Bedford County has adopted a new local rule to comply with Section 7 of the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, which applies to the Clerks of the Orphans’ Courts. (See “Public Access Compliance Policy for Orphans’ Court Filings” for additional information.)
“Local Rule of Judicial Administration 510; No. 1 for 2018 Administrative Doc.” (Bedford Co. 2/21/2018), 48 Pa.B. 1497 (3/17/2018).
The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee has proposed three minor amendments to Pa. O.C. Rules:
Comments on the proposed amendments should be submitted by April 6, 2018.
“Proposed Amendment of Pa. O.C. Rules 2.1, 4.6 and 7.1,” 48 Pa.B. 1271 (O.C. Proc. Rules Com. 3/3/2018).
Once a notice of appraisement has been issued accepting an inheritance tax return that included an offer of a future interest compromise and the tax has been been paid, neither the Commonwealth nor the estate may protest or appeal the compromise. Board of Appeals Docket No. 0226498, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 45 (Pa. Dept. of Rev. Bd. of App. 2003).
Value of trust remainder subject to inheritance tax was valued taking into account the right of the spouse, who was the income beneficiary, to principal for the spouse’s health, support, maintenance, or education without taking into account other sources of income, as expressly provided by the trust. Board of Appeals Docket No. 0924808, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 43 (Pa. Dept. of Rev. Bd. of App. 2010).
Assets awarded to the decedent’s former spouse in a divorce proceeding in which grounds for divorce were established before the decedent’s death were not subject to inheritance tax at a 15% rate but were deductible as debts of the estate. Board of Appeals Docket No. 1703688, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 42 (Pa. Dept. of Rev. Bd. of Apps. 2017).
Attorney General has standing as parens patriae to seek surcharge against former officer and director of dissolved nonprofit corporation formed for charitable purposes, and the surcharge is not time barred nor foreclosed by a previous plea agreement for restitution in connection with criminal charges. In Re: Susquehanna House, Inc., 8 Fid.Rep.3d 35 (Lycoming Co. O.C. 2017).
The Internal Revenue Service has released Rev. Proc. 2018-18, 2018-10 I.R.B. 392 (3/5/2018), which modifies and supersedes certain sections of Rev. Proc. 2017-58, 2017-45 I.R.B. 489 (11/6/2017), to reflect changes made by P.L. 115-97 (originally titled and still popularly known as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”). The new Revenue Procedure contains revised inflation adjustments to reflect the change to “chained CPI” for 2018, as well as the changes made by P.L. 115-97 to brackets and amounts that had been published in Rev. Proc. 2017-58.
As previously predicted, the unified estate and gift tax exclusion amount is $11,180,000 for 2018, but other gift and estate tax amounts will remain the same as original announced in Rev. Proc. 2017-58. (So for example, the annual gift tax exclusion is still $15,000 in 2018 despite the change to chained CPI.)
The previously published summary of P.L. 115-97 has been revised to reflect the publication of Rev. Proc. 2018-18.
Objectant to will failed to show undue influence in the execution of her mother’s will in favor of her sister’s son when the only evidence of a confidential relationship between her sister and her mother was that her sister had a power of attorney over some (but not all) of her mother’s bank accounts and her sister helped transport her mother to the office of the lawyer who prepared the will and was part of the meeting to review and sign the will, but the mother had other caretakers and the mother discussed the will with the lawyer without participation by the sister, so that there was no evidence of “overmastering influence.” There was also insufficient evidence of a substantial benefit or a weakened intellect, as evidence of physical pain or infirmity was largely irrelevant. There was also insufficient evidence of lack of testamentary capacity. Wiggs Estate, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 10 (Philadelphia Co. O.C. 2017).
Adjudication approving account was vacated, and beneficiary given an opportunity to file objections, when counsel for the beneficiary was informed that an account would be filed, and copies of the account and statement of proposed distribution were mailed to beneficiary’s counsel, but beneficiary’s counsel was never given notice required by Pa.O.C. Rule 2.5 and local rules of the date of the filing of the account and the last date for filing objections. Butz Estate, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 7 (Monroe Co. O.C. 2017).
All compensation denied to an executor who was unsuccessful in selling the decedent’s mobile home, allowed the estate’s bank account to be embezzled by her attorney, allowed specifically bequeathed property to be sold and then turned over the proceeds of sale to her attorney who embezzled them as well, and put her own interests ahead of the other beneficiaries of the estate. Walter Estate, 8 Fid.Rep.3d 1 (Cumberland Co. O.C. 2017), aff’d, 2018 PA Super 179, 844 MDA 2017 (6/22/2018).