I don’t see an issue. One can argue about Spence and Macomber should ultimately have been decided, but there is an easy solution to the issues that underlay both cases – being up front and clear in documentation and negotiation as to what was going on. When we wrote "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" in 1986 (since updated 49 times), our negotiation chapter talked about how a good structured settlement negotiation should be about how much a claimant would receive when over time. It was not about negotiating an amount first, and then finding out what it would buy. Focusing on what payments will be received when (and the reliability of the financing mechanism) and disclosure of who does what and receives what are consistent with best practices, and should not be subject to later court challenges about what participants earned how much in the process.

S2KM: What impact, if any, would the expanded use of 468B funds in single event tort cases have on structured settlements?

Dehner: It would simplify matters for a defendant, of course, but would require clear IRS or statutory guidance that is missing now. It would give greater leverage to the claimant than exists now, so the defense side understandably is reluctant to embrace the tool generally, and absent clear guidance on the efficacy of single-claimant 468B funds, there is no point in the rhetorical debate that rages about this issue.

S2KM: Assuming federal malpractice reform legislation is enacted, should periodic payment of judgments be included?

Dehner: Of course. Read the recent paper of the Irish judiciary, or the UK Government’s papers that led to widespread use of periodic payment judgments there as a matter of course. Or just think about what the law really accomplishes at its best – matching compensation with actual need. This is not about favoring the defense or plaintiff side of the bar. And it is not about who wins and loses. This is about trying to make sure as well as possible that injured persons receive compensation that meets their needs. If it lowers cost, fine. If it increases cost, fine. I would argue that this is unknowable, but it is obvious to a rational individual that trying to match compensation against need is better than the equivalent of a lottery, where some people lose completely, others win it big, and many get a lump sum that does not last enough to get them through their lifetimes.

S2KM: Are there any opportunities for the structured settlement industry to benefit from proposed changes (including budget decreases) for Medicare, Medicaid and/or Social Security?

Dehner: Yes, and one can expect both further pressures for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement at settlement time, as well as increasingly sophisticated settlement planning. Our book tries to keep abreast of these rapidly changing areas and how attorneys and other participants in the structured settlement industry can do a good job for their clients (and not make serious mistakes in the process).

S2KM: From an historic legal perspective, what impact have structured settlements and periodic payment judgments had on the U.S. tort system?

Dehner: The rule thought to be enunciated first in England in Fetter v. Beale that an injury should be compensated with a single one-time payment – the lump-sum system – has been met with deviation when it matters most – in workers compensation systems, in vaccine cases, in other applications. And even in England, the lump sum award system is slowly disappearing based on statutory changes. Structured settlements in the US have continued to chip away at lump sum thinking in America. History should show that structured settlements and periodic payment judgments will prove to be a far better alternative to the jackpot theory of litigation. Do we really want injured people to go to courthouse casinos for justice?

Structured Settlements in 2010 - 2

Beginning in 2004, S2KM has utilized this blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") and related web 2.0 publications to report and analyze strategic developments impacting the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning (aka settlement consulting) industries.

Featuring industry leaders, commentators and professional association conferences, S2KM has attempted to highlight how legal and technology changes are redefining the traditional (pre-2001) structured settlement market including structured settlement public policy as well as structured settlement business standards, business practices and business models.

From S2KM's perspective, the following categories, people and developments defined the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning industries in 2010:

Professional associations

• S2KM attended seven professional educational conferences during 2010 which addressed structured settlement and/or special needs settlement planning issues:
  • National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) - 2
  • Society of Settlement Planners (SSP)
  • National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP)
  • National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP)
  • National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA)
  • Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP)
• As a general observation, all of these conferences were valuable and complementary. For S2KM's 2010 (plus historical) conference reports, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.
• SSP, NASP and NAMSAP deserve special recognition for their 2010 strategic educational discussions featuring industry leaders, commentators and critics who offered alternative perspectives for improving and growing the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning markets.
• By comparison, NSSTA remains reluctant to openly discuss strategic industry issues or to include alternative perspectives in their educational programs. More positively, NSSTA representatives and members increasingly attend and speak at non-NSSTA structured settlement and special needs settlement planning conferences.
• NAELA's educational conferences are noteworthy because they regularly feature sections or entire programs titled "unprograms". NAELA's unprograms are moderated group discussions about specific topics. NAELA's 2010 Special Needs Summit included six separate one hour unprograms with a concluding unprogram wrap-up session. One example of a 2010 NAELA unprogram was titled "Collaboration Opportunities for Special Needs Attorneys and Financial Planners".

