Father’s parental rights were terminated, even though he was incarcerated, because the father “evidenced a settled purpose of reliquishing his parental claim to Child by failing to maintain any parent-child relationship.” Adoption of F.G.T., 5 Fid. Rep. 3d 19 (OC Cumb. 2014) (Opinion by Placey, C.P.J.)
The court cannot grant a guardian’s petition to admit an incapacitated person into an inpatient psychiatric facility, because 20 Pa. C.S. 5521(f)(1) specifically forbids it. Jane Doe, Incapacitated Person, 5 Fid. Rep. 3d 13 (OC Del. 2014) (Opinion by Kenney, P.J.)
Direction in will that all estate, inheritance, and other death taxes be paid “out of and charged against my estate” was insufficient to overcome statutory direction that inheritance tax be paid from shares of estate subject to tax, so objection of Attorney General to the payment of inheritance tax from the 60% of the residue payable to charities was sustained even though the charities had consented to the division of the residuary after the payment of the tax. Davis Estate, 5 Fid. Rep. 3d 8 (O.C. Erie 2014) (Opinion by Kelly, J.), rev’d and remanded, 128 A.3d 819, 2015 PA Super 249, No. 1347 WDA 2014 (11/30/2015) (originally published 8/17/2015 as a non-precedential memorandum decision, with an application for publication of memorandum decision granted 9/21/2015).
The IRS has issued five identical private letter rulings, PLRs 201442042, 201442043, 201442044, 201442045, and 201442046, apparently to five different parties involved in the same transaction, agreeing that a court-approved reformation of a trust in accordance with § 415 of…
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted new ethics rules and disciplinary rules intended to address the problem of misappropriation of client and third-party funds, generally effective in 60 days. In re: Amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, 45 Pa.B. 279 (1/17/2015), D.R. No. 132 (12/30/2014) (with text of amendments in Annex A and Annex B). Public notice of the amendments was provided by publication of “Proposed Amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement to Reduce Loss Resulting from the Misappropriation of Client and Third Party Funds,” 44 Pa.B. 6070 (9/27/2014).
I (and others) had submitted comments to the Disciplinary Board objecting to proposed amendments to Enforcement Rule 217 that would require every “formerly admitted attorney” to resign from all fiduciary positions, even if the attorney was merely retiring from practice or moving out of the jurisdiction and so assuming inactive status. As actually amended, Enforcement Rule 217(d)(3) will require fiduciary resignations by attorneys who are disbarred, suspended for more than one year, suspended under Rule 208(f) (emergency suspensions) or 213(g) (enforcement of subpoenas), or inactive due to disability.
The new Note to Rule 217(d)(3) states that the amended rule does not prevent a retired or inactive attorney from serving as a fiduciary, but a formerly admitted attorney serving as a fiduciary or accepting a fiduciary appointment must still give notice in accordance with Rule 217(c)(1) to persons to whom a fiduciary is owed, as well as “supervising judges and courts” and “other recipients of the formerly admitted attorney’s fiduciary services” so that interested parties will have “an opportunity to consider replacing the formerly admitted attorney.”
The reference in the Note to attorneys on retired status is puzzling because Rule 219(i) states that Rule 217 generally does not apply to attorneys who have applied for, and received, a transfer to retired status. It is therefore not clear whether the Note negates Rule 219(i) and retired attorneys are not required to comply with Rule 217(a), (b), and (c), or whether the reference in the Note to retired status was a mistake and Rule 217 continues to be inapplicable to attorneys on retired status.
If Rule 219(i) continues to make Rule 217 inapplicable to attorneys on retired status, then there is the additional question of why attorneys on inactive status (to which Rule 217 clearly applies) should be treated so differently from attorneys on retired status.
The order adopting the amendments states that the amendments to Rule 217(c) and (d) and the Note after Rule 217(d)(3) shall apply to persons who are formerly admitted attorneys on the effective date of the order and to persons becoming formerly admitted attorneys on or after the effective date of the order. So, every lawyer who is currently inactive who is serving as a fiduciary must give the notices required by Rule 217(c)(1) regardless of when the lawyer became inactive. Whether notices under Rule 217(c)(1) are required of attorneys on retired status is not clear, for reasons explained above.
[Note: This article was updated on 1/13/2015 to include references to the conflict between Rule 219(i) and the note to Rule 217(d)(3). Also updated on 1/19/2015 to include citation and link to the publication of the amendments in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.]
(Current through October 2024)
These are some of the rates published each month by the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The federal “short-term rate” is determined from a one-month average of the market yields from marketable obligations of the United States with maturities of 3 years or less. The “mid-term rate” is determined from obligations with maturities of more than 3 years but not more than 9 years, and the “long-term rate” is determined from obligations with maturities of more than 9 years.
These rates are used for a number of different purposes under the Internal Revenue Code, including the determinations of original issue discount and unstated interest and the gift tax and income tax consequences of below-market loans under section 7872. (However, interest on demand loans with a fixed principal amount outstanding for an entire year can be determined using the “blended annual rate” described in section 7872(e)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code.)
