Business planning perspective888-464-8341
Business Life Insurance

Split-Dollar + COLI/EOLI

EOLI Notice and Consent: What Must Happen Before the Policy Is Issued

Published October 8, 2026 · Updated October 9, 2026

Technical summary / key takeaways

  • The section 101(j)(1) cap is lifted for an amount only when a section 101(j)(2) exception covers it and the section 101(j)(4) notice and consent were met.
  • Notice and consent occur before the contract is issued, and Notice 2009-48 Q&A-4 sets the issue date as the latest of application, effective date of coverage, or formal issuance.
  • Under Notice 2009-48 Q&A-12, the written notice discloses the expected face amount either in dollars or as a multiple of salary.
  • Under Notice 2009-48 Q&A-11, electronic notice and consent are accepted only if the system includes the section 101(j)(4) elements and meets four further system requirements.
  • Section 101(j) has no correction provision; Notice 2009-48 Q&A-13 says the IRS will not challenge an exception for an inadvertent failure that meets stated conditions, including correction by the return due date for the year of issue, and a missing consent cannot be corrected after the insured employee has died.
  • Generally, a policyholder owning a covered contract files Form 8925 for each tax year it owns the contract and reports whether it has a valid consent for each insured employee.

Before an employer-owned life insurance contract is issued, the insured employee must receive written notice that the employer intends to insure his or her life and of the maximum face amount, must give written consent that also covers coverage continuing after employment ends, and must be told in writing that the employer will be a beneficiary. Section 101(j)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code sets these conditions, which must be met before the section 101(j)(2) exceptions can apply.

The question usually comes from a business owner, officer or finance lead whose company is about to buy coverage on an employee's life to fund key-person risk, a buyout or another business obligation. The insurance is the funding mechanism. The notice and consent determine how much of its death benefit the Code may exclude from the business's income.

Section 101(a)(1) generally excludes death benefits from gross income, subject to limits that include the transfer-for-value rule in section 101(a)(2) and the employer-owned rule in section 101(j). Section 101(j)(1) caps the exclusion at "the sum of the premiums and other amounts paid by the policyholder for the contract." The cap is lifted only when a section 101(j)(2) exception applies and the notice and consent requirements were met. Either condition alone leaves the cap in place. Annual reporting runs through Form 8925 under section 6039I, and Notice 2009-48 is the IRS guidance that interprets both sections.

Definition: What Is an Employer-Owned Life Insurance Contract?

Section 101(j)(3)(A) defines an employer-owned life insurance contract as one that "(i) is owned by a person engaged in a trade or business and under which such person (or a related person described in subparagraph (B)(ii)) is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the contract, and (ii) covers the life of an insured who is an employee with respect to the trade or business of the applicable policyholder on the date the contract is issued."

The "applicable policyholder" is the business that owns the contract. Under section 101(j)(3)(B), the term also includes certain related persons specified in the Code and businesses under common control.

Section 101(j)(5)(A) provides that "employee" includes "an officer, director, and highly compensated employee." Notice 2009-48 Q&A-5 adds that a director is an independent contractor in that capacity but still counts for this rule.

Ownership decides the result. Notice 2009-48 Q&A-1 states that a contract owned by an owner of the entity, for example to finance buying another owner's interest, is not employer-owned. Q&A-3 states that ownership by a partnership or sole proprietorship does not prevent a contract from being employer-owned. The same answer states that a sole proprietor's policy on his or her own life is not employer-owned. The site's employer-owned life insurance and corporate-owned life insurance pages cover the broader definitions.

Applicable Rules: The Statutory and Guidance Framework

These federal provisions and guidance govern this topic.

  • 26 U.S.C. § 101(a)(1) generally excludes amounts "paid by reason of the death of the insured" from gross income.
  • 26 U.S.C. § 101(j)(1) caps that exclusion for an employer-owned contract at premiums and other amounts paid.
  • 26 U.S.C. § 101(j)(2) lists the exceptions. Subparagraph (A) is based on the insured's status: an employee at any time during the 12-month period before death, or, when the contract is issued, a director, a highly compensated employee or a highly compensated individual. Subparagraph (B) covers amounts paid to the insured's family, designated beneficiary, a trust for them, or the estate, and amounts used to buy an equity interest in the policyholder from those persons.
  • 26 U.S.C. § 101(j)(4) sets the three notice and consent elements.
  • 26 U.S.C. § 6039I requires annual returns and records.
  • Notice 2009-48 answers interpretive questions on both sections.
  • Form 8925 is the IRS return used for the annual report.

Section 101(j)(4) provides that the requirements "are met if, before the issuance of the contract, the employee":

"(A) is notified in writing that the applicable policyholder intends to insure the employee's life and the maximum face amount for which the employee could be insured at the time the contract was issued, (B) provides written consent to being insured under the contract and that such coverage may continue after the insured terminates employment, and (C) is informed in writing that an applicable policyholder will be a beneficiary of any proceeds payable upon the death of the employee."

