How About Just Doing the Right Thing?

During an ITM TwentyFirst University webinar on trustee liability, I described a replacement case that came into our remediation department. A grantor with a whole life contract in his trust had decided to stop gifting. His agent advised him to complete a 1035 exchange of the cash value from the existing policy into a new current assumption policy. The exchange, with no other premium, would carry the new policy out past life expectancy on a non-guaranteed basis but not to policy maturity. The death benefit in the trust would be lowered, but the grantor was comfortable with this, as the focus was on limiting the costs associated with the trust. Our remediation team notified the trustee that the death benefit in the existing policy could be guaranteed to maturity by requesting a reduced paid-up policy with the existing carrier, which would contractually guarantee the existing policy’s death benefit with no additional premium. The death benefit would be lowered but would still provide $900,000 more in death benefit than the new non-guaranteed policy was proposing.

I was reminded of the case while reading an article in the Wall Street Journal explaining that the Fifth Circuit Court had “struck down” the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, stating that the department “overreached” by requiring those who handle retirement accounts to act in the “clients’ best interest” and asserting that the “rule is unreasonable” (1). I understand the industry fight against this law. They are afraid that it will mire them in lawsuits and make the sale of some products much harder in the retirement plan community. The law as it stands only affects retirement accounts, but states are pushing to have “best interests” laws apply to non-qualified annuities and even life insurance (2), which would certainly increase the number of lawsuits.

What ever happened to just doing the right thing? In the case above, had the trustee allowed the replacement, the agent would have made approximately $20 thousand, depending on his brokerage arrangement, but the grantor’s beneficiaries would have lost almost a million dollars. Believe me, many trustees without specialized skills are allowing these cases to slip through.

At ITM TwentyFirst, we service trustees bound by fiduciary duty, and our new affiliated company, Life Insurance Trust Company, is bound by that same duty to maximize the benefit in the trust for the beneficiaries, but that duty does not extend to most of those selling life insurance products. This has created a conflict in the marketplace that trust owned life insurance (TOLI) trustees must recognize. Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 20, at 2PM, we are sponsoring a free webinar providing CE for CFP and CTFA designates that addresses the prudent purchase of life insurance. Click here to register, and if you cannot attend, stop back by our website for a replay at a later date.


1.) Fiduciary Rule Dealt Blow by Circuit Court Ruling, Lisa Beilfus, Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2018
2.) N.Y. Urges Life Insurance Fiduciary Standard in NAIC Rule, John Hilton,, January 25, 2018



NCOIL Tables Model Legislation Efforts to Deal with Cost of Insurance Increases in Life Insurance

NCOIL, the National Council of Insurance Legislators, met in Atlanta last weekend to discuss, among other things, “legislative solutions to unjustified premium increases (1).”

NCOIL is an organization made up of state legislators interested in insurance and financial matters, many of whom serve on related committees in their home states. The goal of the organization is to inform state legislators by creating a venue for interaction and education across state lines. The organization meets three times a year in open sessions that allow the legislators to hear from consumers, industry executives, and regulators.

The organization develops model laws that can be adopted on a state-by-state basis, and part of its published goal is to “preserve the state jurisdiction over insurance” and “speak out on Congressional initiatives that attempt to encroach upon state primacy in overseeing insurance.” The organization provides a needed open setting for the interaction of ideas designed to “improve the quality of insurance regulation (2).”

In its November 2017 meeting, Assemblymember Pamela Hunter of New York, brought up Insurance Regulation 210, a New York regulation we wrote about back in September of 2017. The regulation requires carriers raising expenses or cost of insurance in life and annuity policies to notify the New York State Department of Financial Services at least 120 days prior to “an adverse change in non-guaranteed elements” and to notify consumers within 60 days (3).   The leadership of NCOIL decided to continue the conversation Hunter started at their spring meeting, and on March 3rd, the Life Insurance & Financial Planning Committee of NCOIL met.

Winter storm Riley kept Ms. Hunter from attending the session, which was chaired by Representative Deborah Ferguson, who serves on the House Insurance and Commerce Committee in her home state of Arkansas.

The session opened with a statement by Darwin Bayston of The Life Settlement Association who pointed out there are 142 million life insurance policies in force with $12.3 trillion of death benefit, and stated that the current cost of insurance increases are harming many consumers. Darwin focused on the older population of insureds who had paid premiums for many years only to find that cost increases now made their policies unaffordable.