Industry leaders

• NSSTA promoted Eric Vaughn, who previously served as NSSTA's lobbyist, to replace Joseph Ricci as NSSTA's new Executive Director effective July 1, 2010. Peter Arnold, previously NSSTA's Marketing Director, was similarly promoted to serve as NSSTA's Associate Executive Director. NSSTA's Board of Directors elected Michael Kelly as its 2010 President and Dan Finn as its President-elect. NSSTA honored Congressman Peter Stark during its Annual Meeting as its 2010 Legislator of the Year. NSSTA also gave special recognition to Karen Meyers and Joseph Bornstein for their contributions to NSSTA's CSSC and NSSTAPAC programs respectively..
• SSP elected Jason Lazarus as its President for 2010-11 and Charles Schell as Vice President. SSP honored Richard Risk with the designation of "life member" for his contributions to SSP and the settlement planning industry. Joseph Tombs continues as Director of SSP's RSP certification program.
• NASP named Matthew Bracy as its new President succeeding Robin Shapiro. Earl Nesbitt continues as NASP's Executive Director.
• NAMSAP elected Michael Westcott as its President.
• NAELA honored Dick Traum as the first recipient of NAELA's Special Needs Leadership Award. Traum is the founder and CEO of Achilles International, a non-profit organization providing community support for athletes with disabilities with members in more than 70 countries.
• Amy Palmiero-Winters, ultra-marathoner and lower-leg amputee, was named during 2010 as the winner of the 2009 James E. Sullivan Award given annually to the top amateur athlete in the United States.

Industry commentators

• For the past several years, Robert Wood has been the preeminent tax commentator and author for the structured settlement and settlement planning industries. Wood's publications appear on the Wood & Porter website.
• During 2010, Jeremy Babener emerged as an important new structured settlement tax commentator and author specializing in public policy and proposing an expanded structured settlement tax subsidy. In addition to authoring several structured settlement articles for tax and legal journals, Babener participated as a featured speaker at both the SSP and NASP 2010 Annual Meetings and authored two blog posts for S2KM during 2010. Babener discussed his structured settlement writing (accessible on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki and Babener's Tax Structuring website) in this 2010 S2KM interview.
• Additional authors who wrote and published 2010 legal articles about structured settlement and special needs settlement planning issues included: Daniel Hindert, Matt Garretson, Sylvius von Saucken, Peter Wayne, Mark Popolizio, Gregg Polsky and Brant Hellwig.
• Both the Legal Broadcast Network and Ringler Radio continued to produce and distribute podcasts featuring structured settlement commentators during 2010.
• An increasing number of structured settlement and special needs settlement planning professionals published blogs during 2010 joining industry blogging pioneers such as John Darer, Mark Wahlstrom, Matthew Bracy and Jack Meligan.
• Incisive Media published two new updates (Release 47 and Release 48) for "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" during 2010.

Legislation

• Both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Health Care Reform) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) redesign the legal environment in which the structured settlement and personal injury settlement planning markets operate.
• Among the anticipated strategic consequences of health care reform:
  • An estimated 16 million more Medicaid participants - and therefore:
  • More special needs trusts;
  • More special needs attorneys;
  • More structured settlement annuities payable to trustees.
• Dodd-Frank re-writes federal banking law and creates a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. A key question, as yet unanswered, is whether the sale and/or purchase of structured settlement annuities constitutes a "financial product or service" under Dodd-Frank requiring regulatory supervision by the Bureau.

