Link

Pennsylvania Estate Administration Fees

Copyright 1999, 2005 Daniel B. Evans. All rights reserved.
Not Legal Advice


The most significant costs of administering an estate, and the costs most like to result in conflict between beneficiaries and the executors or administrators of estates, are the commissions paid to the personal representatives (executors or administrators) and the fees paid to their lawyers.

Personal Representative Commissions

In Pennsylvania, the compensation of personal representatives is governed by 20 Pa.C.S. § 3537, which states:

The court shall allow such compensation to the personal representative as shall in the circumstances be reasonable and just, and may calculate such compensation on a graduated percentage.

In a series of cases, culminating in Wallis Estate, 421 Pa. 104, 218 A.2d 732 (1966), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved a general rule that an executor’s fees of 3% of the estate under administration was “prima facie fair and reasonable.” However, the Supreme Court later pointed out that the rule was not hard and fast:

This [3%] test, however, is merely a “rule of thumb,” the true test being what the services actually were worth. Therefore, it follows that where there is evidence that the services are actually worth more or less than what is prima facie reasonable, as, for example, where the fiduciary performed extraordinary duties [citations omitted] or where the performance falls below accepted norms [citations omitted] the amount of compensation may be increased or decreased accordingly.

In re Reed’s Estate, 462 Pa. 336, 340-341, 341 A.2d 108, 110-111 (1975).

The Supreme Court has also held that compensation of executors is a matter “peculiarly within the discretion” of the Orphans’ Court, and that the determination of compensation will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless the discretion is “clearly abused.” Strickler Estate, 354 Pa. 276, 277, 47 A.2d 134, 135 (1946).

Attorney Fees

There is no statutory provision for attorney’s fees for estate administration, but it is within the inherent power of the Orphans’ Court to review the expenses paid by the personal representative and disallow any unreasonable expense, as well as supervise the conduct and compensation of lawyers practicing in the Orphans’ Court.

The Supreme Court has stated the general guidelines for the determination of attorney fees as follows:

What is a fair and reasonable fee is sometimes a delicate, and at times a difficult question. The facts and factors to be taken into consideration in determining the fee or compensation payable to an attorney include: the amount of work performed; the character of the services rendered; the difficulty of the problems involved; the importance of the litigation; the amount of money or value of the property in question; the degree of responsibility incurred; whether the fund involved was “created” by the attorney; the professional skill and standing of the attorney in his profession; the results he was able to obtain; the ability of the client to pay a reasonable fee[***6] for the services rendered; and, very importantly, the amount of money or the value of the property in question.

LaRocca Estate, 431 Pa. 542, 546, 246 A.2d 337, 339 (1968).

These are essentially the same factors that can be found in Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a).

Like the determination of executor commissions, the determination of attorney fees “rests primarily with the auditing judge” and is a question “peculiarly within the discretion” of that judge, so that the determination of the judge will not be interfered with except for “palpable error.” Estate of Bruner, 456 Pa. Super. 705, 713, 691 A.2d 530, 534 (1997).

Johnson Estate

Determining executor commissions and attorney fees based upon the size of the estate is certainly simpler than considering a large number of factors in each case, particularly for relatively routine estate administrations and for estates in which no objections are raised to the commissions and fees claimed. The percentage method therefore appeals to judges of the Orphans’ Court, even though the Pennsylvania Superior Court has criticized the practice in opinions in Sonovick Estate, 373 Pa. Super 396 (1988), and Preston Estate, 560 A.2d 160 (1989).

One judge in Pennsylvania has published an opinion to which the judge attached a schedule of the percentages that the judge used for his own guidance in auditing the accounts of estates, and several other judges have since written opinions indicating that they use this schedule as well. So, while this schedule (reproduced below) represents at best the opinion of a few judges in a few estates, it still provide some guidance in determining the reasonableness of administration costs in other estates.


Exhibit A
Johnson Estate, 4 Fid.Rep.2d 6, 8 (O.C. Chester Co. 1983)

COMMISSIONS

Per Col.

