To be valid, a life insurance contract needs a beneficiary clause . Otherwise, it is impossible to transmit capital. The dismemberment of this charter also makes it possible to designate several assignees, and to assign a heritage in succession.
Otherwise, this act turns to the advantage of the companion to protect the interests of the children in terms of succession. But also to defend materially, at the fiscal and legal level, the members of a household.
A Dual Purpose Of Dismembering The Beneficiary Clause.
The dismemberment of the beneficiary clause of life insurance protects the spouse of the subscriber on his death . The latter can then freely use the capital left on the contract. This operation also offers another advantage in an estate.
Indeed, children will be taxed in a moderate way. In this case, it can then be used to determine and separate the prerogatives relating to the property rights of several people.
Full ownership of the heritage is then split into two: usufruct and bare ownership. Often transferred to the spouse, the usufruct is the right to use the property and to collect the fruits. Generally returning to children, bare ownership is the right to dispose of the property upon the extinction of the usufruct. In a life insurance contract, we are not talking about property, but rather about money.
The subscriber of a life insurance policy chooses to dismember the beneficiary clause, because he wishes to let the usufructuary enjoy the funds as if the latter were the only beneficiary. At the end of the dismemberment, the bare owner will have full ownership and may demand the claim for return to the usufructuary in the event of dilapidation of the funds.
Why Write A Dismembered Beneficiary Clause?
The drafting of a beneficiary clause by dismembering it allows the insured to pass on his assets to one person, who will then bequeath them to another. In other words, the dismemberment of the life insurance contract is ideal for carrying out a transmission successively.
In addition, it should not be forgotten that this operation also consists in leading to the exemption of the capital, thanks to the designation of partner of PACS or spouse as quasi-usufructuary. However, this does not definitively divest a second beneficiary who will be designated bare owner.
Otherwise, the latter did not have tax payable since he was exempt. In other words, the tax administration had carried out a study to find that he did not enjoy any money. He therefore had no taxation to reconstitute.
The quasi-usufructuary, being the only one to benefit from the capital, should be the only one to pay taxes of 20% beyond the 152,500$. This was the case until the summer of 2011, since the bare owner is now subject to taxation. It is, in fact, imposed in proportion to its rights. He will thus pay a certain amount depending on the value of the usufruct.