Beyond Structured Settlements

Interview with SSP President Joe Tombs

Joe Tombs is currently completing the first year of a two-year term as President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP). SSP's 2017 Annual Conference is scheduled for March 1-3 in Las Vegas. As Tombs prepares for this event, he agreed to answer a few S2KM questions about SSP's current status and future direction. In a prior S2KM blog post, Tombs responded to the AIG Class Action Lawsuit - stating SSP is "neutral" and that SSP, as an association, has decided as a matter of policy to abandon taking any “political” positions.

S2KM: Joe, thank you for agreeing to this interview. To further clarify SSP's new "no political positions" policy, you have also stated that SSP is now neutral about single-claimant 468B Qualified Settlement Funds - one of the most contentious issues within the primary structured settlement market during the past several years. Just to confirm, are you saying the SSP, as an association, no longer supports and/or will no longer advocate for single-claimant 468B QSFs?

TOMBS: That is correct. Our refusal to take a position should not be misunderstood to imply anything about our individual members. The SSP has been a zealous advocate of the single-claimant QSF in the past and I doubt any of our members have changed their opinions on the subject. We are not asking our members to suppress or to modify their own beliefs.

S2KM: What about factoring which arguably represents the most divisive political issue within the structured settlement market? If SSP is neutral, how do you explain SSP's current membership policy which to use your own words "is open to anyone interested in comprehensive settlement planning as long as they are not engaged in factoring". Doesn't SSP's membership policy itself represent a "political position"?

TOMBS: The SSP does not have an opinion on factoring. Several years ago, we held a conference in which many participants from factoring companies attended and participated. Their presence at our meeting annoyed some SSP members and a special meeting of members was called to address this issue. At that meeting, the membership voted almost unanimously to close off new membership to those applicants who were active in the factoring industry. We also decided not to expel the very few of our members who had drifted into factoring. Our individual members' views on factoring are varied and generally quite negative, but the reason factoring representatives are excluded from membership centers on the fact that we want to focus on planning at the time of settlement. (Tombs' emphasis). My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with a person who ethically engages in factoring, but that the world would be a net better place if factoring did not exist.

S2KM: What do you consider to be your most significant accomplishments during your first term as SSP President?

TOMBS: Recognizing we still have more than six weeks left to achieve first year objectives, I am especially proud of four accomplishments: 1) SSP has substantially expanded its membership; 2) we have re-focused on professional settlement planning as our primary Mission and purpose; 3) we have pretty much put to bed the idea that we oppose the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA); and 4) we have developed a new set of Professional Practice Standards which we will introduce during our 2017 Annual Conference.

S2KM: How large is SSP and where are you finding new members?

TOMBS: I anticipate we will meet our goal of having 300 members by the time of our 2017 Annual Meeting. Many of our new members are trust officers, financial planners, special needs trust attorneys and staff from settlement planning practices. The new face of the SSP is truly the new faces at the SSP and the different perspectives they bring are propelling us forward in an exciting new direction.

S2KM: Have structured settlement annuity providers supported the concept of "comprehensive settlement planning"? If not, why not?

TOMBS: I don't think most structured settlement annuity providers understand the significance of settlement planning - or how it differs and/or relates to structured settlements. They are just beginning to wake up to the concept and realize how important and how effective the settlement planning model can be. My experience has shown that whenever a plaintiff attorney sees and understands the settlement planning model, they will never again be satisfied with a structured settlement broker who only offers one product. Think about what happened to flip phone providers when smart phones hit the market. I predict the same thing will happen with settlement planning. If structured settlement annuity providers wait too long to transition, trust companies will have captured first mover advantage.

S2KM: At one time, the term "settlement planner" was viewed by many structured settlement stakeholders as an inflated synonym for "plaintiff broker". How would you differentiate a professional settlement planner from a structured settlement consultant?

TOMBS: Until recently, that view was entirely accurate. A plaintiff broker would simply order new business cards with the new title ("Settlement Planner") proudly displayed. Today, however, that transition creates changes in expectations, applicable standards of care, and required levels of disclosure. A structured settlement consultant approaches an engagement with a product in mind. By comparison, a settlement planner (with access to multiple products) first gathers information about the goals of the injury victims and his/her family, analyzes the data, works out a written plan, and implements the plan. A settlement planner does not play the role of a structured settlement broker, if at all, until the last step.

S2KM: What is a "comprehensive settlement plan" and how does it differ from a "structured settlement"?

TOMBS: A structured settlement is a product. A "comprehensive settlement plan" is a blueprint. It is a written document that contains a summary of the detailed analysis of the client's situation, capacities, goals, priorities, needs, and resources - and the strategies and products that will best help that client use the settlement proceeds to successfully transition into a post-settlement life in a way that allows them to accomplish their highest priority goals. The settlement planner uses the plan to guide the injury victim through the settlement process. Many of my settlement plans do not include structured settlements, but most do.

S2KM: What role(s) do you see for structured settlement annuities in settlement planning?

TOMBS: Structured settlements provide tax-free guaranteed cash flows that can be matched to the exact time that the cash flow is projected to be needed. It is a valuable tool in a settlement planner's toolbox. Carpenters love their hammers, but I would never hire a carpenter who showed up to work with only a hammer.

S2KM: What is SSP's current relationship with NSSTA and what would you like it to be?

TOMBS: Most of the SSP members who produce structured settlements are also members of NSSTA. The SSP's past opposition to a few of NSSTA's political positions has frayed the relationship despite great strides to mend the fences by both sides. Today, the SSP leadership fully supports NSSTA and its Mission to preserve and protect structured settlements. I believe the two organizations are symbiotic - if one does better, so does the other.

S2KM: How are SSP and NSSTA different from SSP's perspective? Do we need two associations or should their efforts be combined?

TOMBS: SSP and NSSTA are two very different organizations with completely different Missions. We share a common ancestry, but we have evolved into separate species. The difference, which is evident in our names, is not subtle, semantic, or political. Today, most of our members, sponsors and seminar attendees do not even sell structured settlement annuities. Let that fact settle in for a minute and you will begin to comprehend the extent to which the SSP and settlement planning have evolved.

S2KM: What is the scope of SSP's new "Professional Practice Standards"? Will they Replace SSP's current "Standards of Professional Conduct"? If not, how are they different?

TOMBS: At our 2017 Annual Meeting, we will announce and release practice standards that will define settlement planning and authoritatively set out the scope of the practice of settlement planning. Don't expect something complicated. SSP's Professional Practice Standards will be simple, profound statements. They will be different from a Code of Ethics or our Code of Professional Conduct. Our current Code of Professional Conduct is too structured settlement centric and is currently under review by an SSP committee. I suspect it will receive major modifications soon.