In my testimony I went over two of the many cases that we have reviewed for trustees at ITM TwentyFirst, where well over $400 million of trust owned life insurance (TOLI) death benefit administered on our Managed Service platform has been affected by the cost increases. I highlighted the problem of trustees, who have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the asset in the trust, being forced to make decisions that deliver much less benefit to the trust than was expected. I also reviewed the many comments I had received from the public, including advisors who expressed dismay that their clients were subject to cost increases of 150 to 200 percent and consumers who cancelled policies because of COI increases and felt they had been “scammed” – their words, not mine.

Steven Sklaver, an attorney at Susman Godfrey LLP spoke next. Sklaver currently has multiple cases filed against carriers who have raised COI on policies and was “handcuffed” in his presentation as a result. However, he did contrast what is occurring in New York state versus the rest of the country, because of the New York regulation, by calling attention to a situation where a carrier who raised rates elsewhere decided not to raise rates in New York. In his testimony, he questioned whether the carriers could be raising rates across an entire class, as required, if NY state insureds were left out. He also pointed out an issue we have seen at ITM TwentyFirst – carriers not providing in force illustrations on policies in the grace period, a major burden for those of us attempting to help policyholders manage a distressed policy.

Kate Kiernan, Vice President, Chief Counsel and Deputy at the American Council of Life Insurers, spoke for the council, expressing their belief that there was no need for any new regulations concerning cost of insurance increases, either in New York or any other states.

Members of the committee had several inquiries. Representative George Keiser from North Dakota asked Mr. Sklaver several pointed questions, and disputed Steven’s assertion that the carriers were not raising rates across an entire class as required, if New York were left out of the increases.

The chairwoman, Representative Deborah Ferguson, asked me if there was anything in a sales illustration that might alert a consumer to a cost of insurance increase in the future. I informed her that the illustration is not the contract, and in fact, a poor tool to explain the policy. Though the illustration has language that indicates all assumptions could change, there is nothing in the illustration that can predict future changes in the policy.

Senator Bob Hackett from Ohio, a veteran of the financial services industry, opined that cost of insurance increases center more around tracking the policy with in force ledgers than the sales illustration, noting that he reviews the in force ledgers with his clients.  I agreed, but explained that though the cost of insurance in a policy will increase as we age, the cost of insurance increases that were the topic of discussion were beyond the natural rise, and resulted in carrying costs on policies to double or even triple overnight.

Our session, the first of the day, was brought to a halt by the vice chairman, Representative Joe Hoppe of Minnesota, who stated that he thought they should wait to see how it would “play out” in the court system before making the decision to move ahead. With a tap of the gavel, Ms. Ferguson brought the meeting to an end with the committee agreeing to not move forward to develop a model act – at least not now.

We have written often in the past about the cost of insurance increases we have seen in life insurance, including at least one article outlining some possible causes. Over the next year or so as the courts work through the various cases brought against the carriers and market interest rates adjust from the abnormally low rates of the last decade, the story will evolve. We will continue to follow up.


  1. NCOIL to Discuss Problems Facing Life Insurance Premium Increases, NCOIL News Release, January 23, 2018
  2. NCOIL website,
  3. NY State Department of Financial Services, 11 NYCRR 48, (Insurance Regulation 210)

The ITM TwentyFirst Solution for Lost Insurance and Pension Benefits

60 Minutes, the CBS news magazine, looked at the problem of unclaimed life insurance benefits in 2016. Lesley Stahl interviewed Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of Florida who had worked with many of the top companies to get benefits paid to policyholders that had died as far back as the 1960s. Who were the carriers? According to Mr. Atwater, “all the large brand names that you are familiar with.” The carriers, to their credit, “sat down with us and made right,” according to Mr. Atwater. But, 60 Minutes pointed out instances where it was clear the carriers were at fault. After all, this is 60 Minutes. It has been said that if you are a company or an industry, you do not want to be mentioned on 60 Minutes, and this mention gave the industry a black eye. After the show aired, states began to ramp up regulatory activity.

This is not a new issue. Carriers lose touch with their policyholders. In 2000, John Hancock demutualized, sending information packages to millions of policyholders. Four hundred thousand were sent back undeliverable. It has been reported that Prudential lost contact with 2.7 million policyholders at one point (1).