The statute joins the three elements with "and," so a document that leaves one out does not meet the test. An enrollment or beneficiary form that never mentions coverage after termination, or the employer's beneficiary status, falls short.

On face amount, Form 8925 describes Q&A-12 this way: the notice must disclose the face amount "either in dollars or as a multiple of salary, that the policyholder reasonably expects to purchase with regard to the employee during the course of the employee's tenure." Additional notice and consent are required if aggregate coverage exceeds the amount the employee was told about and consented to.

On delivery, Form 8925 states that the requirement "can be met electronically only if the system for electronic notification and consent meets requirements 1 through 3," citing Q&A-11. Notice 2009-48 Q&A-11 adds that the system must also (1) ensure that the information the employee receives is the same as the information the employer sent, (2) make it reasonably certain that the person accessing the system is the employee, (3) include a process for electronic signature or other means of formally recording the employee's consent to being insured, and (4) permit the production of a hardcopy of the electronic notice and consent, with a statement, on the IRS's request.

How the Rules Work: Timing, Issuance, and the Two-Condition Structure

Timing is the hinge. Form 8925, citing Notice 2009-48 Q&A-4, states that for notice and consent purposes the issue date is "the later of (1) the date of application of coverage, (2) the effective date of coverage, or (3) the formal issuance of the contract." Consent obtained after that date does not meet the statute's "before the issuance" test.

Consent also expires. Form 8925, citing Q&A-9, states that a written consent is not valid unless the contract is issued "within a year after the consent was executed, or before the employee terminates employment with the trade or business of the applicable policyholder, whichever is earlier."

The exceptions do not replace consent. Notice 2009-48 states that even when a section 101(j)(2)(A) or (B) exception "is otherwise satisfied," the notice and consent requirements must be met for the cap not to apply. That applies equally to the 12-month employment exception, the family-proceeds exception and the equity-purchase exception.

The analysis follows three questions:

  1. Is the contract employer-owned under section 101(j)(3)?
  2. Were valid notice and consent completed before issuance?
  3. Does a section 101(j)(2) exception apply?

If the answer to the first question is yes and either the second or third answer is no, section 101(j)(1) caps the exclusion.

Who This Is For: Employers Subject to Section 101(j)

The rule reaches any business that owns life insurance on someone who counts as its employee and that is directly or indirectly a beneficiary. Notice 2009-48 Q&A-3 confirms that partnerships and sole proprietorships are included, along with corporations. Covered insureds include rank-and-file employees, officers, directors and highly compensated employees on the issue date.

Notice 2009-48 Q&A-7 states that notice and consent are required of an owner-employee of a wholly-owned corporation, and that "actual knowledge alone" cannot substitute for the written requirement.

Readers include:

  • owners and partners funding continuity or buyouts through entity-owned policies;
  • finance and HR leads running existing programs that have not confirmed consent for each insured; and
  • advisers evaluating how coverage between business partners is structured.

Employer-owned life insurance notice and consent under section 101(j), and Form 8925 reporting, need individual review of the contracts involved by a qualified tax professional. The checklist specific to key-person coverage belongs to the site's key-person insurance requirements page.

We're Here for You

We're your trusted California business life insurance advisor. Call us 7 days a week, or send us a message, to have a real conversation about what your business needs.

When It Applies: Contracts That Trigger the Notice-and-Consent Requirement

The requirement attaches whenever a contract fits section 101(j)(3). That includes:

  • a business-owned key-person policy on an officer or key employee;
  • an entity-owned policy funding a redemption, where the business buys back an owner's interest;
  • a corporate-owned program covering many employees; and
  • a split-dollar arrangement in which the business owns the contract and is a beneficiary, which Notice 2009-48 Q&A-2 treats as employer-owned when the contract is otherwise described in section 101(j)(3).

The rule also applies wherever the business expects to rely on a section 101(j)(2) exception, because notice and consent are a precondition of every exception.

Form 8925 reports employer-owned life insurance contracts issued after August 17, 2006. The form states that policyholders are not required to complete it for a contract issued after that date as part of a section 1035 exchange for a contract issued before August 18, 2006 (citing Q&A-15), but that "any material increase in the death benefit or other material change to the contract will cause it to be treated as a new contract" and the policyholder is then required to file the form (citing Q&A-14).

How life insurance generally works in each business structure is covered on the site's page on owner, insured and beneficiary roles.

When It May Not Apply: Situations Outside Section 101(j)'s Scope

Several common arrangements fall outside the definition. Notice 2009-48 Q&A-3 excludes a sole proprietor's policy on his or her own life. Q&A-1 excludes a contract owned by an individual owner of the entity rather than by the business, which is the usual structure of cross-purchase buy-sell agreements. Q&A-1 also excludes a contract owned by a qualified plan or a voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) sponsored by the business.