S2KM: What is the current status of the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) Program? How many professionals currently possess the RSP designation?

TOMBS: The RSP designation is administered by a separate Board. The number of RSP designees is small - probably just over twenty. The program was dormant for a long time and has now been freshly updated with several students enrolled.

S2KM: Looking ahead to your second term as SSP President, what are SSP's greatest challenges?

TOMBS: We can't grow the number of professional settlement planners fast enough to keep up with market demand. This forces us to focus on two goals - increasing our membership and increasing the professionalism of our craft. We are making progress on both fronts, but we simply cannot go far enough or fast enough to meet the demand. Another great challenge is that we face resistance from entrenched businesses that actively try to slow us down to allow them to catch up.

S2KM: Joe, thank you for taking time to participate in this interview. Congratulations for your progress with SSP and best of luck for another outstanding SSP educational conference March 1-3 in Las Vegas.

Evolve 2014 QSF Symposium

Despite unresolved issues, utilization of IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) in "single event" cases, as well as class action and mass tort cases, is expanding, and increasingly represents the preferred method for resolving complex personal injury claims, according to participants at the Third Annual QSF Symposium sponsored by Evolve Bank and Trust on November 14, 2014 in Memphis, Tennessee.

Various speakers estimated the number of QSF cases annually currently exceeds 2500, equally split between single event cases and class action/mass tort cases, increasing by 25% per year. This expansion has occurred as more settlement planning stakeholders learn about the advantages of QSFs - and despite single claimant QSF tax uncertainty.

Although Rev. Proc. 93-34 permits QSFs to make IRC 130 qualified assignments, and no tax authority exists prohibiting single claimant QSFs, structured settlement annuity providers currently refuse to accept single claimant QSFs which they broadly define to encompass claims by family members, plaintiff attorneys, lien holders and creditors.

Organized "to provide a forum for open dialogue that helps shape industry developments", the 2014 QSF Symposium completely avoided the single claimant controversy and focused instead on other important QSF and settlement planning issues.

Topics and Speakers

• Introduction and Welcome - Andrew Cook
• QSF Administrator Control Systems and Fraud Protection - Brian Berning
• QSF State Tax Issues - Mike May
• Tax Issues for Foreign Structured Settlement Assignment Companies - Jeremy Babener
• Calculating Settlement Awards - Chris Lordan
• QSF Settlement Planning Panel - Patrick Hindert (Moderator), Andrew Cook, Wendie Howland, Pi-Yi Mayo, Bryn Poland, Joseph Tombs.
• How New SEC Rules Impact QSF Money Market Fund Investments - John Rush.
• How Plaintiff Attorneys View QSFs - William Burns
• QSF Administrator Compensation Issues - Paige Balnum; Pi-Yi Mayo; Bryn Poland.
• QSF Attorney Fee Programs - Chris Shumate.

QSF Objectives and Benefits

In his legal treatise, "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B", published in 2009, Robert Wood explains QSFs as follows: "Their primary objective is to gather and administer cash or assets and determine the amounts and exact nature of payments that the plaintiffs, attorneys, and other claimants will receive..... QSFs benefit both plaintiffs and defendants alike. They are separate entities for federal income tax purposes and are flexible and easy to establish."

Section 3.08B of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J) summarizes the benefits of QSFs in more detail: "defendants obtain a binding release from liability by making a currently-deductible payment into a court or government-approved Fund; while claimants, who have no tax consequence as a result of this payment into a Fund, are then afforded as much time as they need to sort out important issues of their own, such as allocating settlement shares, obtaining court approvals for minors or other legally-disabled claimants, resolving liens (which sometimes involve complex pay-back and set-aside issues as to Medicaid and Medicare), and deciding on forms of distribution (whether cash, structured settlements, or special needs trusts that may be used to preserve eligibility for certain government benefits)."

QSFs reconfigure the traditional (ready; shoot; aim) settlement planning process:

1. Needs assessment
2. Design
3. Negotiation
4. Implementation
5. Monitoring

so that needs assessment and settlement design follow the negotiation (and funding) steps rather than precede them.

Highlighted Issues

• QSF Administrator - The QSF Symposium emphasized the important role of the QSF administrator as well as the services he or she may provide and/or require including: investment, expense and distribution management; tax reporting and filing; legal and regulatory compliance; and fraud control. The QSF administer appears best positioned to quarterback the QSF settlement planning team. An apparent need exists for more (and better qualified) QSF administrators.
• Life Care Planners and Case Managers - Life care planners and case managers are frequently overlooked in traditional settlement planning. Life care planners are rarely asked to revise their pre-trial and trial-focused life care plans to account for collateral sources or the actual amount of settlement funding. Case managers (who are separately certified) increasingly are retained to "monitor" settlement plans by providing post-settlement medical advice and services for serious personal injury victims.
• Compensation Issues - For QSFs to achieve their potential improvements for single event settlement planning, multiple compensation issues must still be addressed and resolved:
  • Administrators - The QSF Symposium devoted one of its panels to administrator compensation issues, including: who pays their fee? what fee is appropriate for what services? and how should the fee be calculated (flat fee; per claimant fee; or fee based on QSF earnings)? Complicating these issues, many attorney QSF administrators play multiple roles (trustee; administrator) in addition to drafting QSF documents and making court appearances.
  • Structured settlement brokers - In many single event QSFs, the plaintiff structured settlement broker plays key roles: 1) selecting and paying the QSF administrator; 2) performing "value added" settlement planning services as part of his/her contingent commission compensation. Not only do these arrangements create potential conflicts of interest ("needs based" selling determined by the needs of the broker and administrator), they also increase a broker's risk of loss in the the event of an unsuccessful structured settlement sale.
  • Additional compensation issues arise when: 1) a case settles with no allowance for QSF expenses; 2) a case involves minors or incompetents requiring a guardian and court to approve QSF expenses; and also because 3) in the current low interest rate environment, QSF fees often exceed investment yields. Although not discussed during the Symposium, defense structured settlement brokers have opposed QSFs fearing a reduction or the elimination of their contingent commission compensation.
• Tax topics - The QSF Symposium featured three tax topics:
  • State taxation - State taxation of QSFs is inconsistent with little guidance. Many states have not yet addressed QSF taxation. Potential penalties exist for failure to file including interest on any unpaid liability without any statute of limitations. QSF administrators are advised to follow a two step analysis: 1) can a specific state tax a QSF based upon the situs of the court or the administrator or the bank where funds are deposited? 2) assuming a filing obligation exists, how will a state tax a QSF - as a corporation or a trust?
  • Foreign structured settlement assignment companies - Potential tax issues exist for defendants, plaintiffs and the foreign assignment company. Can a defendant deduct its payment to a foreign assignment company? When does a plaintiff receive payments for tax purposes and what is the character of those payments? Does the foreign assignment company recognize income when it receives an assignment payment? If yes, will it be considered active or passive income or does a treaty override exist?
  • Structured attorney fees - When properly arranged, structured attorney fees allow a contingently-compensated attorney to defer portions of his or her compensation and pay tax upon receipt regardless of the type of case or whether the client receives a lump sum or periodic payments.
• Education issues - Single event QSF education is needed for plaintiff attorneys and judges who are still unfamiliar with the QSF concept. Among the most likely education providers are special needs attorneys who serve as QSF administrators or trustees and structured settlement brokers. In addition to litigating attorneys and judges, QSF educational targets should include other settlement planning stakeholders such as: liability insurers; settlement trustees, guardians; mediators; and life care planners.