Regulations

• The United States Department of Treasury held a public hearing on February 23, 2010 focused on proposed new regulations for Internal Revenue Code section 104(a)(2). The proposed regulations, if enacted, would:
  • Eliminate the requirement that damages be based on “tort or tort type rights” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion, and
  • Incorporate 1996 legislation requiring that personal injuries and sickness damages be “physical” in order to qualify for the section 104(a)(2) tax exclusion.
  • A subsequent S2KM interview featured John McCullough and Richard Risk, two of the structured settlement industry members who spoke at the hearing.
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) continued to issue administrative guidance during 2010 for enforcement of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act of 1980 and the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) reporting requirements for insurers. Featured discussions during the NAMSAP 2010 Annual meeting highlighted:
  • The increasing importance and complexity of the MSP statute for all personal injury stakeholders;
  • The need for these personal injury stakeholders (and their professional associations) to cooperate politically and educationally;
  • The challenges of integrating structured settlements, including rated ages, with Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs) in the context of health care reform, CMS MSA regulations and related judicial rulings;
  • The evolving business models, claim management strategies and professional skill sets which are now emerging to address these challenges.

Case law

• The Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit which settled in 2010 represents one of the most important legal developments in the history of the structured settlement industry.
• Hartford's gross settlement payment of $72.5 million represents 4.5% of total premium dollars Hartford used to purchase structured settlement annuities for class members from January 1, 1997 to June 7, 2010.
• Among the plaintiffs allegations:
  • Hartford and its attorneys, brokers and agents violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed common law fraud in structuring its settlements.
  • Hartford's structured settlements were priced so Hartford retained 15% of the value of the structured settlements.
  • Hartford and its attorneys, brokers and agents misrepresented structured settlements including explicit or implicit reference to:
    • The "cost" of the annuity or structured settlement or portion of the settlement being structured; and/or
    • The "value" of the annuity or structured settlement or portion of the settlement being structured.
• Hartford, which stopped writing new structured settlement business in 2009, denied the allegations.

Technology

• Despite the accelerating technology advances revolutionizing society generally, the structured settlement and special needs settlement planning industries have been slow to study and incorporate these advances into their educational programs and business models.
• The best industry-sponsored technology education programs during 2010 were offered by Mark Miller during a NAELA webinar and Harry Margolis at the ASNP 2010 Annual Meeting. Both presentations provided introductory overviews of web 2.0 and including recommendations for integrating specific social networking tools into special needs legal practices.
• NSSTA initiated a NSSTA blog during 2010 and offered an educational program about Internet marketing during its 2010 Fall Education program.

Public policy

• Both SSP and NASP featured specific discussions and presentations about structured settlement public policy during their 2010 Annual Meetings. The discussions included industry commentators representing diverse viewpoints and priorities.
• Jeremy Babener followed his 2009 paper debunking industry myths concerning "structured settlement dissipation studies" with several 2010 articles and papers addressing structured settlement public policy issues. Babener's public policy writing is featured on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.
• Release 47 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" re-examined several structured settlement public policy issues related to single claimant 468B funds, structured settlement factoring transactions, dissipation by personal injury victims, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, special needs trusts and Medicare set-aside arrangements.
• In a 2010 Boston College Law Review article, professors Gregg Polsky and Brant Hellwig challenged the application of any structured settlement tax benefit for deferring attorney fees or payments to non-physically injured tort plaintiffs under general common law tax principles.

Business standards and practices

• The Spencer v. Hartford case raises many issues about structured settlement business standards and practices which require greater education and analysis if the primary market expects to improve and grow. For example;
  • Is the primary structured settlement market capable of self-regulation?
  • Why shouldn't key elements of the state structured settlement protection statutes (judicial approval; best interest test; compensation disclosure) be applied to primary market transactions?
  • As an additional requirement, or as an alternative, why haven't plaintiff attorneys and plaintiff consultants insisted upon a claimant's written informed consent before entering into a structured settlement?
  • Why haven't the SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct received more public discussion and analysis within the structured settlement industry?
• "Cash now" advertising represents one of the most highly criticized secondary market business practices. Although this practice continues to exist, NASP took an important educational step during its 2010 Annual Meeting by highlighting this issue and inviting secondary market critics to participate in the discussion.