Currently, the problem is also creating negative financial consequences for institutions who deal with pension benefits. In December, the Wall Street Journal reported one company had “failed to pay monthly pension benefits to possibly tens of thousands of workers in accounts that it has on its books,” requiring them to strengthen reserves, which may negatively affect their “results of operations.” A company executive said that the people owed the money were beneficiaries that the company “sought to locate over time unsuccessfully” (2). The company, MetLife, Inc. saw its stock drop nearly 9% and has lost approximately $8.5 billion in market cap (3).

The good news is there is an economical answer for companies like MetLife. In July of 2017, ITM TwentyFirst merged with Pension Benefit Information (PBI), bringing the pre-eminent location and death audit firm in the country under the ITM TwentyFirst umbrella and widening the increasing services we offer to clients and prospects alike. PBI provides proactive solutions for those financial institutions struggling with these issues.

It does not look like this problem will disappear. According to an article published just this week, MetLife’s CEO, when discussing the missing pensioner issue, said, “It’s hard for me to know, really, what happens in the other companies in our industry, but I can’t believe we’re the only one.” He went on to say, “It is an area where I think the entire industry has to find ways to do a better job and find these people and pay benefits to these people that they are owed” (5).

For those companies looking for a solution to this problem, PBI is there to help. For more information on Pension Benefit Information (PBI) you can visit their website at


1. The Insurance Forum, Joseph Belth, November 2010
2. MetLife Discloses Failure to Pay Thousands of Workers’ Pensions, Leslie Scism, The Wall Street Journal, 12/15/2017
3. MetLife Shares Tumble on Pension Shortfall News, Joann S. Lubin and Leslie Scism, The Wall Street Journal, 1/30/2018
4. MetLife Hires Investigators in Search for Missing Pensioners, Alistair Gray, Financial Times, 2/13/2018
5. MetLife CEO on Missing Annuitants: “I Can’t Believe We’re the Only One”, Marie Suszynski, AM Best, 2/16/2018

The Life Insurance Dividend Season (Continued)

In an earlier entry, we reported on the dividend declarations from two of the gold standard mutual insurance companies – Northwestern Mutual and Massachusetts Mutual. Both are very highly rated carriers, and have paid dividends each year for well over 100 years. However, like most insurance companies these days, both are feeling the effects of the historic low interest rate environment, and as a result, have reported lower dividend interest rates (DIR).

MassMutual’s reported DIR for 2018 is 6.40% – a drop from the 2017 rate of 6.70% (which was down from the 2016 DIR rate of 7.10%). Northwestern Mutual declared a 2018 dividend interest rate that dropped to 4.9% from the 2017 DIR rate of 5% (which was down from the 2016 DIR rate of 5.45%).

Since our last post, both New York Life and Guardian Life have reported their dividend interest rates.

New York Life reported a 2018 dividend payout of $1.78 billion, the largest in the history of the company and the 164th consecutive year of dividend payouts. The DIR rate for NY Life was 6.1% (which was down from their 2017 rate of 6.2%). In announcing the DIR drop, their first since 2012, New York Life referenced, “the continued historic low level of interest rates, which constrain our investment returns.”

Guardian Life, who has paid dividends each year since 1868, reported a $911 million dividend payout. The DIR for Guardian remained the same as it was in 2017- 5.85% (which was down from their 2016 rate of 6.05%).

So, for 2018, 3 of the 4 carriers mentioned lowered their DIR. It will take a while for portfolio returns to turn around for insurance carriers. Almost exactly 3 years ago we reported on the dividends for these same four carriers. In that entry, our visual was a battleship and the title referenced the fact that raising dividends is much like turning a battleship around. We featured a quote from the chairman of New York Life at the time, who noted, “The downward pressure on interest rates continues to be challenging for life insurers.”  In announcing the 2018 dividend, Roger Crandall, MassMutual Chairman, President and CEO, referenced the “backdrop of a prolonged low interest rate environment.” Not much has changed.

However, this week the Fed raised rates by a quarter of a percentage point to a range of 1.25 to 1.50 percent, its third rate hike this year, with its forecast of three additional rate increases in 2018 and 2019 unchanged.

Maybe by next year the battleship will really begin to turn around.

