The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued an “exemptive relief order” delaying the effective date of the residential real estate transaction reporting regulations (31 C.F.R. § 1031.320 et seq.) to March 1, 2026. “Exemptive Relief Order to Delay the Effective Date of the Residential Real Estate Rule” (9/30/2025), ___ F.R. ___ (______).
The trustees of a trust for the lifetime benefit of the decedent made discretionary distributions to the decedent for which the decedent signed agreements indemnifying the trustees. Following the death of the decedent, the remainder beneficiaries sued the trustees, and the decedent’s estate assumed the costs of defending the trustees. The Orphans’ Court had held that the settlement payments by the estate to the trust remaindermen were not deductible debts of the estate under section 2129(b) of the Inheritance and Estate Tax Act (72 P.S. § 7129(b)) because one of the trustees who was indemnified was also the counsel to the decedent and had a confidential relationship with the decedent, resulting in multiple conflicts of interest (e.g., that trustee signed some of the agreements both as agent for the decedent and as an indemnified trustee), and so the indemnification agreements were not “bona fide” agreements. The Commonwealth Court held that the estate had the burden of showing that the indemnification agreements were “fair under the circumstances and beyond the reach of suspicion” and failed to make that showing. It was also not an error or abuse of discretion by the Orphans’ Court to conclude that the trust litigation expenses were not deductible by the estate because the litigation did not involve the estate and did not benefit the estate even though the court had approved the payment of the expenses from the estate. Estate of Richard M. Scaife v. Commonwealth, ___ A.4th ___, 88 CD 2024 (Pa. Cmwlth. 9/23/2025), aff’g in part, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 61 (Westmoreland O.C. 2023).
An intestate heir has standing to challenge the validity of a will that has been admitted to probate if in his petition he alleges a “realistic probability” that a will that was executed one year before and that also disinherits him is also invalid, so that he would receive an intestate share of the estate if both wills were invalid. This is true even though the court has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the earlier will, and only the validity of the will that was admitted to probate would be adjudicated in the current proceedings. The allegations that the decedent exhibited signs of dementia and was wholly dependent” on the principal beneficiary of the contested will were sufficient allegations of a confidential relationship for purposes of undue influence. Finally, the proponent of the will would receive 60% of the estate, and not an intestate share of one third, so there was a showing of “substantial benefit” for purposes of undue influence even though the proponent would receive a similar share of the estate under the earlier will (for which the contestant alleged a “realistic probability” of invalidity). In re: Estate of Vicent J. Morante, Sr., 2025 PA Super 176, ___ A.4th ___ (8/14/2025).
In 2024, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) published final regulations, to be effective December 1, 2025, requiring financial reporting for non-financed residential real estate transactions. “Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for Residential Real Estate Transfers,” 84 F.R. 70258 (9/29/2024), adopting 31…
This content is for Subscriber members only.
Register
Register
Already a member? Log in here
The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee has proposed a number of amendments to rules relating to hearing notices in proceedings for the termination of parental rights. “Proposed Amendment of Rules 4.5, 4.6, 15.4, 15.7, 15.8, 15.9, 15.10, and 15.13 and Adoption of Form A-13 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure,” 55 Pa.B. 6684 (9/20/2025).
On Aug. 18, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service updated the employer identification number (EIN) online application, which the IRS reported was part of ongoing modernization efforts, and should be easier to use.
A past source of confusion was that the online application treated the “responsible party” of a trust as the grantor (or owner or “trustor”) of the trust, even though the grantor of a trust usually has no role in the administration of an irrevocable trust, and may even be dead. This treatment was consistent with the instructions to the printed application, Form SS-4, and those instructions have not (yet) changed, but some practitioners have reported that the new online application treats the “responsible party” as the trustee and not the grantor, which is more consistent with the law of trusts.
The Internal Revenue Service has released a new Form 706, “United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return,” for decedents dying after 2024.
The new form is 5 pages (previous version was 4 pages), but with all the schedules (the new versions of which can be found on the Forms and Publications page), the new Form 706 is 56 pages, and there are numerous changes to the layout of the form.
It was not an error of law or abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to find that there was clear and convincing evidence that the probated will was a forgery based on the testimony of a handwriting expert and other witnesses familiar with the decedent and his signature, and contrary to the testimony of another expert, as well as a witness who claimed to have witnessed the execution of the will. In re: Estate of Carlos Ignacio Sanchez, 66 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. 9/12/2025) (non-precedential).
It was not an error of law or abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to remove an administrator when the administration of the estate was substantially completed when the administrator was granted letters due to the death of the executor, and the administrator took no action to conclude the administration of the estate in the two years following her appointment. It was also not error for the court to direct the person who had filed the petition for removal to file a petition for appointment as successor administrator, and to enter an order directing the administrator being removed to turn over estate records and assets to the successor administrator after appointment. In re: Estate of Robert V. Lorent, 2630 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 9/11/2025) (non-precedential).
Preliminary objections to a petition to revoke the probate of a will were properly sustained when the petition was filed more than one year after probate and the documents in the record that were exhibits to other petitions filed by petitioner show that the petitioner was aware of the decedent’s possible lack of capacity, so that the claim of “fraud on the register” did not provide a basis for avoiding the one year limitation for appeals from probate under 20 Pa.C.S. § 908(a). The Orphans’ Court was not deprived of subject matter jurisdiction by the failure to issue citations to several of the beneficiaries of the will. In re: Estate of Robert Torrens, 2708 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 9/11/2025) (non-precedential).