Business models

• While other segments of, and products within, the special needs settlement planning market have expanded and improved in recent years, the structured settlement primary market in general has stagnated and retrenched.
• During 2010, however, representatives of the primary structured settlement market increasingly recognized their interdependency, and interacted, with other settlement planning professionals and professional associations such as special needs attorneys, life care planners, Medicare set-aside professionals and secondary structured settlement market participants.
• Future industry improvement and growth will require even greater appreciation and identification of shared interests as well as expanded implementation of shared political strategies, educational programs and business models.

Prior S2KM annual reports about the structured settlement industry and reports about industry association conferences are available on S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlement Public Policy - 1

The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has invited Patrick Hindert, Managing Director of S2KM Limited and The Settlement Services Group (TSSG), to organize a discussion about "Structured Settlement Public Policy" for the SSP 2010 Annual Meeting May 3 in Washington, D.C.

For additional information about the SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings, see this prior S2KM post.

S2KM's objectives:

• Improve and grow the structured settlement market.
• Promote public discussions about structured settlement public policy. S2KM has previously published a structured settlement public policy wiki featuring Joseph Dehner, Robert Wood and Jeremy Babener.
• Invite and challenge the best and brightest structured settlement knowledge experts to:
  • Attend the SSP 2010 Annual Meeting; and
  • Participate in a public discussion about structured settlement public policy.

Preliminary public policy questions - also posted on S2KM's public policy wiki.

• What is a structured settlement?
  • Google search
  • wikipedia definition
  • transaction diagram
• What does "public policy" mean generally - and specifically for structured settlements?
• Why is public policy important for structured settlements?
• Who and what defines structured settlement public policy?
• What changes have occurred in structured settlement public policy?
  • Before 1982
  • Between 1982 and 2000
  • Since 2001
• Based upon existing structured settlement public policy, what constitutes best business practices, bad business practices and illegal business practices?
• What are the most important structured settlement public policy issues?
• Does structured settlement public policy support:
  • Single claimant IRC section 468B qualified settlement funds?
  • Court-approved structured settlement factoring transactions pursuant to IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes?
  • Tax exclusions for non-physical injuries as well as physical?
  • Tax credits rather than the current tax exclusion?
• How many structured settlement recipients pay federal income taxes - or gain any financial advantage from the structured settlement tax exclusion?
• Do personal injury victims have a greater propensity to dissipate their financial resources than non-personal injury victims?
• Or, does public policy actually require and promote dissipation by injury victims and other disabled persons? For example, Medicaid asset requirements and resulting asset "pay down" strategies.
• Should the existence of the secondary market disqualify annuities as a funding option for special needs trusts?
• Does the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 apply to structured settlement annuities?
• Why should structured settlement annuities cost less than lump sum alternatives to fund Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs)?
• How has health care reform changed structured settlement public policy?
• Does public policy support expanded use of the Internet for marketing, communication, education and collaboration? If yes, how does the Internet and Internet public policy impact the future of structured settlements?
• How can SSP members and attendees influence structured settlement public policy?
• How can members of NSSTA, SSP, NASP, NAMSAP and NAELA better identify and promote their collaborative public policy knowledge and shared public policy interests?
• Should the structured settlement industry encourage public policy analysis and promote best business practices in the context of public policy?
• Does public policy analysis and promotion of best business practices strengthen or weaken the structured settlement industry?

For additional S2KM reporting about SSP and NSSTA, see:

• S2KM's blog post titled "SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings" and
• S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Jeremy Babener Interview - 2

Since first meeting Jeremy Babener at the SSP 2009 Annual Meeting, S2KM has reviewed, analyzed and featured his writing about structured settlements. For prior S2KM blog posts about Jeremy Babener and his structured settlement writing, see S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.

S2KM published an advanced summary ("Babener Proposes Expanded S2 Tax Subsidy") of Babener's most recent structured settlement article (titled "Expanding the Structured Settlement Tax Exclusion") which is featured in this week's edition of Tax Notes. The article also appears on Babener's website TaxStructuring.com. Babener has granted S2KM the following exclusive interview about his most recent article.