Conclusion - Evolve's QSF Symposium offers a valuable and unique addition to the growing number of personal injury settlement planning conferences and educational resources. When Robert Wood's QSF legal treatise was published in 2009, he acknowledged his analysis "clearly enters unchartered ground". Congratulations to Chairman Andy Cook and Evolve Bank and Trust for helping to survey this unchartered QSF terrain by sponsoring an educational event specifically designed to promote discussion and exchange of ideas about QSF issues, standards and best practices.

For S2KM's complete coverage of 2014 structured settlement and settlement planning conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

Single-Claimant QSFs Revisited

Single-claimant qualified settlement funds (SCQSFs) represent one of the two most politically divisive issues within the structured settlement industry - with the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) opposing and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) promoting SCQSF use.

Tax expert Robert W. Wood , a prolific author, whose specialties include structured settlements and personal injury settlement planning, has published a new article in the June 23, 2014 of "Tax Notes" titled "Reprising Single-Claimant Qualified Settlement Funds".

QSFs, or section 468B funds, as explained in Wood's article, are designed to resolve litigation. "Their primary objective is to gather and administer cash or assets and determine the amounts and exact nature of payments that the plaintiffs, attorneys, and other claimants will receive..... QSFs benefit both plaintiffs and defendants alike. They are separate entities for federal income tax purposes and are flexible and easy to establish."

The benefits of QSFs are summarized in Section 3.08B of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J): "defendants obtain a binding release from liability by making a currently-deductible payment into a court or government-approved Fund; while claimants, who have no tax consequence as a result of this payment into a Fund, are then afforded as much time as they need to sort out important issues of their own, such as allocating settlement shares, obtaining court approvals for minors or other legally-disabled claimants, resolving liens (which sometimes involve complex pay-back and set-aside issues as to Medicaid and Medicare), and deciding on forms of distribution (whether cash, structured settlements, or special needs trusts that may be used to preserve eligibility for certain government benefits)."

Wood has previously addressed SCQSF issues in multiple articles and conference presentations and, most significantly, in his 2009 legal textbook titled "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B" . For background concerning Wood's views on SCQSFs, see these prior S2KM blog posts;

• Robert Wood and 468B Funds
• Robert Wood QSF Interview
• Robert Wood and 468B Funds - 2

Having surveyed the debate and framed the issues five years ago, at which time Wood concluded the proponents of SCQSFs had the better argument, Wood prefaces his new article by asking: "Has Anything Changed?"

Wood's new article:

• Reviews the legal background and arguments favoring and opposing SCQSFs as well as the requirements and advantages of QSFs.
• Confirms Wood's opinion favoring proponents' arguments for SCQSFs - while cautioning taxpayers to try to set up QSFs with multiple claimants:
  • "The language of the tax code and regulations suggests there should be no controversy."
  • "Reg. section 1.468B-1(c)(2) suggests the possibility of a single claim, mentioning 'one or more contested or uncontested claims' and an event giving rise to 'at least one claim asserting liability.'
  • "With the focus on the claim or claims, not the claimant or claimants, a plurality of claimants seems to be unimportant."
  • "Congress appears to have intended QSFs to operate as a statutory exception to both the economic benefit and constructive receipt doctrines."
• Highlights removal of the SCQSF issue (without IRS explanation) from the IRS priority guidance plan in 2009.
• Predicts the IRS is more likely to "establish some sort of antiabuse rule addressing the inappropriate use of QSFs to defer income rather than establishing a minimum number of plaintiffs or claimants."

Has Anything Changed?

Beyond removal of the issue from the IRS priority guidance plan, however, Wood's new article does not directly address his primary question: "Has Anything Changed" since 2009 that impacts the utilization of SCQSFs?

The answer is "Yes". Most significantly, unlike 2009, no structured settlement annuity providers currently accept SCQSFs. They have effectively shut down this strategic personal injury settlement planning opportunity for a wide scope of actual and/or potential structured settlement cases.

Prudential, for example, sent a communication to its structured settlement agents dated March 19, 2012 stating, in part:

• "Prudential recently reviewed its underwriting criteria with respect to single claimant QSF cases. As a result, effective immediately, we will no longer write cases stemming from a single claimant QSF."
• "Prudential defines a single claimant QSF as a fund either established for the benefit of a single claimant or, for multiple claimants who do not have “competing interests” (e.g., plaintiff family members). Prudential will not provide for “derivative” claims from the injured party, i.e., a loss of consortium or an emotional distress claim by the parents and/or siblings for the personal injury victim."
• "It is Prudential’s position that when the funds are deposited into a QSF for a single claimant, and there are no other factors to be negotiated under the settlement, the claimant has received economic benefit of the assets. Prudential does not consider lien holders or other non-claimant creditors (attorneys, medical providers, Medicare or Medicaid) as substantial additional obligations to be satisfied prior to the claimant’s ownership of the assets transferred to the QSF."