A personal policy bought outside any trade or business does not meet the section 101(j)(3)(A)(i) ownership test. A contract under which the business is not "directly or indirectly a beneficiary" also falls outside the definition. Whether a collateral assignment to a lender, or a particular beneficiary designation, leaves an indirect benefit depends on the documents.

The boundary between employer-owned and individually owned coverage turns on who holds title, who receives proceeds and who counts as an employee. Those facts are confirmed contract by contract.

Compliance Considerations: Form 8925 and Ongoing Obligations

Compliance continues after issuance. Section 6039I(a) requires every applicable policyholder to report, for each year the contracts are owned:

  • the number of employees;
  • the number of insured employees;
  • the total insurance in force;
  • the policyholder's identifying information and type of business; and
  • that the policyholder "has a valid consent for each insured employee," or else the number of insured employees without one.

Form 8925 carries that report. The form states that, generally, every policyholder owning such contracts "must file Form 8925 for each tax year the contract(s) is owned." The consent question appears on line 4a, which asks whether a valid consent was received from each covered employee. The form also asks for the number of covered employees without a valid consent.

Section 6039I(b) requires the policyholder to keep the records needed to determine whether section 101(j) is met.

Notice 2009-48 Q&A-13 states that section 101(j) "does not contain a provision for correcting an inadvertent failure." The IRS will not challenge an exception if three conditions are met:

  1. the policyholder made a good-faith effort to comply, such as keeping a formal consent system;
  2. the failure was inadvertent; and
  3. the failure was discovered and corrected no later than the due date of the policyholder's tax return for the year of issue.

The same answer states that a failure to obtain consent "cannot be corrected after the insured employee has died."

Most failures come from sequencing and paperwork, not intent. Recurring problems include:

  • signing consent after the issue date as Q&A-4 measures it;
  • issuing the contract more than a year after consent was signed, or after the employee left;
  • using a generic form that omits continuation after termination or the employer's beneficiary status;
  • stating no face amount, or stating it in neither dollars nor a salary multiple;
  • increasing coverage beyond the consented amount without new notice and consent;
  • treating an exception as automatic without notice and consent;
  • relying on an owner's actual knowledge in a wholly-owned corporation, which Q&A-7 rejects;
  • attempting a correction after the insured's death or after the Q&A-13 deadline; and
  • skipping Form 8925 or misreporting line 4a.

This example is hypothetical. It assumes a C corporation owns a $2,000,000 contract on its chief financial officer, who is an officer and a highly compensated employee when the contract is issued. The corporation is the beneficiary, and premiums paid total $200,000. The contract is assumed to be employer-owned, with no transfer for value.

Scenario A (hypothetical). Written notice and consent with all three elements were completed before issuance, and the section 101(j)(2)(A) status exception applies. Both conditions are met, so section 101(j)(1) does not cap the exclusion. The full $2,000,000 is within the section 101(a)(1) exclusion.

Scenario B (hypothetical). No notice and consent were obtained before issuance, although the status exception would otherwise apply. The cap applies:

  • Excluded amount = premiums paid = $200,000
  • Amount included in gross income = $2,000,000 − $200,000 = $1,800,000

Scenario C (hypothetical). The notice disclosed $1,500,000, but the contract was issued for $2,000,000. Form 8925's description of Q&A-12 requires additional notice and consent when coverage exceeds the consented amount. Whether the coverage up to $1,500,000 remains within the exception depends on the contract documents and the notices actually given.

These round figures illustrate the mechanics only. Actual results depend on each contract's facts and the policyholder's tax position.

Professional Coordination: What to Confirm Before and After Issuance

Responsibility sits with the applicable policyholder. Section 6039I places the return and recordkeeping duties on the business, not on the insurer.

A qualified tax professional can compare the consent form against section 101(j)(4)(A)-(C) and Q&A-12 before it is used, and can prepare Form 8925 with each year's return and confirm that line 4a matches the consent records.

Split-dollar regime, ownership and taxation need individual review, because ownership under the arrangement decides whether section 101(j)(3) is met.

Owners comparing these structures can find business-level context on the site's page for life insurance for business owners and on life insurance between business partners.

We're Here for You

We're your trusted California business life insurance advisor. Call us 7 days a week, or send us a message, to have a real conversation about what your business needs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does qualifying for a section 101(j)(2) exception eliminate the need for notice and consent?

No. Notice 2009-48 states that even when a section 101(j)(2)(A) or (B) exception is otherwise satisfied, notice and consent must be met for the section 101(j)(1) cap not to apply. Both conditions are required.

What is Form 8925 and how does it relate to notice and consent?

Form 8925 is the IRS return that carries the section 6039I report of employer-owned contracts. Line 4a asks whether a valid consent was received from each covered employee. The form also asks how many covered employees lack one.

Educational information only. Not legal, tax, investment or insurance advice. Product availability and outcomes depend on individual circumstances.

Related Strategies

Primary & Authoritative Sources

Remain Life Insurance Services, LLC