Comparing Laws for Wills and Revocable Trusts in Pennsylvania

One of the major goals of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act (Act of July 7, 2006, No. 98 of 2006) was to conform the laws relating to revocable trusts to the laws relating to wills and decedent’s estates. The chart below is an adaptation of a chart originally created by Edward M. Watters III, and it shows both the similarities and differences between these two different types of documents and the interpretation and administration of them. (All section references are to the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, Title 20 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.)

Wills v. Revocable Trusts

WillsRevocable Trusts
Who may make?Anyone 18 or more years of age who is of sound mind. (§ 2501)Same as for will. (§ 7751)
FormalitiesWritten and signed at the end. (§ 2502)Written and signed. (§§ 7731 and 7732)
Execution in another jurisdictionValid if valid under law were testator was domiciled, or in which testator died. (§ 2504.1)Valid if valid under law where executed or under law where (1) settlor was domiciliary, resident, or national, (2) a trustee was a domiciled or had a place of business, or (3) any trust property was located. (§ 7733)
FilingFiled for probate with Register of Wills after death and upon testimony of two witnesses (§ 3132.1).Not probated; filed with Orphans’ Court if there is a contest or accounting.
NoticesAfter probate, notice to spouse, children, and beneficiaries. (Pa. R.O.C.P. 10.5)After death, notice to personal representative, spouse, children, and each current beneficiary. (§ 7780.3(c))
Grounds for contestForgery, mistake, lack of capacity, fraud, and undue influence. (Case law)Same as for contesting a will. (§ 7754(c))
Time for contestOne year from probate. (§ 908)One year after notice under § 7708.3(c). (§ 7754(b))
How to contestBefore probate, by caveat filed with Register; after probate, by appeal to Orphans’ Court. (§ 908)By petition in the Orphans’ Court. (§ 7754(a))
Rules of constructionCase law and statute (§ 2514).Same as for testamentary trusts. (§ 7710.2)
Claims of decedent’s creditorsProperty of estate is subject to claims of decedent’s creditors.Creditors have same rights as against estate, except that estate shall be applied first to claims. (§ 7755(a))
How claims are madeBy notice to personal representative (i.e., executor or administrator). (§ 3384)By notice to personal representative (who is required to give notice to trustee within 20 days) or, if none is appointed, to trustee in manner provided by § 3384. (§ 7755(b))
Time for claimsA personal representative may make distributions one year after first advertisement of grant of letters. (§ 3532)Same as for personal representative or, if none appointed within 90 days after death, trustee may advertise to begin one year period for claims. (§ 7755(c))

Charitable Deductions for Estates and Trusts under Amended IRC § 68: Update

In a previous article, it was suggested that the new limitation on itemized deductions, reducing itemized deductions by 2/37ths of the amount by the amount by which taxable income is subject to tax at the maximum 37% rate, should not apply to the charitable deduction for estates and trusts. A new publication from the Joint Committee on Taxation might have clarified Congressional intent but does not adequately address the issue.

The new publication is the “General Explanation of the Tax Provisions of Public Law 119-21” (May 2026), prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. (This kind of general explanation is commonly known as a “Blue Book,” and Public Law 119-21 is commonly referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” or “OBBBA,” although that was not the official name of the act.)

Footnote 102 on pages 26-27 of that publication confirms the general conclusion that new § 68 applies to estates and trusts, but does not address the apparent conflict between the new limitation under § 68 and the language of § 642(c), which provides a charitable deduction for estates and trusts for “any amount of gross income, without limitation.”