Despite the current closure of the SCQSF structured settlement market, SCQSF analysis and debate has expanded since 2009 - thanks significantly to Wood's SCQSF writing and speaking. Examples:

• Jeremy Babener's QSF Paper: "Structured Settlements and Single-Claimant Qualified Settlement Funds: Regulating in Accordance with Structured Settlement History". See:
  • Jeremy Babener's QSF Paper
  • S2KM Reviews Jeremy Babener's QSF Paper-1
  • S2KM Reviews Jeremy Babener's QSF Paper-2
  • Jeremy Babener Interview-2
• Martin Jacobson's QSF Presentation titled "The Ins and Outs of 468B Funds" at the NSSTA 2011 Annual Meeting wherein Jacobson identified what he termed "the real SCQSF questions":
  • Does a single claimant have economic benefit of the funds placed in the QSF?
  • Does the single claimant have "unqualified availability" of those funds?
  • Has IRC Section 130(c) been satisfied?
  • Is there going to be an IRS ruling applicable to single claimant QSFs?
  • In the continuing absence of such an IRS ruling, Jacobson quoted Robert Wood to "avoid the single claimant controversy" by establishing QSFs with multiple claimants.
• The Qualified Settlement Fund Symposium - For S2KM's reporting from the 2012 QSF Symposium, see these prior blog posts:
  • Part 1
  • Part 2

Opponents' Objections

Why do opponents object to SCQSFs - and why do they continue to broaden the scope of SCQSFs to encompass arguably multiple claims by family members, plaintiff attorneys, lien holders and creditors?

• Without more definitive tax clarification, structured settlement annuity providers are concerned about the original legislative intent of IRC section 468B, related economic benefit issues, and the potential litigation impact from lawsuits that could arise if SCQSFs are ruled invalid.
• Defendants and their insurers view structured settlements as valuable "needs analysis" and "bridge-the-gap" negotiating tools they would lose if single event personal injury cases were routinely resolved using QSFs.
• Defense brokers argue that SCQSFs will: 1) reduce the structured settlement market by eliminating defense incentive to promote structured settlements; and 2) eliminate defense broker commissions.

Although Robert Wood's most recent SCQSF article does not attempt to resolve these SCQSF objections (and they may not be resolvable), his SCQSF "reprising" hopefully will help motivate structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholders to better identify shared SCQSF interests and to seek further SCQSF tax clarification including what constitutes multiple claimants for purposes of IRC section 468B.

Growing the Primary Market - 3

To help its members reverse declining growth of primary market annuity premium, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) has transfigured it annual Fall Educational Conference into a members-only "Marketing Boot Camp" scheduled for November 5-6 in Dallas, Texas.

NSSTA's boot camp training agenda, "designed to help every member who attends learn how to increase the number of referrals they get from their clients and how to develop new clients", is featured on the NSSTA website as well as this prior S2KM blog post. 

NSSTA should be congratulated for prioritizing marketing as a critical business skill set for its members. The announced agenda, however, omits the most fundamental marketing issue every professional association should ask itself: "what business are we in?", or, stated somewhat differently, "in what markets do we participate?" 

By failing to address these fundamental questions, NSSTA's marketing conference appears to perpetuate "inside-the-box" strategic thinking responsible, in part, for recent sales declines of the structured settlement product which benefits from public policy endorsement, multiple tax preferences and statutory consumer protection.

NSSTA's strategic failure to understand and expand its own business results, in part, from NSSTA's poorly conceived effort to stiff-arm two legislative and regulatory developments which should improve the structured settlement product:

• Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) - Defined in Regs. 1.468B and made applicable to structured settlements by Rev. Proc. 93-34, QSFs provide benefits for both plaintiffs and defendants. They also provide an ideal funding mechanism to strategically position structured settlements within the $170 billion annual U.S. personal injury settlement planning market. Instead of embracing and marketing QSFs, however, NSSTA and its members have created and promoted a "single claimant" roadblock because they are unable to solve their own compensation issues. As a result, NSSTA has prevented its members, and its structured settlement product, from effectively competing in the dynamic personal injury settlement planning market.
• Structured Settlement Transfers - IRC 5891 and the state structured settlement protection statutes have solidified structured settlement transfers (i.e. factoring transactions) into a growing market that complements and potentially expands the traditional primary market. The ability of structured settlement recipients to sell their payment rights subject to judicial oversight and approval arguably improves the structured settlement product by adding a liquidity feature in the event of "over structuring" or unanticipated cash requirements. Instead of capitalizing on settlement transfers to improve and expand its market, NSSTA (through bylaw amendments) has threatened its members with suspension or expulsion if they sollicit or promote secondary market transactions. By continuing to criticize "structured settlement factoring", without participating in the secondary market, NSSTA and its members undermine their own product.

In addition to these missed opportunities, NSSTA and its members have failed to fully analyze and adapt their products to the expanding special needs planning market.

When NSSTA thinks "strategically" about "special needs", they focus narrowly and inwardly on a single product application (i.e. structured settlement funding for special needs trusts) instead of expansively and proactively about the special needs community within which annuities (not just structured settlement annuities) and life insurance represent critical financial products. 

Except for one settlement trust company, not a single NSSTA member attended this year's Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) annual meeting or National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) annual meeting - both of which featured presentations about structured settlements. 

Since hosting its first "Special Needs Summit" in 2010, NAELA (with more than 4000 members) has substantially expanded its focus on the special needs market - including structured settlements. Beginning this year, NAELA has designated October as "National Special Needs Law Month" during which NAELA's members are providing (marketing) free education about special needs legal issues to the special needs community. 

Despite NSSTA's past mistakes, its first-ever marketing boot camp represents a step in the right direction - especially if the boot camp encourages NSSTA and its members to more closely examine their own changing marketplace. 

In a current Washington Post article titled "Can the Military Learn from its Mistakes?", Thomas Ricks offers two observations about the U.S. military which appear equally applicable to NSSTA as it prepares for its "boot camp" and could provide a strategic focus for improving and growing the structured settlement market:

• Quoting James Dobbin: "our military shows 'continued inability to come to closure' on some controversial issues".
• The military "doesn't encourage adaptive leaders to rise to the top, as they find and implement changes in response to the failures of the past decade."

For additional S2KM blog posts discussing how to grow the structured settlement primary market, see the structured settlement wiki. 

For an informative financial perspective about special needs planning, see the M&L Special Needs Planning website.

NASP 2012 Annual Conference - 2

Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the enactment of IRC 5891, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) hosted its 2012 Annual Conference last week in New Orleans.

The conference featured an ambitious and successful educational program highlighting prior NASP accomplishments and focusing on emerging issues that impact both the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. For the first time in NASP's history, conference attendance was open to primary market participants.

S2KM previously published an introductory blog post identifying NASP 2012 conference speakers and topics and providing links to S2KM reports from previous NASP conferences. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will recap speaker presentations.

