The power “to make gifts, including gifts to my agent,” that was included in a power of attorney signed in 2006, was unlimited, and not limited to gifts to spouse and issue, when the principal had no spouse or issue and the agent was a cousin. The agent also presented credible evidence that the disputed gifts were made at the direction of the principal, and so the agent was not exercising the discretionary power to make gifts. The agent did not breach any fiduciary duty by allowing the principal to make other, larger gifts to the agent and his mother in the absence of evidence of any undue influence or an impaired mental state. Finally, a single accounting discrepancy in an account covering almost seven years was not substantial evidence warranting a surcharge of the agent. Tyreman Estate, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 66 (Monroe Co. O.C. )
Notice to Subscribers:
When I began adding summaries of court decisions and other materials to this site, I included all cases decided through the Orphans’ Court, including cases on adoptions and parental rights. I now realize that this does not really serve my intended audience, because there is very little to connect adoptions, which are governed by the Domestic Relations Code (Title 23 Pa.C.S.) and not the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, with estates and trusts (other than the the jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court). In most cases, practitioners who work with estates and trusts will not be representing parties in adoptions.
I will therefore not be adding new decisions of the Orphans’ Court on adoptions or child custody issues, and the coverage of this site will be limited to issues arising under the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code (Title 20 Pa.C.S.) and other issues related to trusts and to the estates of decedents, minors, and incapacitated persons.
DBE
The article on Public Access Policy Compliance for Orphans’ Court Filings has been updated to include a chart that shows which counties require the use of the separate confidential information form for pleadings that would otherwise include confidential information, and which require the filing of redacted and unredacted versions of the same pleading.
Bedford County has adopted a new local rule to comply with Section 7 of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, which applies to the Clerks of the Orphans’ Courts. (See “Public Access Compliance Policy for Orphans’ Court Filings” for additional information.)
“Local Rule of Judicial Administration 510; No. 1 for 2018 Administrative Doc.” (Bedford Co. 2/21/2018), 48 Pa.B. 1497 (3/17/2018).
The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee has proposed three minor amendments to Pa. O.C. Rules:
- Rule 2.1(b)(4)(iv), on forms of accounts, will be amended by deleting the words “and verification” because the requirement that there be “signature and verification pages” signed by all accountants was inconsistent with the rest of the sentence, which requires verification by only one accountant.
- Rule 4.6, on notices of adjudications and orders, will be amended by changing “parties” to “interested parties,” so that notice is not required for parties who chose not to participate in the proceeding.
- Rule 7.1, on discovery practice, will be amended to include “subpoenas to attend and testify” along with other forms of discovery that may be addressed by local or special rule.
Comments on the proposed amendments should be submitted by April 6, 2018.
“Proposed Amendment of Pa. O.C. Rules 2.1, 4.6 and 7.1,” 48 Pa.B. 1271 (O.C. Proc. Rules Com. 3/3/2018).
Once a notice of appraisement has been issued accepting an inheritance tax return that included an offer of a future interest compromise and the tax has been been paid, neither the Commonwealth nor the estate may protest or appeal the compromise. Board of Appeals Docket No. 0226498, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 45 (Pa. Dept. of Rev. Bd. of App. 2003).
Value of trust remainder subject to inheritance tax was valued taking into account the right of the spouse, who was the income beneficiary, to principal for the spouse’s health, support, maintenance, or education without taking into account other sources of income, as expressly provided by the trust. Board of Appeals Docket No. 0924808, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 43 (Pa. Dept. of Rev. Bd. of App. 2010).
Assets awarded to the decedent’s former spouse in a divorce proceeding in which grounds for divorce were established before the decedent’s death were not subject to inheritance tax at a 15% rate but were deductible as debts of the estate. Board of Appeals Docket No. 1703688, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 42 (Pa. Dept. of Rev. Bd. of Apps. 2017).
Attorney General has standing as parens patriae to seek surcharge against former officer and director of dissolved nonprofit corporation formed for charitable purposes, and the surcharge is not time barred nor foreclosed by a previous plea agreement for restitution in connection with criminal charges. In Re: Susquehanna House, Inc., 8 Fid.Rep.3d 35 (Lycoming Co. O.C. 2017).
The Internal Revenue Service has released Rev. Proc. 2018-18, 2018-10 I.R.B. 392 (3/5/2018), which modifies and supersedes certain sections of Rev. Proc. 2017-58, 2017-45 I.R.B. 489 (11/6/2017), to reflect changes made by P.L. 115-97 (originally titled and still popularly known as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”). The new Revenue Procedure contains revised inflation adjustments to reflect the change to “chained CPI” for 2018, as well as the changes made by P.L. 115-97 to brackets and amounts that had been published in Rev. Proc. 2017-58.
As previously predicted, the unified estate and gift tax exclusion amount is $11,180,000 for 2018, but other gift and estate tax amounts will remain the same as original announced in Rev. Proc. 2017-58. (So for example, the annual gift tax exclusion is still $15,000 in 2018 despite the change to chained CPI.)
The previously published summary of P.L. 115-97 has been revised to reflect the publication of Rev. Proc. 2018-18.