Despite the language of the Wills Act of 1947, which was in effect at the time of the testator’s death, if there is no contrary intent expressed in the will, “issue”, “child”, or “children” presumptively includes children that were adopted regardless of the date of adoption and includes those adoptees who were adopted as adults as long as a parent-child relationship existed between the adoptee and the adopter during the adoptee’s minority. Armistead Trust, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 233 (O.C. Delaware 2014) (Opinion by Kenney, J.)
Majority shareholder at a shareholder meeting resigned his presidency, stated that he was taking an extended vacation, and stated that, if he died, he relinquished all of his shares to the officers and directors of the company. Court found that no gift took place, because intent, delivery and acceptance never occurred, and that the gift was not causa mortis, because decedent did not believe he was about to die. North Branch Transfer Inc. etal v. Bower, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 229 (C.P. Lycoming 2014) (Verdict and Order by Gray, J.)
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania objected to the attorney fees in an estate with a sole charitable beneficiary. The court found the attorney’s hourly rate to be reasonable, but found the amount of hours to be excessive, reducing attorney fees from $56,880 to $49,000. Carboni Estate, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 222 (O.C. Luzerne 2014) (Opinion by Hughes, J.)
Before dying intestate, decedent orally pledged estate to charitable institution. Court found that the pledge was not enforceable as a charitable pledge, meaning it was an oral contract to will, which was eliminated under PEF 2701. Stein Estate, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 218 (O.C. Mont. 2014) (Opinion by Ott, J.)
In a claim for money damages against an estate for the executor’s breach of contract, the Orphans’ Court found that it lacked jurisdiction, because the claim is an action at law sounding in assumpsit that should be decided by the Civil Division. Durham Estate, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 217 (O.C. Chester 2014) (Order of Hall, J.)
Trust beneficiary died and trust dictates that principal and undistributed income goes to beneficiary’s descendents per stirpes. Corporate trustee determined that beneficiary died without issue, and putative daughter, who was born while mother was married to a man other than beneficiary, objected to final account. Court held that despite the presumption of paternity for children born within a marriage, the presumption did not apply in this case, because the husband and wife were separated, and even if the presumption did apply, the putative daughter has presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption. Court concludes putative daughter is the daughter of the trust beneficiary. Bostick Trust, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 241 (O.C. Mont. 2014) (Opinion by Murphy, J.)
Order by trial court directing the administrator of an estate to retain counsel to maintain appeal from tax sale affirmed because (a) the order was a collateral order appealable under Pa. R.A.P. 313, and (b) an administrator may not represent the estate pro se unless the administrator is the sole beneficiary and there are no creditors, because this would be the unauthorized practice of law. Estate of Anna S. Rowley, 84 A.3d 337, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 249, No. 444 C.D. 2013 (Cmwlth. 2013) (Opinion by Pellegrini, President Judge), app. den., 149 WAL 2014 (Pa. 8/19/2014).
In an action to change the situs of a trust and change the corporate trustee, the court held that the action was brought in the wrong venue, because the situs of the trust was in another county, and that 20 Pa.C.S. § 7710.1 did not apply, because not all of the trustees agreed. Warriner Trusts, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 254 (O.C. Susque. 2014) (Opinion by Seamans, P.J.)
For the past several years, many tax practitioners have been adding a form of disclaimer to every email because of concerns about the “covered opinion” rules of Circular 230.
On June 9, the Treasury published final regulations amending Circular 230 and eliminating the need for any disclaimers. The Treasury Decision expressly states that “Treasury and the IRS expect that these amendments will eliminate the use of a Circular 230 disclaimer in e-mail and other writings.” T.D. 9668, 79 F.R. 33685 (6/12/2014).
Last week, the IRS Office of Professional Responsibilty went further, and affirmatively asked practitioners to stop using those kinds of disclaimers. OPR Director Karen Hawkins said that, if you continue to use those kind of disclaimers, “you will get a letter from my office asking you to cease and desist using that kind of language because I don’t want taxpayers to be misinformed.”
I’m late in reporting that a federal district court has struck down Pennsylvania’s “mini-DOMA,” 23 Pa.C.S. § 1102, which defines “marriage” as “[a] civil contract by which one man and one woman take each other for husband and wife,” as well as another statute, 23 Pa. C.S. § 1704, declaring marriages between persons of the same sex to be void in Pennsylvania even if the marriage was valid in the state or foreign jurisdiction in which it was entered into. The court struck down the statutes as unconstitutional, and enjoined various officials of the Pennsylvania government from enforcing them. Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410, No. 1:13-cv-1861 (M.D. Pa. 5/20/2014). Governor Corbett let it be known the following day that he would not appeal the ruling.
More recently (6/20/14), the US Attorney General has issued a memorandum to the President that summarizes the steps taken by the various departments of the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level.
Further update (3/2/15): The Pa. Department of Revenue has issued a bulletin confirming that same-sex marriages will be recognized for inheritance tax and realty transfer tax purposes. Inheritance Tax Bulletin 2015-01; Realty Transfer Tax Bulletin 2015-01.