Appellate Division: No Estate Tax Marital Deduction for Registered Domestic Partners
Same-sex couples registered under New Jersey's Domestic Partnership Act are not entitled to the marital deduction for purposes of calculating the New Jersey estate tax due at the death of the first partner, according to a recent, published opinion out of the Appellate Division.
July 24, 2017 at 10:26 AM
7 minute read
Same-sex couples registered as domestic partners under New Jersey's Domestic Partnership Act are not entitled to the marital deduction for purposes of calculating the New Jersey estate tax due at the death of the first partner, according to a recent, published opinion out of the Appellate Division—Rucksapol Jiwungkul v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, No. A-4089-15T2 (N.J. Super. App. Div. May 11, 2017).
The Jiwungkul court upheld the lower court's findings that: (1) the Domestic Partnership Act (DPA), N.J.S.A. 26:8a-2(d), gives certain, enumerated rights to registered couples but does not give couples the right to claim a marital deduction for New Jersey estate tax purposes; and (2) the DPA's failure to grant this right is not a violation of the equal protection guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution because same-sex couples are able to access the same rights and benefits—including the marital deduction—afforded to married heterosexual couples in the state of New Jersey through same-sex marriage or civil union.
The marital deduction is a popular estate planning device that allows for the deferral of tax at the death of the first spouse (or civil union partner). Essentially, both the federal and New Jersey estate tax rules state that any assets passing outright to a spouse or into certain types of trusts for the sole benefit of the spouse qualify for the marital deduction. By taking the marital deduction with regard to these assets, assets are not taxed in the estate of the first spouse to die; however, any such assets (whether passing outright or in trust) are then included in the surviving spouse's estate upon his or her passing. Thus, the marital deduction is an estate tax deferral mechanism. Even so, the marital deduction is one of the most important tools at the surviving spouse's disposal. Not only does it defer taxes (it generally makes good economic sense to defer payment of taxes for as long as legally possible), but it also gives the surviving spouse more time to spend down assets or utilize other estate planning tools to decrease the value of the survivor's estate, which in turn reduces death taxes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllReminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
8 minute readAttorney of the Year Finalist: Matheu Nunn's Supreme Court Successes
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250