Per Total

$

00.01

to $

100,000.00

5%

5,000.00

5,000.00

$

100,000.01

to $

200,000.00

4%

4,000.00

9,000.00

Executor or

$

200,000.01

to $

1,000,000.00

3%

24,000.00

33,000.00

Administrator

$

1,000,000.01

to $

2,000,000.00

2%

20,000.00

53,000.00

$

2,000,000.01

to $

3,000,000.00

1½%

15,000.00

68,000.00

$

3,000,000.01

to $

4,000,000.00

1%

10,000.00

78,000.00

$

4,000,000.01

to $

5,000,000.00

½%

5,000.00

83,000.00

1%

Joint Accounts

1%

P.O.D. Bonds

1%

Trust Funds

3%

Real Estate Converted
with Aid of Broker

5%

Real Estate:
Non-Converted

1%

Real Estate:
Specific Devise
$

00.01

to $

25,000.00

7%

1,750.00

1,750.00

$

25,000.01

to $

50,000.00

6%

1,500.00

3,250.00

$

50,000.01

to $

100,000.00

5%

2,500.00

5,750.00

Attorney $

100,000.01

to $

200,000.00

4%

4,000.00

9,750.00

$

200,000.01

to $

1,000,000.00

3%

24,000.00

33,750.00

$

1,000,000.01

to $

2,000,000.00

2%

20,000.00

53,750.00

$

2,000,000.01

to $

3,000,000.00

1½%

15,000.00

68,750.00

$

3,000,000.01

to $

4,000,000.00

1%

10,000.00

78,750.00

$

4,000,000.01

to $

5,000,000.00

½%

5,000.00

83,750.00

½%

Regular Commission P.O.D. Bonds and Trust Funds

3½%

Transfer Joint Accounts

3½%

Assets Which Are Taxable at One Half Value

1%

Non-Probate Assets up to $1,000,000

1%

Non-Probate Assets Joint Accounts Fully Taxable:
Full Commission

Common Level Ratio Factors for Pennsylvania Realty Transfer Tax

HTML Version Copyright 1995-2025 Daniel B. Evans. All rights reserved.


(Current through June 2025)

When preparing and filing a Pennsylvania realty transfer tax affidavit, it is necessary to report both the assessed value of the property and the “common level ratio factor,” which is based on the average ratio between the assessed value and fair market value of real estate in that county. If the transfer is not exempt from tax, the tax is based on the greater of (a) the actual consideration for the transfer and (b) the product of the assessed value and the common level ratio factor.

The product of the assessed value of a property and the common level ratio factor for the county is also commonly accepted by the Department of Revenue for inheritance tax purposes when the property is not sold but distributed to beneficiaries.

The common level ratios are calculated by the State Tax Equalization Board based on sales data, and both the common level ratios and factors based on the common level ratios are published each year in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. (The common level ratio factors are the mathematical reciprocals of the common level ratios.)

The table below shows the latest available factors (which are usually published each year in June) and the factors for the previous four years. The factor to apply to a particular transfer is based on the date the document is “accepted,” which is rebuttably presumed to be the date specified in the body of the document as the date of the instrument. (See 61 Pa. Code § 91.102, relating to acceptance of documents.) When two factors are provided in the table for a range of dates, the second one is a revised factor reflecting a change in the assessment ratio or assessment base, and is effective from January 1 of the second year.

Common Level Ratio Factors

County


7/1/21
to
6/30/22
(51 Pa.B. 3947)

7/1/22
to
6/30/23
(52 Pa.B. 3740;
53 Pa.B. 1033);
53 Pa.B. 1888)

7/1/23
to
6/30/24
(53 Pa.B. 3483)

7/1/24
to
6/30/25
(54 Pa.B. 3744)

7/1/25
to
6/30/26

(55 Pa.B. 4775)

Adams


1.04

1.14

1.19

1.29

1.38

Allegheny


1.23

1.57

1.83

1.90

1.99

Armstrong


2.54

2.46

2.20

2.67

3.27

Beaver


6.06

6.76

6.80/
1.00
[19]

1.00

1.30

Bedford


1.31

1.39

1.58

1.69

1.83

Berks


1.92

2.22

2.51

2.75

2.91

Blair


1.07

1.16

1.10

1.18

1.17

Bradford


3.80

4.33

4.78

5.00

5.77

Bucks


12.05

13.70

14.93

15.87

17.06

Butler


12.66

14.08

15.38

15.63

16.67

Cambria


5.68

6.06

6.99

7.75

8.21

Cameron


3.38

4.18

4.95

4.93

4.66

Carbon


3.33

4.12

4.81

5.03

5.58

Centre


4.29

4.67

5.41

5.65

5.85

Chester


2.22

2.53

2.78

2.95

3.14

Clarion


2.98

3.44

3.89

7.69

8.90

Clearfield


8.70

9.90

7.52

11.49/5.75
[21]

