Bar Report - CAPITOL REPORT
NJSBA challenges calculation of inheritance tax related to transfers
December 04, 2017 at 08:15 AM
7 minute read
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.
NJSBA Challenges Calculation of Inheritance Tax of Transfers Made in Contemplation of Death
The Appellate Division will consider whether the inheritance tax imposed on the entire value of a life estate upon the death of one party's interest in the life estate is permissible. The appeal tests a longstanding principle, argues the New Jersey State Bar Association in its amicus curiae filing, “that both New Jersey practitioners and residents have relied upon in creating estate plans.” The brief was written by Andrew J. DeMaio, Glenn A. Henkel, Jill Lebowitz and Heather G. Suarez.
Estate of Mary Van Riper v. NJ Division of Taxation, Docket No. 8198-2016, involves the irrevocable trust of the Van Ripers, to which they transferred all of their interests in their residence, which they held as tenants by the entirety. Later that same month, Walter Van Riper died, and his 50 percent ownership interest was reported on a New Jersey inheritance tax return. All of the assets owned individually by him and jointly with his wife, Mary, were also reported on the return. Mary died six years later, and the assets of the trust passed, pursuant to the terms of the trust, to her niece. When the estate tax return was completed, the trustee deemed the trust not taxable and filed the taxes showing a zero tax liability. The Division of Tax disagreed, deeming the full date-of-death value of the residence as taxable.
Urging the Appellate Division to overturn the tax court, the association argues that no one party in a joint tenancy may convey their interest alone in a trust and, therefore, each party owns less than 100 percent of the property in this case. The NJSBA drew comparisons with other statutes, such as N.J.S.A. 54A:3A-17d, providing that married taxpayers who own entireties of real estate and file separate New Jersey income tax returns are entitled to deduct only half of the taxes paid. It also cited to another statute allowing spouses owning tenants by the entirety property to distribute half as if one had survived and as if the other half had survived. A further example illustrating New Jersey's treatment of married property owners allows a survivor to disclaim the interest passing by survivorship.
“When Walter and Mary Van Riper created and funded the trust, Mary conveyed only what she owned: a 50 percent undivided interest in the home held as tenant by the entirety with her husband,” wrote the association. “She could not and did not transfer the entire home to the trust.” As such, the tax court erred in finding that 100 percent of the property, and not 50 percent, was subject to inheritance tax on Mary's death.
The association further cautioned that the tax court's decision is not just a departure from prior case law, but could be problematic to both New Jersey practitioners and residents engaging in estate planning. “[N]ever before in New Jersey's inheritance tax jurisprudence has a court permitted the imposition of inheritance tax on the basis of the decedent's mere possession of an interest at death, in the absence of prior ownership and retained control by the decedent.” The association pointed out that the tax court's holding would result in the taxation of transfers that have never before been subject to the inheritance tax.
Oral argument has not yet been scheduled in this matter.
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.
NJSBA Challenges Calculation of Inheritance Tax of Transfers Made in Contemplation of Death
The Appellate Division will consider whether the inheritance tax imposed on the entire value of a life estate upon the death of one party's interest in the life estate is permissible. The appeal tests a longstanding principle, argues the New Jersey State Bar Association in its amicus curiae filing, “that both New Jersey practitioners and residents have relied upon in creating estate plans.” The brief was written by Andrew J. DeMaio, Glenn A. Henkel, Jill Lebowitz and Heather G. Suarez.
Estate of Mary Van Riper v. NJ Division of Taxation, Docket No. 8198-2016, involves the irrevocable trust of the Van Ripers, to which they transferred all of their interests in their residence, which they held as tenants by the entirety. Later that same month, Walter Van Riper died, and his 50 percent ownership interest was reported on a New Jersey inheritance tax return. All of the assets owned individually by him and jointly with his wife, Mary, were also reported on the return. Mary died six years later, and the assets of the trust passed, pursuant to the terms of the trust, to her niece. When the estate tax return was completed, the trustee deemed the trust not taxable and filed the taxes showing a zero tax liability. The Division of Tax disagreed, deeming the full date-of-death value of the residence as taxable.
Urging the Appellate Division to overturn the tax court, the association argues that no one party in a joint tenancy may convey their interest alone in a trust and, therefore, each party owns less than 100 percent of the property in this case. The NJSBA drew comparisons with other statutes, such as
“When Walter and Mary Van Riper created and funded the trust, Mary conveyed only what she owned: a 50 percent undivided interest in the home held as tenant by the entirety with her husband,” wrote the association. “She could not and did not transfer the entire home to the trust.” As such, the tax court erred in finding that 100 percent of the property, and not 50 percent, was subject to inheritance tax on Mary's death.
The association further cautioned that the tax court's decision is not just a departure from prior case law, but could be problematic to both New Jersey practitioners and residents engaging in estate planning. “[N]ever before in New Jersey's inheritance tax jurisprudence has a court permitted the imposition of inheritance tax on the basis of the decedent's mere possession of an interest at death, in the absence of prior ownership and retained control by the decedent.” The association pointed out that the tax court's holding would result in the taxation of transfers that have never before been subject to the inheritance tax.
Oral argument has not yet been scheduled in this matter.
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 AllOn the Move and After Hours: Fisher Phillips; Cohn Lifland; Porzio Bromberg; GSBA
7 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Greenberg Traurig; Helmer Conley; Greenbaum Rowe; Trenk Isabel; Federal Bar of NJ
7 minute readTrending 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