Pension commitment not a substitute for missing occupational disability pension

Pension commitment no substitute for missing occupational disability pension Andreas Bosl, owner of the company MBD Mittelstands-Beratungs-Dienst e.K., Management consultancy in Pöcking, Dr. Johannes Fiala, lawyer (Munich), mediator (Univ.), MBA Financial Services (Univ.Wales), MM (Univ.), certified financial and investment advisor (A.F.A.), EC expert (C.I.F.E.), lecturer (Univ. of Cooperative Education), banker (
At present, typical medium-sized GmbHs are increasingly getting into a crisis situation because a managing director suddenly becomes incapacitated. The author explains causes and liability traps and gives advice on how to avoid the worst case scenario. Red.
It is not an isolated case that insolvency administrators have been observing again and again in recent times: an increasing reason for insolvency is the occupational disability of managing directors of medium-sized corporations.
Risk of lack of reinsurance and low provision values
The pension commitment is a model for first of all saving taxes at the GmbH. That’s why it’s so popular. But already in the case of old-age pensions, i.e. pure old-age pensions, it is little known that the necessary financial resources have to be about twice as high as they are taxable. This means that the company has to set aside profits and then pay tax on about half of them. Furthermore, the provisions for a pension commitment are calculated on the Vermögensberatu basis in accordance with the so-called Heubeck mortality tables. with an interest rate of currently six percent p.a. net. For this, however, an investment or an insurance policy would have to generate a gross return of around ten percent p.a.. However, in the past and even today, the pension commitments were financed or reinsured with a German endowment life insurance policy, but the realistic return on German life insurance policies is currently only around four percent p.a. gross, i.e. around 2.40 percent net after taxes (tax rate 40 percent of the GmbH). The missing financial means at retirement of the managing director must then be serviced by the GmbH from its own cash flow and this often for the next 20 years until the end of life.
Risk of not having an insurance solution
In addition, a typical medium-sized GmbH cannot afford it financially if a managing director becomes disabled. His occupational disability leads to financial obligations that lead straight to insolvency. Business economists speak of “incongruent reinsurance” if the managing director is promised an occupational disability pension in his pension commitment but there is no special reinsurance for this risk. Then in the case of damage the middle class GmbH must carry the financial expenditure alone.
Risk in the insurance solution
In the past, an occupational disability pension was often included in the pension commitment, as this is an original field of business of the insurance companies. Good insurance premiums can also be earned in the process, often accounting for nearly 20 percent to 30 percent of the total premium for the insurance policy. This risk premium built into the overall contract has the disadvantage that there are insufficient funds available in old age for the savings portion of the insurance, which is needed to finance the old-age pension. In other words, if only 70 percent to 80 percent of the savings portion flows into the reinsurance for the old-age pension, then the capital required to finance the pension is usually not available at the start of the pension. Not infrequently, a comparative calculation for the tax optimisation of the burden is missing. Two design errors are typical here, namely first of all that in the model calculation for the determination of needs it was simply overlooked that such pensions must also be taxed. The manager will then consider whether the model calculation was seriously flawed and he can claim the missing annuity to pay the tax from the insurance intermediary.
Tax risk of a design in the company
In addition, it may be cheaper in individual cases “on balance” to cover occupational disability privately via a pure risk insurance policy, al-ensberatung so not via a pension commitment in the company. With nice regularity, such comparative calculations are prepared later by the tax advisor, as proof of loss. Some agents overlook this task as well, and fail to “fix” this liability trap. Furthermore, the difficulty arises that the conditions of the reinsurer and those of the pension commitment are difficult to reconcile.
Independent definition of performance as a criterion
The theoretically possible reference in the pension commitment to the conditions of the insurer is problematic from a tax point of view because an independent definition of benefits is required here. Moreover, even this does not necessarily protect against the fact that the following curiosity may occur in the end. In the event of disability, the employer (GmbH) must pay the disability pension under the contract between it and its GGF, whereas the insurer may successfully defend itself against this. In this case, the GGF would insist on his benefits with the consequence that the GmbH would have to provide a considerable amount of capital as cover for the disability pension. However, the GGF could possibly waive its claims. However, this could be interpreted as unusual for him for tax purposes, with the consequence that the tax office would define a hidden equity contribution subject to wage tax for him in the amount of the cash value of the disability pension. For these reasons, consideration should generally be given to keeping disability or occupational disability pensions out of a company pension commitment. This applies in particular if the GmbH is managed by several participating managing directors (or also authorised signatories), so that the remaining partner in each case has to deal with this problem.
examine possible solutions