This blog post offers S2KM's general observations and impressions of some of the broader structured settlement industry issues based upon NASP's 2012 conference.

Why Has Factoring Flourished?

Compared with the primary structured settlement market, both NASP and the secondary market appear to be flourishing. What explains this paradoxical success?

The groundwork for secondary structured settlement market success began in 1997 when NASP launched a strategic lobbying initiative resulting in the enactment of IRC 5891 and NCOIL's Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act (Model Act).

Although neither legislative development would have been possible without support from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the lobbying agendas of the two associations were markedly different. Ultimately NASP prevailed on several critical issues including:

• "Best interest" standard vs. NSSTA's preferred "financial hardship" standard.
• Denying annuity owners and providers the right to veto proposed transfers.
• Eliminating maximum discount rates.

In addition to NASP's lobbying success, NASP's members have achieved considerable, and controversial, marketing success utilizing aggressive television advertizing and sophisticated Internet techniques. As one measure of this marketing success, the primary market now claims the secondary market has "stolen the structured settlement brand".

Both the primary and the secondary structured settlement markets were devastated by the 2008 financial crisis which:

• Temporarily shut down asset-backed securities markets including securities backed by structured settlement payment rights.
• Created an industry liquidity crisis which resulted in:
  • J.G. Wentworth, the largest secondary market company, entering bankruptcy in 2009.
  • AIG, the largest primary market company, receiving a financial bailout from the U.S. government in 2008 and 2009.
  • Both Wentworth and AIG have subsequently recovered and regained their respective market leadership roles.
• Reduced interest rates to historic low levels causing a substantial reduction in primary market sales beginning in 2009.

As of the 2012 second calendar quarter, the secondary structured settlement market appears to have fully recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. The primary market has not yet recovered. Part of the reason is that interest rates, whether high or low, affect the primary and secondary structured settlement markets differently.

Other reasons, however, also help explain the growing success of the secondary structured settlement market.

• Structured settlement transfers improve the structured settlement product by addressing a critical need for many structured settlement recipients - a liquidity need that was not properly addressed in the original settlement plan or, alternatively, resulted from unanticipated developments.
• Continuing strong demand exists among some institutional and individual investors for recycled structured settlement payment rights.

Linked Markets - Same Customers

Having failed politically to end structured settlement factoring, NSSTA, and many annuity providers, have adopted alternative strategies which appear to be misguided attempts to create obstacles and impede the growth of the secondary structured settlement market.

NSSTA's 2006 bylaw amendments represent one such example. As NSSTA explained to its members: "because [the secondary market] activities [prohibited by the amendments] are inconsistent with the membership qualifications, engaging in those activities can lead to suspension or expulsion from membership and to denial of new membership applications." (emphasis added).

The increasing "administrative fees" annuity providers charge factoring companies, either as a condition to avoid "opposed transfers" or to allow transfers of life contingent payment rights, represents another example. Ultimately, the structured settlement recipients who transfer payment rights pay for those administrative fees which, for some annuity providers, now represent a new profit center.

How do these types of actions help the structured settlement customer or improve the structured settlement industry?

Both NSSTA and NASP, and their members, share a common existential interest in IRC 104(a)(2) and 130. Both NSSTA and NASP recognize the anticipated re-writing of the U.S. tax code expected to begin following the 2012 Presidential election represents a threat to those tax sections.

Arguably, the existence of IRC 5891, which not only links to IRC 104(a)(2) and 130, but also to the 48 state structured settlement protection statutes, has both expanded and strengthened the U.S. structured settlement legislative framework.

Having collaborated to help enact IRC 5891 and the NCOIL Model Act, shouldn't NSSTA and NASP also collaborate to defend and maintain IRC 104(a)(2) and 130 - and to identify additional shared interests for structured settlement industry improvement and growth?

Improving Industry Education

In his opening comments at the NASP 2012 conference, outgoing NASP President Matthew Bracy challenged attendees to make the structured settlement transfer business better: "better in the marketplace, better in the courts, and above all better for the customers who so need the service this industry provides."

One way NASP "walks the walk" of secondary market improvement is by inviting its critics to speak at NASP conferences. NASP challenges these critics not only to address secondary market problems but also to recommend improvements.

Critics who have spoken at past NASP conferences include: Jack Meligan, Stephen Harris, Peter Vodola, John Darer, and Richard Risk. Other critics, including NSSTA leaders, have been invited but have declined to participate.

Jan Schlichtmann, keynote speaker for the 2012 NASP conference, began by stating: "I don't like your advertizing". He then praised NASP for inviting and encouraging criticism to better itself and the secondary structured settlement market.

NSSTA also has permitted criticism as part of its educational programs. Examples include: Joseph DiGangi (see: "Settlement Consulting") and Dan Clark (see: "SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings"). Whenever NSSTA has addressed strategically important and/or controversial issues (egs. IRC 468B and IRC 5891), however, NSSTA members generally hear only "politically correct" speakers and perspectives.

Because of the importance of issues such as qualified settlement funds (QSFs) and the secondary market for the future of structured settlements, NSSTA members increasingly must rely upon non-NSSTA educational programs and educational resources to interact with the people and ideas challenging and changing the structured settlement industry.

During 2012, these educational programs have included: the SSP conference, the ASNP conference, the Risk settlement planning practicum and the QSF symposium.

Fortunately for NSSTA members, as well as members of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), NASP has now opened an entirely new educational forum to challenge and expand their understanding of structured settlements.

QSF Symposium 2012 - 2

Will Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) eventually replace structured settlements as the standard business model for resolving complex personal injury claims?

QSFs already represent the standard resolution technique for class action lawsuits - and provide advantages for both defendants and plaintiffs:

• Defendants not only obtain an immediate tax deduction and release, they also can reduce their settlement planning costs and risks.
• Plaintiffs can conduct their settlement planning with a sum certain, using their own advisers, free from the pressures of litigation, with unlimited time to analyze and address tax, investment and government benefit issues.
• QSFs can also be utilized to purchase tax-free structured settlements without any direct involvement by defendants.

The only opponents of QSFs, for becoming the settlement planning standard for all complex personal injury cases, appear to be advocates for the traditional claim management structured settlement business model. These advocates include liability insurers who attempt to direct claim dollars to their affiliate life companies and defense brokers who fear the loss or reduction of their annuity commissions.

Together, with political support from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), these QSF opponents have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars attempting to limit both the scope of QSFs and the expanded utilization of QSFs. Maintaining that structured settlements are best created when both plaintiffs and defendants actively participate, the QSF opponents argue that broad approval of single-claimant 468B funds would undermine and diminish the use of structured settlements.