S2KM: Greetings Jeremy. Our first and only prior S2KM interview (Jeremy Babener Interview) was published June 23, 2009 and highlighted your research about dissipation studies. What structured settlement articles have you written since your dissipation paper?

Jeremy Babener: I have written several articles since. The first provided context when the Treasury removed the single-claimant qualified settlement fund issue from their Priority Guidance Plan. The second discussed a Treasury hearing on Section 104(a)(2) regulations focused on the different tax treatment for physical and non-physical damages, as well as a recent proposal to eliminate the distinction by the National Taxpayer Advocate. The third, a longer law journal article, provides the history of the structured settlement and factoring industries, and makes the public policy argument in favor of Treasury regulations for single-claimant qualified settlement funds. This most recent piece introduces the possibility of converting the structured settlement tax exclusion into a tax credit.

S2KM: What reactions have you received to your structured settlement writing?

Jeremy Babener: I have enjoyed receiving feedback from industry practitioners. Many have contacted me with questions, which I am happy to discuss. In terms of recommendations that I have and am making, while I have received a lot of positive responses, the question is whether those with decision-making powers will consider them.

S2KM: Let's talk about your most recent article. What is the title and where and when was it published?

Jeremy Babener: It is titled, "Expanding the Structured Settlement Tax Exclusion," and was published on April 19th in Tax Notes.

S2KM: Who is your target audience and why should they read your most recent article?

Jeremy Babener: The article is aimed at legislators and those interested in affecting structured settlement policy. It is meant to restructure the 1982 legislation that established the current tax exclusion to better accomplish the purpose of the 1982 Congress. Of course, those in the structured settlement industry are the more practical audience. They would economically benefit from the proposal and are therefore the likeliest group to be interested.

S2KM: What is your core message?

Jeremy Babener: My article focuses on who benefits from the structured settlement exclusion. Like all exclusions, it is of little use to those who, even without the exclusion, would incur no taxable income. The article suggests that a uniform refundable tax credit for structured settlements, or a financial supplement to structured settlement recipients with less income, might better accomplish Congress’ purpose of discouraging premature and inappropriate dissipation.

S2KM: What is the difference between an exclusion and a credit?

Jeremy Babener: Let's say that my taxable income is $100,000, and that I have a 50% tax rate. That means that I pay $50,000 in taxes. A $1,000 exclusion reduces my taxable income to $99,000, and thus I pay $49,500 in taxes. As you can see, the $1,000 exclusion was only worth $500 to me. Tax credits, quite differently, are generally "dollar for dollar." This means that a $1,000 tax credit actually reduces my taxes, not my taxable income, by $1,000. Thus, I would pay $49,000 after the tax credit, rather than $49,500 after the tax exclusion. Of course, someone with a lower tax rate, such as 10% will get even less out of a tax exclusion. For them an exclusion would be worth $100, as opposed to $500 for someone with a rate of 50%.

A refundable tax credit provides the value of the tax credit to someone whether or not they have any tax liability. Thus, $100 of tax credit to someone with no tax liability results in a $100 check from the government. A uniform refundable tax credit provides the same value to all, regardless of tax brackets. Thus, everyone might subtract the same $100 tax credit from their tax liability. A person who owes $50,000 in taxes would subsequently owe $49,900. A person who owes nothing in taxes receives a $100 check from the government ($100 in "negative taxes").

S2KM: Who gets the most out of the structured settlement exclusion, and who gets the least?

Jeremy Babener: Those who generate sufficient income after a settlement to place them in the highest tax-bracket get the most out of the exclusion. As illustrated above, the higher one's tax rate is, the more one gets out of an exclusion. Those who have no tax liability do not benefit at all from the exclusion.

S2KM: Recent estimates state that 47 percent of potentially eligible U.S. taxpayers pay no federal income tax. Is that statistic accurate and, if so, how does that statistic impact your proposal?

Jeremy Babener: Yes. The Tax Policy Center found this to be the case. We do not know how many personal injury victims pay no federal income tax, but since injury often makes work difficult, I would guess that the percentage would be even higher. That means that the current tax exclusion may fail to incentivize half or more of those who could choose to structure, providing them with no economic benefit for doing so.