The full text of the footnote is as follows:

The [new section 68] provision also applies to estates and trusts. See sec. 641(b) (providing that the taxable income of an estate or trust generally is computed in the same manner as in the case of an individual). Section 63(d) defines the term ‘‘itemized deductions’’ to refer to all allowable deductions other than those allowable in arriving at adjusted gross income, see sec. 62, and those listed in section 63(b). Therefore, the itemized deductions for an estate or trust include (without limitation) the personal exemption under section 642(b) and the deductions for beneficiary distributions under sections 651 and 661. Treasury Regulation section 1.67–4(a)(1)(ii) provides that these three deductions ‘‘are not itemized deductions under section 63(d).’’ That regulation, however, interprets section 67(e), which provides, ‘‘For purposes of this section [which, for certain taxable years, imposed a limitation on miscellaneous itemized deductions],’’ the section 642(b), 651, and 661 deductions are treated as allowable in arriving at adjusted gross income. Because the rule of section 67(e) is, by its terms, limited to section 67, the regulation does not exclude the deductions under section 642(b), 651, or 661, or any other deductions, from being itemized deductions for purposes of the provision.

By contrast, although partnerships and S corporations generally compute taxable income in the same manner as in the case of an individual, see secs. 703(a), 1363(b), the provision does not apply to partnerships or S corporations (but does apply to individual partners of partnerships and to individual shareholders of S corporations). Section 1 provides rate bracket amounts (including the 37-percent rate bracket amounts on the basis of which the provision’s limitation is calculated) only for natural persons, estates, and trusts, not for partnerships or S corporations.

Guardian’s Medicaid Spend-Down Plan Not Approved

The refusal of the Orphans’ Court to approve a “spend-down plan” to allow the incapacitated person to qualify for Medicaid by spending principal on a burial fund and making gifts was not an abuse of discretion or an error of law because the proposed spend-down plan would neither minimize taxes nor carry out a lifetime giving pattern as required by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5536, and would not benefit the incapacitated person in any way, but only benefit the guardian as the recipient of the proposed gifts. (The Orphans’ Court also ordered that the guardian pay the counsel fees associated with the petition seeking approval of the spend-down plan, but that part of the order was not appealed.) In re: J.C.B., an Incapacitated Person, 2397 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/26/2026) (non-precedential).

Proposed Amendments to O.C. Rules for Guardians ad Litem

The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee has published proposed amendments for the appointment of guardians ad litem when there is a conflict between the legal interests and best interests of an incapacitated person. (The comments to the proposed rule explain that there may be a conflict between what the incapacitated person has a legal right to want and what may be in his or her best interests.) “Proposed Amendment of Pa.R.O.C.P. 5.5 and 14.4,” 56 Pa.B. 2974 (5/23/2025).

York Co. Amends Local O.C. Rules

York County has adopted and amended numerous local Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure, including rules relating to the filing of legal papers, objections to accounts, preliminary objections, appointments of guardians for minors, settlement of actions involving a minor, access to a minor’s restricted account, discovery, motions, appeals from the register of wills, expert reports, appointment of counsel, and adoptions, all to be effective June 15, 2026. “Addition and Amendment of Local Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure; 6726-0977” (5/4/2026), 56 Pa.B. 2979 (5/23/2026).

Contempt Was Not Denial of Due Process

The imposition of contempt sanctions by the Orphans’ Court for filing additional frivolous pleadings after being ordered not to was not a denial of due process even though no formal hearing was held because the litigant had notice of the order directing him to refrain from filing additional pleadings and the court granted a hearing for reconsideration of the sanctions at which the litigant had an opportunity to rebut the court’s findings regarding the contempt. In re: Toni Ruzacki, 660 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/15/2026) (non-precedential).

Credibility of Expert Witnesses

The Superior Court would not reweigh or redetermine the credibility of the witnesses in the guardianship proceeding, and so affirmed that the expert medical testimony provided clear and convincing evidence that the appellant had untreated schizophrenia and was unable to manage his own finances and health care. In re: Dean H. Kauffman Sr., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 1300 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/5/2026) (non-precedential).

Ejectment Action in Civil Division Valid Despite Allegation of Incapacity

In the absence of a petition for guardianship or a petition in the orphans’ court to approve the actions of an agent under a power of attorney, the civil division of the court of common pleas had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the title of the record owner of property in an ejectment action despite allegations that the title had been acquired title through a power of attorney that was invalid due to the incapacity of the original owner, and the civil division was not required to refer the allegations of incapacity to the orphans’ court division. Garcia v. Myatt, 1582 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 5/7/2026) (non-precedential).