To sustain their argument, QSF opponents have organized and promoted a marketing and lobbying strategy that:

• Ignores the IRC section 468B regulations that allow a QSF to be “established to resolve or satisfy one or more contested or uncontested claims that have resulted or may result from an event (or related series of events) that has occurred and that has given rise to at least one claim asserting liability". (emphasis added)
• Expands their own definition of single claimant to encompass multiple single event claims by family members, their attorneys and lien holders including Medicare and Medicaid.
• Promises defendants questionable structured settlement advantages (e.g. cost savings in a low-interest rate environment) without fully informing defendants of their potential costs and risks using traditional structured settlement business practices.

Fortunately for defendants and plaintiffs, utilization of QSFs (including single claimant QSFs) appears to be expanding as more settlement planning stakeholders learn about the advantages of QSFs and the professional QSF community of practice continues to grow.

That conclusion was S2KM's most important take away from the first QSF Symposium sponsored by Evolve Bank and Trust in Memphis, Tennessee on September 27-28, 2012.

Organized to stimulate dialogue among QSF industry leaders and experts and to help shape industry thinking on QSF issues, the first QSF Symposium was restricted the 20 participants and included the following speakers and topics:

• Sylvius von Saucken - "Establishing the QSF: Account, Fund or Trust / Drafting Considerations"
• Kevin Urbatsch - "Petitioning the Court for Approval"
• Andy Cook - "Investment Policy and Fiduciary Investment Options"
• Peter Wayne - "QSFs and Government Benefits Preservation"
• Will Shapiro - "Lien Holdbacks and Claimant Distributions"
• Jeremy Babener - "QSF Taxation: Filing, Payments, Withholding and Reporting"
• Chris Lordan - "Accounting and Reporting Best Practices"
• Patrick Hindert - "How Structured Settlement Transfers Impact QSF Planning"
• Roundtable Discussion - moderated by Pi-Yi Mayo and Bryn Poland.

The first QSF Symposium provided several benefits in addition to the presentations:

• Networking with QSF experts and hearing multiple QSF professional perspectives.
• Detailed discussions focused on a single (QSF-only) settlement planning topic.
• Open dialogue that encouraged entrepreneurial and collaborative "out-of-the box" thinking.
• Meeting Evolve's officers, shareholders and technology providers.
• Learning how a bank views settlement planning, settlement trusts and QSFs.

For additional information about QSFs, see:

• Robert Wood, "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B"
• Hindert, Dehner and Hindert, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" - Section 3.08B
• Jeremy Babener, "Structured Settlements and Single Claimant Qualified Settlement Funds"

For additional S2KM analysis of the structured settlement and settlement planning markets, see the structured settlement wiki.

QSF Symposium 2012 - 1

Evolve Bank and Trust will host the first Annual Qualified Settlement Fund Symposium September 27-28, 2012 in Memphis, Tennessee.  Dedicated exclusively to the advancement of qualified settlement fund (QSF) professionals, the purposes of the Symposium are to stimulate dialogue among QSF industry leaders and experts and to help shape industry thinking on QSF issues.

QSF Symposium Speakers and Topics

• Sylvius von Saucken - "Establishing the QSF: Account, Fund or Trust / Drafting Considerations"
• Kevin Urbatsch - "Petitioning the Court for Approval"
• Andy Cook - "Investment Policy and Fiduciary Investment Options"
• Peter Wayne - "QSFs and Government Benefits Preservation"
• Will Shapiro - "Lien Holdbacks and Claimant Distributions"
• Jeremy Babener - "QSF Taxation: Filing, Payments, Withholding and Reporting"
• Chris Lordan - "Accounting and Reporting Best Practices"
• Patrick Hindert - "How Structured Settlement Transfers Impact QSF Planning"
• Roundtable Discussion - moderated by Pi-Yi Mayo and Bryn Poland

Defined in Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c),  QSFs represent an important settlement planning tool and provide benefits for both defendants and plaintiffs. Defendants can use QSFs to resolve complex claims in exchange for a release and immediate tax deduction. Plaintiffs and their advisers can use QSFs to marshall assets, determine which plaintiffs and counsel receive which amounts, satisfy government benefits and other lien obligations and engage in thoughtful settlement planning without the pressures that accompany negotiations, mediations and litigation.

Revenue Procedure 93-34

One QSF advantage is the unlimited time QSFs allow for claimants to consider multiple investment options - including structured settlements provided the QSF satisfies rules set forth in Revenue Procedure 93-34 to qualify as a "party to a suit or agreement":

1. Claimants must agree in writing to the assumption by a IRC 130 qualified assignee of the QSF's obligation to make periodic payments.
2. Each qualified assignment must relate to a claim “on account of personal injury or sickness (in a case involving physical injury or sickness)”.
3. Each qualified funding asset purchased by each qualified assignee must relate to a liability to make periodic payments for damages to a single claimant.
4. No qualified assignee can be “related” to the QSF.
5. No qualified assignee can be controlled by nor control, directly or indirectly, the QSF.
6. Each transaction must meet all other section 130 requirements.

Single Claimant QSF Controversy

Whether a QSF can be established for a single claimant remains controversial - especially among structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholders.

The arguments in favor of allowing single claimant QSFs include the language in IRC section 468B and, more specifically, in the 468B regulations. These regulations, which also define a QSF (see above), allow a QSF to be “established to resolve or satisfy one or more contested or uncontested claims that have resulted or may result from an event (or related series of events) that has occurred and that has given rise to at least one claim asserting liability". (emphasis added)

The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) requested a ruling from the U.S. Department of Treasury on this single claimant issue in 2004. To date, however, the Treasury has not provided definitive tax authority for the single claimant QSF issue.

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) historically opposes the issuance of guidance by the Treasury Department or the Internal Revenue Service on the single claimant QSF issue. NSSTA’s position appears to be that broad approval of single-claimant 468B funds would undermine and diminish the use of structured settlements. NSSTA maintains structured settlements are best created when both plaintiffs and defendants actively participate.

For more detailed information about QSFs, see:

• Robert Wood, "Qualified Settlement Funds and Section 468B"
• Hindert, Dehner and Hindert, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" - Section 3.08B
• Jeremy Babener, "Structured Settlements and Single Claimant Qualified Settlement Funds"

Alternative Business Models

The future of structured settlements depends upon which of two alternative business models ultimately prevails - the traditional (defense-controlled) claim management model or the emerging (claimant centric) settlement planning model. (Note: see Addendum).