5.57

Clinton


1.36

1.57

1.71

1.82

1.98

Columbia


5.18

5.78

6.25

6.67

7.01

Crawford


4.13

4.69

5.24

5.56

6.15

Cumberland


1.14

1.17

1.24

1.36

1.47

Dauphin


1.69

1.91

2.15

2.31

2.47

Delaware


1.00

1.37

1.52

1.63

1.74

Elk


3.68

3.98

4.55

4.63

5.38

Erie


1.23

1.41

1.58

1.72

1.88

Fayette


1.79

1.93

2.04

2.14

2.32

Forest


6.76

6.85

6.25

7.58

7.66

Franklin


9.43

10.53

11.63

12.20

13.02

Fulton


3.29

3.76

4.35

4.37

4.37

Greene


2.04

2.19

2.58

2.39

2.62

Huntingdon


5.71

6.54

7.19

7.35

7.95

Indiana


1.02

1.06

1.11

1.10

1.33

Jefferson


3.13

3.66

3.92

4.27

5.00

Juniata


9.09

9.35

9.90

10.87

12.33

Lackawanna


10.87

12.20

14.71

16.13

17.61

Lancaster


1.28

1.47

1.66

1.77

1.87

Lawrence


1.45

1.67

1.86

1.97

2.13

Lebanon


1.22

1.39

1.59

1.70

1.85

Lehigh


1.38

1.57

1.76

1.88

2.02

Luzerne


1.12

1.32

1.44

1.15

1.16

Lycoming


1.64

1.79

1.95

2.04

2.13

McKean


1.24

1.24

1.74

1.81

1.68

Mercer


6.49

6.99

7.69

8.20

9.00

Mifflin


3.28

3.51

3.91

4.31

4.78

Monroe


1.31

1.65

1.78

2.00

2.20

Montgomery


2.24

2.53

2.82

3.04

3.25

Montour


1.64

1.81

1.98

2.13

2.16

Northampton


4.00

4.61

5.51

5.49

5.88

Northumberland


7.14

8.20

9.17

9.09

10.38

Perry


1.21

1.41

1.51

1.63

1.73

Philadelphia


1.07

1.08/1.00
[17]

1.00

1.07/1.00
[20]

1.00

Pike


6.71

8.26

9.62

9.80

10.89

Potter


4.22

4.37

5.56

5.71

6.05

Schuylkill


3.12

3.82

4.37

4.88

5.30

Snyder


7.52

8.40

9.52

9.52

10.15

Somerset


3.68

4.24

4.74

4.88

5.44

Sullivan


1.71

1.81

1.96

2.21

2.29

Susquehanna


3.95

4.52

5.10

4.61

5.64

Tioga


1.72

1.94

2.12/
1.00
[19]

1.00

1.19

Union


1.60

1.80

1.92

2.01

2.13

Venango


1.37

1.52

1.74

1.79

1.96

Warren


4.83

5.26

5.88

6.45

7.20

Washington


1.15

1.19

1.33

1.39

1.48

Wayne


1.39

1.75/1.00
[18]

1.00

1.33

1.38

Westmoreland


8.13

9.09

10.00

10.75

11.26

Wyoming


6.37

7.04

7.46

8.47

8.73

York


1.32

1.52

1.76

1.87

1.98

[16] Adjusted by the Department of Revenue to reflect a county assessment base change effective 1/1/2021.  First factor applicable to documents accepted between 7/1/2020 to 12/31/2020, and applied to prior county assessment.  Second factor applicable to documents accepted between 1/1/2021 and 6/30/2021 and applied to new county assessment.  51 Pa.B. 1283 (3/6/2021).

[17]  Adjusted by the Department of Revenue to reflect an assessment base change effective January 1, 2023.  The first factor applies to documents accepted from July 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022.  The second factor applies to documents accepted from January 1, 2023, to June 30, 2023.  53 Pa.B. 1033 (2/18/2023).

[18]  Adjusted by the Department of Revenue to reflect an assessment base change effective January 1, 2023.  The first factor applies to documents accepted from July 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022.  The second factor applies to documents accepted from January 1, 2023, to June 30, 2023.  53 Pa.B. 1888 (4/1/2023).

[19]  Adjusted by the Department of Revenue to reflect an assessment base change effective January 1, 2024.  The first factor applies to documents accepted from July 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023.  The second factor applies to documents accepted from January 1, 2024, to June 30, 2024.  53 Pa.B. 8195 (12/30/2023).

[20]  Adjusted by the Department of Revenue to reflect an assessment base change effective January 1, 2025.  The first factor applies to documents accepted from July 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024.  The second factor applies to documents accepted from January 1, 2025, to June 30, 2025.  55 Pa.B. 3323 (5/10/2025); 55 Pa.B. 3691 (5/24/2025).

[21]  Adjusted by the Department of Revenue to reflect an assessment base change effective January 1, 2025.  The first factor applies to documents accepted from July 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024.  The second factor applies to documents accepted from January 1, 2025, to June 30, 2025.  55 Pa.B. 3691 (5/24/2025).

Guardian’s Power to Settle Judgments against Ward

Guardian of estate of incapacitated person, who had previously been granted the power to pay nursing home costs from principal and who had been authorized to sell real estate, did not have power to consent to judgments against the ward; opinion includes general discussion of powers and duties of guardians of estates of incapacitated persons.  Parker Estate, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 183 (O.C. Montg. 2014) (Opinion by Murphy, J.)

Joint Bank Accounts not Gifted to Estate

Bank accounts in joint names of decedent and daughter became property of daughter upon decedent’s death, and estate did not meet its burden of proving a gift by daughter to estate.  Boyce Estate, 4 Fid.Rep.3d 193 (O.C. Del. 2014) (Opinion by Kenney, J.)

Executor’s Conflict of Interest for Defending Will

Appointment of administrator pro tem denied, when conflict of interest, which might incapacitate the executor, was steps taken to defend the will against a contest, which the executor had standing to do (even though without any personal interest under the will) unless the beneficiaries retained their own counsel to defend the will.  Blusius Estate, 4 Fid. Rep. 3d 207 (O.C. Frank. 2014) (Opinion by Meyers, J.)