The Mittelstands-Beratungs-Dienst (MBD) sees a considerable need for advice here in existing pension commitments and suggests the following solutions to the problem: It is better here to shift the coverage of occupational disability to the private sector, because then the GmbH and its GG are not burdened. In addition, a pure risk insurance for occupational disability is often much cheaper and also usually has a better insurance cover, depending on the BU rating of the insurance. An existing occupational disability pension could also be limited to the so-called debit/partial value of the provisions. This has the advantage that the GmbH pays an occupational disability pension to the GGF in the event of a claim, but only on the significantly lower provision values at the time of the occupational disability. The balance sheet risk is then completely eliminated and the GmbH can usually cope with these pension payments without any problems. However, the pension commitment and reinsurance policy would have to be redesigned and the residual risk of disability would have to be newly covered by an inexpensive private occupational disability annuity with a good insurer. However, it should be checked in advance to what extent the new insurer covers the occupational disability risk on the basis of the existing health conditions. Only then should the existing contract be reduced or restructured. A worthwhile story, if one considers that under circumstances alone by the balance jump risk often 200,000 to 300,000 euro reserves must be booked profit-reducing by the tax adviser into the balance, which can mean inevitably an insolvency for the GmbH. A sensible alternative for executives or managing directors is also a Keyman policy against, for example, 36 serious illnesses (cancer, heart attack, etc.) which provides an immediate high capital sum and can be claimed as a tax-reducing business expense.
— Recognizing and correcting the problem of existing legacy issues Often this constellation proves to be a vicious circle. This is because if the company cannot be financed, the tax office may under certain circumstances refer to hidden profit distribution, which in turn can lead to insolvency. In the best case, the GmbH has covered the risk of occupational disability with an occupational disability pension from an insurer, which is the case in around 90 percent of all pension commitments on the market. This is often the start of another drama, which the insurance agent of course usually does not mention for business reasons: If the customer is healthy and the occupational disability pension is accepted by the insurer, everything seems to be fine. However, many old pension commitments were based on an occupational disability pension benefit in relation to the statutory pension insurance, which used to be correct as long as there was still an occupational disability pension from the legislator. However, this was dropped in the course of the changeover to the so-called reduced earning capacity pension and therefore there is no longer an occupational disability pension from the legislator. It is fatal for the GmbH and the GGF if there is a clause for the payment of an occupational disability pension in the commitment, but the GmbH is not allowed to pay the pension to the GGF for the aforementioned reasons. Every GmbH should urgently review this clause in the interest of its GGF and have it redrafted accordingly by an expert. In any case, it would be important to adjust the occupational disability pension to the current insurance conditions of the respective insurance company. This means that the GmbH is only obliged to pay a pension in the event of occupational disability if the insurance company also pays on the basis of the conditions, otherwise there is the threat of insolvency again.
— However, the highest tax risk is probably the balance sheet risk in the case of premature disability benefits for the managing director. A relatively high disability pension as part of a pension commitment of a GmbH to the managing director is problematic in principle. In the event of disability, the GmbH is exposed to high risks, which are then generally to be covered by a reinsurance policy. Unfortunately, as a rule, invalidity cannot be established indisputably; moreover, it is linked to a large number of conditions. In the case of the disability pensions under discussion, the insurer very often does not initially recognise the obligation to pay benefits, which then often has to be enforced through lengthy disputes and also litigation. Recent rulings on this controversial issue of occupational disability show that it is virtually impossible for a self-employed person (especially also controlling GmbH shareholder-managing directors – GGF for short) to receive such a pension. A decision of 18 February 2005 by the Hamm Higher Regional Court, which has only just become known, dismisses the action brought by a restaurant owner against his occupational disability insurer (Ref.: 20 U 174/04). Reason: A self-employed person is only then incapable of working if there are no areas of activity open to him in his business in which he can still work to the conditional extent with his health impairment. The judges stated that in the event of a health impairment, a self-employed person was obliged to reorganise his business if necessary. In plain language: If a business has fields of activity which are still reasonable for the owner in terms of health, or if a reasonable reorganisation of the business would open up corresponding possibilities of activity, the court is convinced that this rules out a conditional occupational disability. Any reorganisation would have to take into account, where appropriate, redundancies and the recruitment of other staff. Conclusion: According to the judges, the owner of a restaurant who is no longer able to lift and carry heavy loads or to walk and stand for long periods of time has a wide range of employment possibilities, for example a supervisory position.
(Assets & Taxes 2/2007, 33)

Our office in Munich

You will find our office at Fasolt-Strasse 7 in Munich, very close to Schloss Nymphenburg. Our team consists of highly motivated attorneys who are available for all the needs of our clients. In special cases, our law firm cooperates with selected experts to represent your interests in the best possible way.

About the author

Dr. Johannes Fiala Dr. Johannes Fiala

Dr. Johannes Fiala has been working for more than 25 years as a lawyer and attorney with his own law firm in Munich. He is intensively involved in real estate, financial law, tax and insurance law. The numerous stages of his professional career enable him to provide his clients with comprehensive advice and to act as a lawyer in the event of disputes.
»More about Dr. Johannes Fiala

On these pages, Dr. Fiala provides information on current legal and economic topics as well as on current political changes that are of social and/or corporate relevance.

Arrange your personal appointment with us.

Make an appointment / call back service

You are already receiving legal advice and would like a second opinion? In this case please contact Dr. Fiala directly via the following link.

Obtain a second legal opinion

The first telephone call about your request is free of charge.