S2KM: Why does it matter that some structured settlement recipients get more out of the exclusion than others?

Jeremy Babener: The purpose of the exclusion is to prevent premature and inappropriate dissipation of lump sum settlements. Unless Congress believes that such dissipation is more likely among plaintiffs earning higher incomes after their settlements, which seems unlikely, the exclusion’s design is not economically efficient.

S2KM: Should we be particularly concerned that potential structured settlement recipients expecting lower incomes have a weaker incentive to structure?

Jeremy Babener: Probably. We do not have proven data on this, but it seems likely that those with lower income are those more likely to dissipate. A low income after settlement might result from a debilitating injury and high injury-related expenses. It would seem that persons in such a situation are more likely to need every last cent of their settlement compensation because they may not be able to make up for dissipation by working more. Thus, they may be the most likely people to end up requiring government assistance as a result of dissipating.

S2KM: How could the exclusion be modified to incentivise potential structured settlement recipients expecting lower incomes?

Jeremy Babener: If Congress wishes to incentivise all potential structured settlement recipients equally, the exclusion could be turned into a uniform refundable tax credit. Such a credit would provide the same amount of value, whether by reducing tax liability or providing a tax refund, to all structured settlement recipients.

S2KM: If those earning a lower income are more likely to dissipate, why should we not just direct the structured settlement subsidy to them?

Jeremy Babener: Congress could do just that. But, there are reasons not to at this time. First of all, we do not have proven evidence on the matter. Economic literature posits that when we lack such evidence, it is most economically efficient to incentivise all equally. Secondly, not everyone knows what they will be making after a settlement. Since the exclusion is meant to encourage a particular decision at the time of settlement, it may be best to guarantee the benefit to all potential structured settlement recipients.

S2KM: Who would win and who would lose if Congress goes with a uniform tax credit?

Jeremy Babener: Clearly, those who could take advantage of the structured settlement exclusion, who could not before, would benefit. The “loser,” if there is one, depends on the structure of the credit. The tax credit would cost the government, just as the current exclusion does. Since the benefit would go to more people under this proposal, Congress would have to decide whether to allow an increase in lost revenue, or decrease the benefit to potential structured settlement recipients. Of course, allowing an increase in lost revenue may save the government from future increases in government assistance payments due to dissipation.

S2KM: What are you hoping to accomplish by writing this article?

Jeremy Babener: The article is not a sophisticated and ready-to-go proposal for Congress. It introduces an idea that I hope the structured settlement industry will take on and make its own. An expansion of the exclusion could benefit plaintiffs (by increasing their settlement value), defendants (by decreasing their settlement cost), brokers (who will earn more commissions), and insurance companies (who will increase annuity sales). I encourage the National Structured Settlements Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) to consider the proposal in the future. In fact, even the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) might weigh in, as the secondary market would be impacted by such a policy change. When the entire structured settlement industry stands to gain, these three associations should work together to further their mutual interests.

S2KM: Given your previous finding that no empirical data has proven that 90% of lump sum plaintiffs dissipate their money in five years, why would you recommend an expansion of a tax exclusion meant to prevent dissipation?

Jeremy Babener: In my research I found that the many citations to statistical findings of dissipation are not substantiated. However, I have also spoken with many in the industry. The anecdotal evidence certainly exists. It is the responsibility and prerogative of Congress to decide how much evidence is needed to legislate, and this was certainly not the first or last time that anecdotal evidence was relied upon for that purpose. My recommendation for a uniform refundable tax credit is meant to better accomplish Congress' goal.

S2KM: As a participant in the upcoming SSP tax panel (May 3 - Washington, D.C.), what tax issues interest you the most about structured settlements and personal injury settlement consulting?