The Claim Management Model

The claim management business model was developed by members of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), which is hosting its 2012 Annual Meeting this week in Washington, D.C. The claim management model has dominated the United States structured settlement industry since the enactment of the Periodic Payment Settlement Act in 1982. Its general characteristics:

• Defense control resulting from defense funding;
• Defense-approved lists of annuity providers and brokers;
• Proactive case identification and negotiation participation by defendants designed to sell structured settlements;
• De minimus regulation of sales conduct resulting in a lack of:
  • Disclosure - of compensation sharing and/or conflicts of interest;
  • Product suitability standards; and/or
  • Informed written consent by structured settlement recipients.
• Political and case-specific opposition to single claimant 468B qualified settlement funds (QSFs);
• A hostile view of the secondary structured settlement market.

The business justification for the claim management business model for defendants and liability insurers:

• Reduce claim costs by utilizing structured settlements; and
• Protect themselves from future risks by utilizing qualified assignments.

The traditional cost/risk analysis of the claim management model, however, does not adequately consider the impact on defendants of:

• Negotiating and defending damages using structured settlements funded with historically low interest rates;
• The added claim management costs specifically resulting from review of structured settlement-related file documentation;
• Potential accountability and liability resulting from:
  • Increasing legislative and regulatory protection for consumers and investors;
  • Defendant status as deep pocket originators of long-term payment promises with complex life-cycles;
  • Sales activities by defendant employees, attorneys and agents without qualified compliance supervision.

The Settlement Planning Model

As defendants and liability insurers re-think the traditional claim management structured settlement model, they should also investigate (for their own self-interest) an emerging, alternative structured settlement business model - the settlement planning model.

What is settlement planning? Joseph Tombs, a former President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and co-founder of the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) program, defines settlement planning as "... a profession helping recipients of settlement proceeds use those proceeds to achieve post-loss goals and transition successfully to post-settlement financial life."

What is a settlement planner? The SSP Standards of Professional Conduct define "settlement planner" as "... a representative who provides advice and other services to a person participating in the design, negotiation or implementation of a settlement or satisfaction of judgment for the benefit of a person claiming a legal entitlement to an award of damages or other compensation."

Although:

• The SSP Standards recognizes that "a settlement planners may represent a plaintiff, a defendant, an insurer, a guardian ad litem, an heir of the claimant, an attorney or another person participating in the settlement services", settlement planning is more "claimant centric" than the claim management model and involves a commensurate reallocation of responsibilities and risks away from defendants and liability insurers.
• Not dependent upon QSFs, the settlement planning model recognizes that QSFs provide important advantages and protections for plaintiffs and defendants.
• Product neutral, the settlement planning model recognizes structured settlement represents a core settlement planning tool that combines relatively low investment and dissipation risks.

The basic characteristics of the settlement planning model and professional, as outlined by Joseph DiGangi at the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting:

• Planning orientation
• Solutions before products
• Blended products and services
• Product neutrality
• Disclosure and informed consent
• Professional training and designations
• Comprehensive skill sets and knowledge base

From a claimant centric perspective, the settlement planning process includes five stages:

• Needs assessment
• Design
• Negotiation
• Implementation
• Monitoring

 Multiple professional associations and 2012 conferences are now studying various components and issues related to the settlement planning business model:

• The Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) - S2KM attended and reviewed the ASNP 2012 Annual Meeting.
• Risk Settlement Planning Practicum - Hosted by the University of Tulsa Law School, S2KM reviewed this settlement planning conference whose presenters included Patrick Hindert, S2KM's primary blog author. Hindert spoke about the "History of Structured Settlements" and provided a schematic analysis of the structured settlement business cycle.
• Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) - S2KM will attend and review the SSP 2012 Annual Meeting April 30 - May 1 in Las Vegas. Among the presenters, Hindert will address "Settlement Planning Business Models: the Defense Perspective"

ADDENDUM (April 26, 2012): After reading S2KM's blog post, Charles Schell, President-Elect of SSP, asked the following question (which Schell promised to address at the SSP Annual Meeting): "Is it necessary for one or the other business model to prevail or could each side benefit by recognizing the role of the other?"

For additional information about settlement planning (aka settlement consulting or special needs settlement planning), see the structured settlement wiki.

Product Suitability Standards - 4

With declining annuity premium and historically low interest rates, structured settlement stakeholders should be discussing how to improve and grow their business. To help promote this discussion, S2KM's current blog series about "product suitability standards" highlights two fundamental issues rarely addressed during industry educational conferences:

• When is a structured settlement annuity appropriate for a specific physical personal injury claimant?
• What standards exist to help judges, guardians, trustees, mediators, attorneys, settlement planners, structured settlement consultants and other structured settlement stakeholders make this determination?

Potential sources for structured settlement product suitability standards discussed in prior S2KM blog posts:

• Part 1 - NSSTA's Code of Ethics; SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct; and the NAIC's Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation.
• Part 2 - State minors' statutes and state structured settlement protection statutes.
• Part 3 - The Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank)

Fiduciary Standard

Among other findings, S2KM's prior review points out a general legislative trend to protect investors and consumers with a more uniform fiduciary, and/or "best interest", standard of care. In general, a fiduciary standard is viewed as the highest legal standard of customer care requiring both a duty of care and a duty of loyalty. A fiduciary is required to act in the best interest of the investor and/or customer and to fully disclose all material facts plus any conflicts of interest. Trustees and investment advisers currently are held to a fiduciary standard which may soon also apply to financial planners and broker dealers. Many state minors' statutes and all state structured settlement protection statutes incorporate "best interest" standards.

Model Annuity Regulations

For some but not all annuity products, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has created a "Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation". Significantly, the NAIC Model Suitability Regulation exempts structured settlements and provides less consumer protection than the fiduciary, and/or "best interest" standard. The NAIC has also promulgated an "Annuity Disclosure Model Regulation" "to provide standards for the disclosure of certain minimum information about annuity contracts to protect consumers and foster consumer education." It also exempts structured settlements. The legislative history of the NAIC Model Disclosure Regulation indicates that "[i]nterested parties spoke in favor of an exemption for sophisticated transactions such as ..... structured settlements."

A Hall Pass?

