BAR REPORT - Capitol Report
State bar urges Supreme Court certification to clarify estate planning decisions
December 31, 2018 at 09:00 AM
4 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 urges Supreme Court cert to clarify critical estate planning decisions
The New Jersey State Bar Association urged the Supreme Court to grant certification to review the propriety of the treatment of inheritance tax transfers made as part of an estate plan. The Appellate Division upheld a trial court holding that imposed an inheritance tax on the entire value of a life estate upon the death of one party's interest in a tenancy by the entirety in the matter of Estate of Mary Van Riper v. NJ Division of Taxation. In its amicus curiae filing earlier this year, the association argued that this treatment was improper and against the common practice of trust and estate attorneys, who follow New Jersey's own guidelines on the issue as well as the Uniform Trust Code in assigning a 50 percent tax.
“In affirming the Tax Court's decision to assess an inheritance tax against a surviving spouse's estate of 100 percent of the value of property transferred to a trust held as tenants by the entirety, the Appellate Division opinion stands for the proposition that such property can be subject to a tax on 200 percent of the property—100 percent upon one spouse's death and 100 percent upon the surviving spouse's death,” said the NJSBA in its amicus brief filed earlier this month. “The NJSBA contends that such a result is unintended, and will confound taxpayers and their advisors far into the future.” The brief is authored by NJSBA Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section members Andrew J. DeMaio, Glenn A. Henkel, Jill Lebowitz and Heather G. Suarez. DeMaio argued the matter before the Appellate Division earlier this year.
The matter emanates from the creation of an irrevocable trust by the Van Ripers, to which they transferred all of their interests in their residence. 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 Taxation disagreed, deeming the full date-of-death value of the residence as taxable.
The Appellate Division remained unconvinced that the transfer of property to a trust severs a tenancy by the entirety, as argued by amici, which included the NJSBA and the New Jersey Land Title Association. “When Walter and Mary transferred the property to the trust, they owned the property as tenants by the entirety. Together, they made a transfer intended to take effect at or upon Walter or Mary's death, whichever was the last to occur,” said the Appellate Division. “Because Mary had an undivided ownership interest in the property, and the transfer of that interest took effect upon her death, the Division properly included the full value of the property in Mary's taxable estate for inheritance transfer tax purposes.”
The Appellate Division decision was selected for publication and, therefore, constitutes binding precedent. As such, the association argues that the decision reverses an established principle of law, but through incorrectly applied legal principles. As such, the matter is pertinent and begs the Supreme Court's attention to settle questions raised by the Appellate Division's decision, said the association in its brief.
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
© 2025 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 AllSend Us Your New Partners for the NJ Law Journal's New Partners Yearbook
1 minute readNew Methods for Clients and Families to Have Their Estate and Legacy Planning Complete
5 minute readTensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Courts, Lawyers Press On With Business as SoCal Wildfires Rage
- 2Florida, a Political Epicenter, Is the Site of Brownstein Hyatt's 13th Office
- 3Law Firms Close Southern California Offices Amid Devastating Wildfires
- 4Lawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
- 5Holland & Knight Picks Up 8 Private Wealth Lawyers in Los Angeles
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