Jeremy Babener: Clearly, I am interested in reactions to this proposal. Among other issues, I am also very interested to discuss the National Taxpayer Advocate's proposal to eliminate the difference in tax treatment between physical and non-physical injury. Currently, the proposal does not take the purpose of the structured settlement exclusion into account. The Advocate's proposal seeks to repeal the 1996 amendment to Section 104(a)(2) limiting the favorable tax treatment of damages to those received on account of "personal physical injury or physical sickness," rather than simply "personal injury or sickness." Unfortunately, the proposal does not seek to repeal the amendment to Section 130 in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 limiting the favorable tax treatment for structured settlement assignment companies to cases "involving physical injury or physical sickness." Thus, while the purpose of the Advocate's proposal is consistent with bringing non-physical damages back into the structured settlement tax-favored fold, it does not.

For prior S2KM blog posts directly or indirectly related to Jeremy Babener, see:

• Babener Proposes Expanded S2 Tax Subsidy
• Legislation to Expand the Structured Settlement Industry
• Jeremy Babener Interview
• SSP 2009 Annual Meeting
• NSSTA 2009 Fall Educational Conference

Babener Proposes Expanded S2 Tax Subsidy

Jeremy Babener, third year law student at NYU School of Law, and author of several recent articles about structured settlements, has proposed an expansion to the structured settlement tax subsidy in an article that will be featured in next week's edition of Tax Notes.

The premise of Babener's proposal is that high-income taxpayers benefit more from the structured settlement subsidy than low-income taxpayers, who sometimes do not benefit at all. Given that low-income taxpayers may be more likely to dissipate, Babener argues the IRC section 104(a)(2) exclusion should be available to all potential structured settlement recipients.

To accomplish this objective, Babener proposes a legislative conversion of the structured settlement exclusion to a refundable tax credit. According to Babener, a refundable tax credit would provide the same incentive value to all structured settlement recipients, whether high-income or low-income.

Following publication of Babener's Tax Notes article, S2KM will feature an interview with Babener about the context and rationale of his proposal.

For prior S2KM blog posts featuring Babener and his writing, see S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki.

Structured Settlements in 2009 - 2

This S2KM post follows "Structured Settlements in 2009 - 1" and features topical links to S2KM 2009 blog reports.

For 2010 industry updates, please continue to visit S2KM's blog as well as S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

Prior S2KM annual industry reports:

• Structured settlements in 2008
• Structured settlements in 2007
• Structured settlements in 2006

Professional Association Meetings

• NSSTA - National Structured Settlement Trade Association
  • Winter meeting
  • Annual meeting
  • Fall meeting
• SSP - Society of Settlement Planners
  • Preview
  • Annual meeting
• NASP - National Association of Settlement Purchasers
  • Part 1
  • Part 2
  • Part 3
• ASNP - Academy of Special Needs Planners
  • Annual meeting
  • Tim Nay interview

Settlement Consulting

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

Spencer v. Hartford

• Report 1
• Report 2
• Report 3
• Report 4

IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds

• Single Claimant 468B QSF Update
• IRC 468B and 5891
• Robert Wood's QSF Book
  • Summary and Review
  • Robert Wood Interview
• Jeremy Babener's QSF Paper
  • Summary
    
  • Review
    • Part 1
    • Part 2
  • Jeremy Babener Interview
• US Treasury Priority Guidance Plan 2009-2010

Dissipation Studies

• Introduction
• Jeremy Babener's Dissipation Paper
  • Summary and Review
  • Jeremy Babener Interview
  • Jeremy Babener Responds

Structured Settlement Credo

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5

Rapid Settlements

• Pacific Life v. Rapid Settlements
• Allstate v. Rapid Settlements

Fresno County Factoring Cases

• Report 1
• Report 2
• Report 3

Additional S2KM Analysis

• Re-Thinking Structured Settlements
• Structured Settlement 2009 Mid-Year Update
• Structured Settlement 2009 Strategic Analysis
• Structured Settlements and Government Benefits
• Settlement Trust Due Diligence

Additional Primary Market Developments

• Forge Purchases TSSG
• Richard Halpern

Additional Secondary Market Developments

• S&P Withdraws JG Wentworth Credit Ratings
• Structured Settlement Securitizations

"Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments"

• S2P2J Release 45
• S2P2J Release 46