The Year in Review: Trust Owned Life Insurance (TOLI) in 2017

While 2017 was another challenging year for those of us who manage life insurance portfolios, ITM TwentyFirst started the year highlighting the efficiency of life insurance in an ILIT as a preferred method of passing wealth to the next generation. In our first post of the year we cited an example of a 65-year-old couple in good health purchasing a survivorship guaranteed universal life (GUL) policy. The policy relies on a fixed annual premium paid in full and on time each yemedium[2].jpgar for its guarantees, but for those with the cash flow to fund the asset, the return on the death benefit is very attractive.   As seen in the spreadsheet to the right, if the death benefit was paid twenty years out (age 85) the internal rate of return (IRR) on the death benefit would be 11.36%. If it was paid 30 years out (age 95) the IRR would be 5.36%. Even at age 100, the IRR would be over 3.6%. Remember, the policy death benefit is guaranteed (if the premium is paid in full and on time), which makes these returns even more attractive when compared to other “guaranteed” investments. Yes, life insurance can be a great way to leverage assets to the next generation, but managing the asset can be difficult and this was another trying year.Restrictions were placed on in force illustrations for a handful of carriers, which limited our ability to review some policies. In a February post we noted that John Hancock cited “regulatory standards that govern illustration practices” for limiting the illustrations on some Performance UL policies issued between 2003 to 2010. The issue stemmed from the fact that “experience has differed from the current assumptions which are reflected in the illustrations.”  In at least one instance in 2016, restrictions on in force illustrations were a direct precursor to a cost of insurance (COI) increase.

Some carriers did increase the cost of insurance on policies. In July, we reported on a Lincoln National increase on a block of universal life policies. The carrier cited “updated projections” of “future costs” for providing coverage, stating “future expectations” of “cost factors, including mortality, interest, expenses and the length of time policies stay in force” changed, so COI rates were adjusted to “appropriately reflect those future expectations.” Other carriers with COI increases in 2017 included Phoenix and Transamerica.

Lawsuits against carriers for COI increases that started in 2016 spilled over into 2017, with lawsuits against both Transamericaand Lincoln National moving ahead. One case against Transamerica was heard this year. In that case, an African-American church in Los Angeles that had enlisted an investment group to finance 2,400 life insurance policies providing burial funds for congregants, filed suit, along with the investor, against Transamerica for a 50% COI increase. They alleged among other things, breach of contract in violation of California law and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In September, a jury found in their favor and awarded $5,608,495.57 in damages.

Also in Septemberthe New York State Department of Financial Services issued regulations to protect New Yorkers from “unfair and inequitable cost increases in in-force policies.” The new regulations prohibit “life insurers from changing non-guaranteed elements in a discriminatory way for members of the same class of policyholders . . . only certain enumerated factors, which do not include profit, can be considered when seeking to change non-guaranteed elements.” Carriers are required to notify the department 120 days prior to an adverse change in non-guaranteed elements. Consumers are to be notified at least 60 days prior to any changes. As far as we know, this is the only state that has developed regulations specifically around COI changes.

A new methodology for calculating policy reserves for life insurance policies took effect in 2017. Principle-Based Reserving (PBR) lessens the need for changes to regulations and laws as new products are introduced. Under the new methodology, states “establish principles upon which reserves are to be based rather than specific formulas.” According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), under the current formula, the risks, liabilities and obligations are not always correctly “reflected,” and “for some products this leads to excessive conservatism in reserve calculations, for others it results in inadequate reserves.” Reserve requirements are just one part of the life insurance policy pricing formula, other factors such as mortality and overhead expenses and investment returns, also play a major role. While regulators believe the “right sizing” of reserves will benefit consumers as holding higher reserves tends to increase costs, and holding reserves that are too low puts the consumer at risk, it is not clear yet how it will affect pricing on new policies.

The overriding concern in 2017 has been the historic low interest rate environment we are still in. As we have written about in the past, the low rates create winners (borrowers) and losers (lenders), and since insurance companies get most of their investment income by lending premium dollars until benefits are paid, they are among the biggest losers. The low rates have been linked by some to the COI increases we have seen. The fixed investment environment has also put carriers in an unenviable situation. We reported on industry executives who believe the “persistent low rates” are “destroying the viability of insurance companies,” with many companies “not earning their cost of capital,” leaving the industry in an “environment” that is “unsustainable over any reasonable period of time.”