— Short Term Rates for 2024 —
| Month | Annual | Semiann. | Quarterly | Monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan. | 5.00% | 4.94% | 4.91% | 4.89% |
| Feb. | 4.68% | 4.63% | 4.60% | 4.59% |
| March | 4.71% | 4.66% | 4.63% | 4.62% |
| April | 4.89% | 4.83% | 4.80% | 4.78% |
| May | 4.97% | 4.91% | 4.88% | 4.86% |
| June | 5.12% | 5.06% | 5.03% | 5.01% |
| July | 5.06% | 5.00% | 4.97% | 4.95% |
| Aug. | 4.95% | 4.89% | 4.86% | 4.84% |
| Sept. | 4.57% | 4.52% | 4.49% | 4.48% |
| Oct. | 4.21% | 4.17% | 4.15% | 4.13% |
— Mid Term Rates for 2024 —
| Month | Annual | Semiann. | Quarterly | Monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan. | 4.37% | 4.32% | 4.30% | 4.28% |
| Feb. | 3.98% | 3.94% | 3.92% | 3.91% |
| March | 4.13% | 4.09% | 4.07% | 4.06% |
| April | 4.30% | 4.25% | 4.23% | 4.21% |
| May | 4.42% | 4.37% | 4.35% | 4.33% |
| June | 4.66% | 4.61% | 4.58% | 4.57% |
| July | 4.49% | 4.44% | 4.42% | 4.40% |
| Aug. | 4.34% | 4.29% | 4.27% | 4.25% |
| Sept. | 4.02% | 3.98% | 3.96% | 3.95% |
| Oct. | 3.70% | 3.67% | 3.65% | 3.64% |
— Long Term Rates for 2024 —
| Month | Annual | Semiann. | Quarterly | Monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan. | 4.54% | 4.49% | 4.47% | 4.45% |
| Feb. | 4.18% | 4.14% | 4.12% | 4.10% |
| March | 4.40% | 4.35% | 4.33% | 4.31% |
| April | 4.45% | 4.40% | 4.38% | 4.36% |
| May | 4.55% | 4.50% | 4.47% | 4.46% |
| June | 4.79% | 4.73% | 4.70% | 4.68% |
| July | 4.61% | 4.56% | 4.53% | 4.52% |
| Aug. | 4.52% | 4.47% | 4.45% | 4.43% |
| Sept. | 4.37% | 4.32% | 4.30% | 4.28% |
| Oct. | 4.10% | 4.06% | 4.04% | 4.03% |
Any “testamentary exception” to attorney-client privilege under Pennsylvania law does not apply to a subpoena to the decedent’s attorney in a defense to a challenge to life insurance beneficiary designations alleged to be the result of undue influence. Collautt v. Li, 5 Fid.Rep.3 190, No. 14-632 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa. 12/11/2014).
The Realty Transfer Tax Statement of Value, Form REV-183 EX, has been revised somewhat, bears the revision date “10-14,” and is now available for download through the Pa. Department of Revenue.
Changes include the following:
- The explanations at the top of the form have been revised slightly, and now say that a Statement of Value is recommended even when not required.
- The space for the date of the acceptance of the document has been moved, probably to make it more visible.
- Under valuation data, the form asks if the transaction was part of “an assignment or relocation.” (The instructions says that the question is whether the document “represents two or more transactions accomplished by an assignment of the agreement of sale or by the use of a relocation arrangement.”)
- Under exemption data, the form now asks for both the grantor’s percentage ownership in the property and the percentage of the grantor’s interest being conveyed. (The form had previously asked only for the percentage of interest conveyed, which may have caused confusion when the grantor did not own 100% of the property.)
- Among the exemptions that can be checked off, transfers to an industrial development agency have been deleted, and transfers from a trust has been added. The section for transfers from a trust asked for the date the property was transferred into the trust, as well as a copy of the trust document(s).
The instructions on the reverse side have been revised to reflect the changes above, along with some changes that seem editorial.
Regulations for the Pennsylvania realty transfer tax can be found at 61 Pa.Code Ch. 91.
The defense of laches may bar a claim by the administrator of an estate for claims against the decedent’s agent under a power of attorney when the decedent herself failed to prosecute an action against the agent for nine years, and the first executor of the decedent’s estate also failed to take any action against the agent. Fulton v. Fulton, 2014 PA Super 270, No. 282 WDA 2014 (12/5/2014).
Lawyer, who was removed as administrator of an estate for failing to account, paid himself from the estate about $50,000 in commission, charging $400 per hour for his time; the Court surcharged the lawyer for all fees paid to himself, because he failed to perform any of the duties of an administrator, including, inter alia, giving 5.6 notices, advertising grant of letters, paying inheritance tax, and filing an inheritance tax return. Smick Estate, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 481 (OC Mont. 2014) (Opinion by Ott, J.)