Do these NAIC exemptions mean that structured settlements have been given a "hall pass" for purposes of product suitability requirements? No. If structured structured stakeholders want to improve and grow their business, there are many reasons why they should: 1) understand the meaning and requirements of all three standards (fiduciary duty, best interest, and suitability); and 2) adopt better business practices that address and incorporate one or more of these product standards. Reasons include:

• Blended products - Structured settlement annuities increasingly are paid into trusts (UPIA standard) that also include financial products (Dodd-Frank standard).
• Multiple licenses - In addition to structured settlement annuities, settlement planners increasingly sell securities as well as multiple life insurance and annuity products.
• Competition - To successfully compete in today's economic and legal environment, structured settlement sales persons must adjust upward to match the higher product suitability standards and best business practices of their competitors.
• Clients and Stakeholders - As a matter of self-protection as well as consumer protection, many structured settlement clients (defendants; plaintiff attorneys) and stakeholders ( judges; mediators) will increasingly demand higher product and sales standards for injury victims.
• Lawsuits - In this era of accountability and compliance, all structured settlement participants are likely to be held to higher legal standards.

Three-Card Monte

Why do product suitability standards create issues for the structured settlement industry? At their worst, especially from the perspective of an unrepresented injury victim, some traditional structured settlement business practices not only fall far short of the fiduciary standard - they can resemble a game of "Three-card Monte" .

Misrepresentations or omission of material facts

• Cost or Value - From a claimant's perspective, a core strategy for traditional structured settlements often appears "to make a little money look like a lot of money". The Spencer v. Hartford class action allegations outline one "sophisticated" variation of this strategy which often depends on hiding or misrepresenting annuity "cost" and/or settlement "value".
• Guaranteed payments - Many structured settlement sales brochures continue to promise "guaranteed payments" without specifying who guarantees what if and when an annuity provider like Executive Life of New York (ELNY) becomes insolvent.
• Managed account - Many structured settlement recipients do not understand important product details when their case is settled including how structured settlements differ from managed accounts and why they cannot access funds without court approval pursuant to state structured settlement protection acts.
• Structured settlement myths- historically used to promote sales such as:
  • Studies show that nine out of 10 lump sum recipients squander the entire amount within five years.
  • Structured settlements enable injury victims to live free of reliance on government assistance.

Conflicts of interest - without written, informed client and/or customer consent

• Single product - The danger of single product structured settlement sales persons is not limited to whether his or her product is "suitable" or in the "best interest" of a particular claimant/customer. The danger is also that single product sales persons are inherently conflicted in recommending how much of any settlement should be allocated to their product.
• Multiple roles - A structured settlement sales person introduced into a case by a defendant or liability insurer frequently plays four separate roles each of which potentially conflicts with the other roles: agent for the annuity provider; broker for the defendant; broker for the plaintiff; and agent for the defendant in helping to negotiate and settle the case.
• Compensation sharing - Unless all parties to a settlement are informed about whether and how structured settlement annuity commissions are shared, a structured settlement creates a variety of potential conflicts of interest.
• Funding alternatives - Based upon traditional structured settlement business and compensation models, the potential availability and applicability of 468B qualified settlement funds for "appropriate cases" creates inherent conflicts of interest between defendants and their structured settlement brokers.

Recommendations

• Education - Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) should devote more educational resources to understanding product suitability standards applicable directly and indirectly to structured settlements including standards applicable to their clients and competitors.
• Business standards - SSP's "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" represents an important industry document that has received less attention among structured settlement stakeholders than it deserves. As a result of Dodd-Frank, SSP should review and re-consider the product suitability standards proposed in its current Standards of Conduct.
• Business model - Without violating anti-trust laws, both NSSTA and SSP should encourage their members to continue studying and discussing how transitional settlement planning business models impact traditional structured settlement broker roles, compensation models and business standards.
• Documentation - In the context of transitional business models and standards, structured settlement stakeholders should review and improve core case documents including client requests for proposals, sales materials, settlement agreements, broker of record letters, and commission sharing agreements.

For additional S2KM reporting and commentary about structured settlement business standards and practices, see the structured settlement wiki.

Treasury Publishes New IRC 104(a)(2) Regs

The United States Treasury has published new regulations for IRC section 104(a)(2) relating to the exclusion from gross income for amounts received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness.

Published January 20, 2012, the new section 104(a)(2) regulations make two primary changes to the current regulations. First, they incorporate amendments to 104(a)(2) made in Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (1996 Act). Second, they eliminate the previous regulatory requirement that damages must be based upon “tort or tort type rights” to qualify for the tax exclusion.

The 1996 Act included two legislative amendments narrowing the applicability of the 104(a)(2) exclusion. The first amendment prevents any punitive damages from qualifying for the tax exclusion in the personal injury context. The second amendment requires that injury or sickness damages must result from “physical” origins to be excluded. Although emotional distress is not considered a physical injury or physical illness, the new regulations confirm that damages for emotional distress attributable to a physical injury or physical sickness are excluded from income under section 104(a)(2).

The new section 104(a)(2) regulations also eliminate the previous regulatory requirement that damages must be “based on tort or tort type rights” to qualify for exclusion. In a 1995 case (Commissioner v. Schleier), the United States Supreme Court interpreted this requirement to disallow the exclusion of damages where the relevant law (a "no-fault" statute) provided a contractual remedy even though the claimant suffered a personal physical injury or physical sickness as a result of a breach of contract. The new regulations eliminate this prior requirement and allow the tax exclusion to apply even when the physical injury or sickness does not constitute a tort under state or common law.

The new, final regulations for section 104(a)(2) are essentially the same as the proposed regulations the United States Treasury issued in 2009 and which were the subject of a public hearing on February 23, 2010. The final regulations did not adopt any of the recommendations offered by commentators at the public hearing. These recommendations included:

•  Requests by Richard Risk and Jack Meligan that the final regulations address whether a claimant has constructive receipt or the current economic benefit of a damage award that is set aside for the claimant’s benefit in a section 468B qualified settlement fund;

• Requests by John McCulloch and David Higgins that the final regulations confirm several specific types of damages are "physical" and therefore tax-exempt.

For background information about the new section 104(a)(2) regulations and their application to structured settlements, including commentary and analysis by Jeremy Babener, see these prior S2KM blog posts:

• Treasury Hearing on IRC 104(a)(2) Regs
• A Common Cause at the Treasury Regulation Hearing
• Treasury Hearing Commentary
• Voices at the Treasury Hearing
• Speaker Comments at the Treasury Hearing
• Legislation to Expand the Structured Settlement Industry
• Babener Proposes Expanded S2 Tax Subsidy

For a copy of the new section 104(a)(2) regulations, see the structured settlement wiki.