As has already been said, the implementation of life insurance can be a very effective way for a terminally ill insured to find the money he or she sorely needs in his or her last few months. This money is unlimited and can be used to pay everything from medical expenses to a trip around the world. However, this planning technique entails high costs, all other options should be considered, all tax consequences should be weighed and the decision should be made as part of a comprehensive plan. The amounts an insurer holds for a beneficiary are used on a pro-rata basis (in accordance with the rules prescribed by the secretary) over the period or periods for which these payments are to be made. The gross income of this beneficiary is excluded from the gross income in the taxable year determined by this amount. Gross income includes, except excluding the above rate, the amounts collected under agreements covered by this subsection. As the industry moves its target market of terminally ill policyholders, who are in urgent need of cash, to wealthy seniors with financial, tax and legal advisors, marketing techniques have also been shifted. For the terminally ill market, viatic colonization societies often recruit social workers, funeral directors and AIDS volunteers to sell their colonies. For the Senior Settlement Marketplace, lawyers, accountants, planners, insurance agents and planned advisors are recruited. As these new acquisitions do not provide money for the terminally ill, some companies call them colonies close to the elderly, wealthy colonies or simply colonies for life. The target market for these purchases is wealthy seniors, charities and companies in which a senior executive has retired. Selling life insurance to third parties is not a particularly modern concept, but the viatical settlement sector did not begin to organize itself as an industry until the mid-1980s.
A small handful of finance companies, backed by large loans and lines of credit, realized that an increasing number of AIDS patients were cash-poor, but had large life insurance. These terminally ill policyholders had a relatively short but predictable life expectancy, and were in urgent need of immediate money to pay for expensive medical treatments, experimental drugs and the basic cost of living. That`s not the case. (b) (2) – Pub. L. 93-406, 2007 (b) (3), replaces “if the uniformed member or former member of the services, as a result of the death of such a pension, is replaced by “if the person who made the election under such a chapter” is replaced. Comment: For the life policy of terminal donors, the charity should recognize that the fair value of these contracts is much higher than the value of cash restitution. For example, for an insured with a life expectancy of one year, naIC recommends a payment of 65% to 70%. A charity would be hard to get to find another investment that would reduce 30% to 35% in one year and that would have to do everything in its power to keep these contracts in good repute. For healthy but older donors, viatic colonization societies are primarily interested in donors over the age of 75 with euthanasia of more than $500,000. Charities need to be aware that while small policies are not worth the administration and the obligation to pay future premiums, these larger and older policies are worth it. In fact, the only guidelines that older housing companies want to buy are precisely those that charities should most appreciate in their investment portfolios.
Unless a charity is facing serious liquidity problems and the use of viatic or former colonies is not appropriate.