Beware state premium taxes on annuities

Under-the-radar taxes pose big planning challenges for financial advisers

Jun 18, 2014 @ 12:01 am

By Darla Mercado

annuities, taxes, state taxes, tax planning
+ Zoom
(iStock)

Don't be alarmed, but did you know that a handful of states slap premium taxes on carriers for annuities — and that some of that expense is being passed onto clients?

The practice has been ongoing for years, but it's largely been taking place under clients' noses. It's modeled into the quote investors receive.

It's not all that different from the tax nearly all states currently levy on life insurance premiums — and that's been going on since the 1800s, according to Leonard Wright, a certified public accountant and personal finance specialist.

There are currently eight jurisdictions that apply state premium taxes to clients' deposits into annuity contracts: California, Florida, Maine, Nevada, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming. The tax applies based on the residence of the buyer.

“Life insurers aren't taxed on net income but on the gross premiums in each state,” said Jim Hall, regional vice president at the American Council of Life Insurers, an industry advocacy group. “The annuity tax works like a premium tax on the gross amount received.”

(Don't miss: New annuities offer exposure to equities and downside protection)

Naturally, life insurance and annuities are priced with the expectation that the state in which the client resides will take its slice of the premium dollars. This way, the company pays the tax and the expense is subsequently deducted from the client.

Rates for non-qualified annuities, according to the ACLI, include: California: 2.35%; Florida: 1%; Maine: 2%; Nevada 3.5%; Puerto Rico: 1%; South Dakota: 1.25%; West Virginia 1% and Wyoming: 1%.

For qualified annuities, California taxes insurers at a 0.5% rate. In Florida, Puerto Rico and West Virginia, they are taxed at 1%. The remaining jurisdictions — Maine, Nevada, South Dakota and Wyoming — do not tax qualified annuities.

In Florida, insurers are exempt from the annuity premium tax if they can show that they've passed the savings onto the policyholders in that state.

The extent to which an insurer passes the expense tied to the premium tax to the client varies from one insurer to another. Some companies pass on the full tax amount to the client.

“It's a matter of competition,” Mr. Hall said. “Some companies may incorporate it more. Others, less so.”

The timing of when the insurer passes on the expense can also vary. Insurance law statutes in California, Nevada and West Virginia permit the carrier to remit the tax to the state either when the client makes the deposit or when the contract is annuitized. In the remaining states, however, the carrier pays the tax on the front end, according to Mr. Hall.

When a company decides to assess the tax expense on the customer is generally up to the carrier, however. “A company may be required to pay the tax on the front end, but they might assess it [to the customer] after annuitization,” Mr. Hall said.

But there are real planning implications for annuity purchasers in the eight jurisdictions. Mr. Wright specializes in the tax as it applies to contracts for residents in California and Nevada. What advisers need to bear in mind is whether the annuity is being held in a qualified account or in a non-qualified account.

The tax impact can be huge. In California, an annuity in a qualified account will be taxed at a rate of 0.50%. But if it's in a non-qualified account, the levy climbs to 2.35%.

“It forces you into a decision: Where should the annuity be held in the first place?” asked Mr. Wright. “Is it in a qualified plan where your distributions are considered ordinary income?”

Another factor to weigh, particularly with clients who may retire outside of states that tack on high levies: Should you hold off on the annuity purchase until you've relocated, since the annuity premium tax is based on residency? “If you want to move to Texas from Nevada, you'll pay less in taxes if you wait a year,” said Mr. Wright.

Regardless of how a client decides to proceed, it's important that advisers ensure that the annuity decision is the right call for the investor in the first place. The application of the annuity premium tax is just one consideration.

“If it is the right decision, don't let the tax tail wag the dog,” Mr. Wright added.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Upcoming Event

Oct 17

Conference

Best Practices Workshop

For the fifth year, InvestmentNews will host the Best Practices Workshop & Awards, bringing together the industry’s top-performing and most influential firms in one room for a full-day. This exclusive workshop and awards program for the... Learn more

Featured video

INTV

Women's retirement needs and the opportunity they present for advisers

Assistant managing editor Lorie Konish speaks with contributing editor Mary Beth Franklin about the unique planning considerations for women as they prepare for income needs later in life.

Latest news & opinion

Jay Clayton says SEC, DOL can give market 'clarity' on fiduciary rule

Chief regulator is confident two agencies could reach 'common ground' on an investment advice standard across all accounts.

Vanguard winning at bond inflows, too

But iShares is strong competition.

Sen. Gary Peters brings broker background to work every day on Capitol Hill

Michigan Democrat resists ripping up DOL fiduciary rule but would be open to some changes.

DOL fiduciary rule causing DC-plan record keepers to change business with insurance agents

Principal has communicated that independent agents must change their business models to keep receiving compensation.

DOL fiduciary rule opponents want to push implementation back until 2019

ICI, Chamber of Commerce among groups asking for delay, while Democratic lawmakers call on DOL to keep to its earlier planned schedule of Jan. 1, 2018.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print