While 2017 has had its challenges, ITM TwentyFirst is growing dramaticallly. We have hired an additional New Business Development Specialist to assist with the increasing surge in demand from financial institutions to outsource their trust owned life insurance operations. Located in the northeast corridor, Walt Lotspeich is a 20-year veteran of the trust industry, and a great asset to our team. Our outsourcing service, the Managed Solution, is the fastest growing segment of our TOLI business, as trustees focus their internal efforts on more profitable business lines and allow us to take over the day-to-day back office operations of their TOLI business.

In 2018, we will continue to grow, and in the next month, we will be introducing a new affiliated company that will further cement our role as a leader in the Trust Owned Life Insurance space. For those who are interested in learning more about our view of the TOLI landscape in 2017 and beyond, we have scheduled a free webinar for December 12th at 2pm Eastern. TOLI Issues and Solutions – 2017 Year in Review will provide one hour of continuing education credit for CFP, CTFA and FIRMA members. If interested, please click here to register.

Trustee Alert: New Tax Law Changes (Simplifies) Tax Reporting On Life Settlement Sales

Back in May we wrote about the need for trustees to be aware of life settlements. A life settlement can provide a TOLI trust with more value than a policy surrender. The role of a TOLI trustee dictates that all assets are maximized – including “unwanted” life insurance policies.

In the past, tax reporting around a life settlement was onerous, primarily because of an IRS ruling enacted in 2009. IRS Ruling 2009-13 dictated that policy sellers reduce the cost basis in the policy sold by the cumulative cost of insurance charges incurred. The requirement was, at best, burdensome. Often it was impossible to comply with. Most carriers had difficulty providing the information, for some policies it was virtually impossible to compute the amount. The reduction in cost basis also increases the tax burden to the seller, reducing the net amount available to the trust and the beneficiaries.

The new tax bill, The Tax Cut and Jobs Act, in Section 13521, Clarification of Tax Basis of Life Insurance Contracts, reverses the IRS ruling, allowing for “proper adjustment” … for… “mortality, expense or other reasonable charges incurred under an annuity or life insurance contract”.

The taxation of a life settlement is now similar to the taxation of a policy surrender – with a twist since in a sale the policyholder is receiving an amount greater than just the cash surrender value. In a policy surrender, ordinary income tax rates apply to the amount received (cash surrender value) above cost basis. With a life settlement, the policyholder receives more than the cash surrender value and that amount is considered an “investment” taxed at capital gains rates.

Determining the taxation of a life settlement is now an easier three-step process. Let’s look at an example:LSTax.jpg

Assume a policy holder sold a policy and received $375,000. Further assume total premium paid (we will assume this is the cost basis for simplicity, as it usually is) was $100,000 and the policy had cash value of $125,000.

In the first step, you simply subtract the cost basis from the amount received to arrive at the total gain in the sale.

In Step #2, you determine the amount that is attributable to ordinary income tax rates by subtracting the cash value from the cost basis to arrive at the ordinary income received. In Step #3, to compute the capital gains amount you simply subtract the ordinary income amount in the second step from the total gain found in the first step. Note that if there is no cash value (a term policy, for example) the entire amount received would be taxable at capital gains rates.

The change in the tax code will simplify the tax computation of a policy sale and perhaps prompt more policyholders to investigate a life settlement. It will certainly make the transaction more profitable for those that do. In our example above, the policyholder received $375,000, with taxes due on $275,000 ($25,000 at ordinary rates, $250,00 at capital gains rates). If the policy in question had $50,000 in cost of insurance taken out, taxes would be due on $325,000 ($25,000 at ordinary rates, $300,000 at capital gains rates).

One final note…the effective date of the amendment was listed in the new bill for “transactions entered into after August 25, 2009,” which corresponds to the date of IRS Ruling 2009-13. Does this mean that those who may have paid higher taxes in the last eight years are in for a tax rebate? That part is not clear.

TRUSTEE ALERT- Why We Started An Affiliated Trust Owned Life Insurance (TOLI) Trust Company

On November 21, 2017, ITM TwentyFirst received a South Dakota charter for an affiliated trust company, the Life Insurance Trust Company, the first trust company focused solely on life insurance trusts.  On December 22, 2017 President Trump signed into law The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act with sweeping tax changes that included a doubling of the federal estate tax exemption amount to just over $11 million, lowering the number of estates affected annually by the federal estate tax from 5,000 to 1,700, less than 0.1 percent of all deaths (1).  Yet, we are extremely bullish about the prospects for our affiliated company.

