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).
The validity and effect of naming beneficiaries of retirement and other investment accounts is governed by 20 Pa.C.S. Ch. 64, and is not testamentary, so an agreement to name a person as the beneficiary of those accounts was not governed by 20 Pa.C.S. 2701 (contracts concerning succession) and did not need to be in writing. The agreement between the decedent and the beneficiary was supported by consideration and the conduct of the parties showed an intent to contract, so the failure of the decedent to maintain the necessary beneficiary designation resulted in damages payable by the estate (which received the retirement benefits by default) to the beneficiary. Glass v. Estate of Jeffrey A. George, 1454 MDA 2024 and 1472 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 9/8/2025) (non-precedential).
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has published the Chained Consumer Price Index (C-CPI-U) for August 2025, and so it’s possible to calculate various inflation adjustments for 2026. The following are the significant federal estate planning numbers calculated for 2026, with the numbers for 2025 shown in parentheses:
- The annual gift tax exclusion will remain at $19,000 (same as for 2025).
- The annual gift tax exclusion for a non-citizen spouse will be $194,000 (had been $190,000 for 2025).
- The “2 percent” amount for purposes of section 6166 will be $1,940,000 (was $1,900,000).
- The limitation on the special use valuation reduction under section 2032A will be $1,460,000 (was $1,420,000).
- The top (37%) income tax bracket for estates and trusts will begin at $16,000 (was $15,650).
- The alternative minimum tax exemption for estates and trusts will be $31,400 (was $30,700), and the phaseout of the exemption will start at $104,800 (was $102,450).
Not included in the above list is the federal estate tax base applicable exclusion amount (and generation-skipping tax exemption), because it was changed to $15,000,000 for deaths and gifts in 2026 by section 70106 of P.L. 119-21 (formerly known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill”). It had been $13,990,000 for 2025, and will not be adjusted for inflation until 2027.
The Internal Revenue Service will publish the official inflation adjustments for 2026 in a Revenue Procedure that will probably appear in 4-8 weeks.