The federal estate tax is fluid. It has been repealed four times only to reappear again.  If less than 100,000 voters had changed their votes in the last presidential election we could be looking at a $3.5 million exemption and a top estate tax rate of 65% (2).  News reports focused on the $1.7 trillion the tax bill will add to the federal deficit (3), but this is on top of the current $20 trillion dollars in debt ($170,000 per taxpayer) (4), and the additional $10 trillion that was already projected to be added to the debt over the next 10 years (5).

That much debt should raise interest costs. Interestingly, since 2008, while $8.4 trillion was added to the federal government debt, federal net interest costs incurred were near the lowest levels in 50 years (6).  That is going to change as the historically low interest rates rise.  It is projected that net interest costs will more than double in real terms and as a share of the economy over the next decade (7).  More government revenue will be needed, and if the political climate changes, the estate tax will be a target.  “We think there will be times when Congress is looking for new revenue sources, and this is a fairly easy one,” said one executive with a group that is a proponent of the estate tax (8).

But even if the political climate and federal estate tax situation does not deviate from the current, post Tax Cuts and Jobs Act climate, our affiliated trust company is still primed for success.

Life insurance, is at best, a cumbersome asset.  And ramping up internal resources – human and capital – to successfully manage an asset fraught with liability is a tougher business decision for financial institutions to make these days.  Some are looking for an opportunity to offload their life insurance trusts to a firm that will be a partner, not a competitor, and that is the business model that has been created at the Life Insurance Trust Company.  Managing life insurance trusts well without interest in the other assets a client may have, creates the perfect win/win scenario.  In some situations, a firm may wish to offload only those trusts with grantors that have no other relationship with the institution, so called orphan or stand-alone accounts.  The new company stands ready to accept only those trusts, leaving a more profitable ILIT business line.  For each situation, a tailored approach can be created.

Compliance managers at accounting and law firms whose members and partners have accepted the TOLI trustee role for clients are beginning to understand that the unchecked liability this creates is simply unacceptable with an asset such as life insurance.  A specialized trust company with robust individual and portfolio reporting provides a built-in tracking mechanism found nowhere else.

Financial and life insurance advisors looking for a home for life insurance trusts created over the years will find the advantages of this new trust company hard to pass up.  The life insurance experts servicing the Life Insurance Trust Company are advisor-friendly, and though the trust company bears a fiduciary duty solely to the beneficiary, its professionals understand that the success of the policy comes partly from working with the advisors in the field.  Another plus – advisors are provided with one of the most complete annual policy reviews available anywhere, alleviating them of this back-office expense, a welcome benefit for those advisors looking to downsize or reduce office expenses.

Life insurance trusts have many benefits besides tax advantages, including protection from creditors and the ability to control the passing of wealth to beneficiaries, important in those situations where spendthrift, mental illness or addiction issues may play a role.  But in the last few years, we have seen that the management of this asset may best be handled by an organization with specialized resources and talents.

For those who would like to learn more about the Life Insurance Trust Company, a special one hour webinar is planned for Tuesday, January 30th, 2018 at 2PM eastern.  To register, click here.

For more information about this new trust company, contact Leon Wessels, Director of Business Development, at 605.574.1703, or



  1. Howard Glickman, Tax Policy Center, December 6, 2017,
  2. While President Trump won 290 electoral college votes, 70 electoral college votes were won by less than 1.5% of the vote, including; Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (2), Florida (29) and Minnesota (10). Michigan (16) and Vermont (3) were won by less than .4% of the vote.  Clinton proposed a $3.5 million estate tax exemption and a top tax rate of 65%, Hillary Clinton Proposes 65% Top Rate for Estate Tax, Wall Street Journal, Richard Rubin, September 22, 2016
  3. Congressional Budget Office, Estimated Deficits and Debt Under the Chairman’s Amendment in the Nature of a substitute to H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
  4. org, amount as of 1/24/2018
  5. CBO’s January 2017 Budget and Economic Outlook, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, January 24, 2017
  6. Policy Basics: Deficits, Debt, and Interest, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 29, 2017,
  7. Congressional Budget Office, The 2016 Long-Term Budget Outlook, July 12, 2016
  8. Death Tax Repeal In 2017?, Ashley Ebeling, Forbes, June 6, 2013.