ARTICLE
4 August 2015

Trusts Find Shelter From State Taxes In State Courts

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

BakerHostetler logo
Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
In a similar case, the New Jersey Superior Court upheld a state tax court decision disallowing taxes on trust income lacking sufficient contacts with New Jersey.
United States Tax
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In two recent cases, taxpayers have successfully challenged state taxation of trust income on the basis that the taxing states had a minimal connection to the trust.

In The Kimberly Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust v. North Carolina Dept. of Revenue, 2015 WL 1880607 (April 23, 2015), the court ruled that both the North Carolina Constitution and the U.S. Constitution prohibited North Carolina from taxing the income of a trust when the trust's only connection to North Carolina was the residence of some of its beneficiaries. The trust in question was created by a New York resident with another New York resident as initial trustee, and the trust was governed by New York law. When the trust was divided into separate shares for each of the grantor's children, one of those children and her descendants lived in North Carolina. The trust for the North Carolinian beneficiaries was discretionary, and they in fact received no distributions from the trust during the taxable years at issue in the case. Further, the custodian of the trust's investments was located in Boston, Massachusetts; all records were retained in New York; and no trustee was ever a North Carolina resident. The state of North Carolina still assessed taxes of over $1 million on accumulated trust income. A North Carolina statute provided for taxation on the "amount of taxable income of the estate or trust that is for the benefit of a resident" of the state. The Superior Court for Wake County granted summary judgment to the trustee, ruling that the North Carolina statute violated the commerce and due process clauses of both the North Carolina Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

In a similar case, the New Jersey Superior Court upheld a state tax court decision disallowing taxes on trust income lacking sufficient contacts with New Jersey. In Residuary Trust Under the Will of Fred E. Kassner v. Division of Taxation, Dept. of Treasury, 2015 WL 2458024 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015), the New Jersey Superior Court sidestepped constitutional analyses and pointed instead to the "square corners" doctrine and the potential unfairness of taxing the income of a trust in contradiction of the New Jersey Division of Taxation's published guidance. In 1999, the division had issued official guidance stating that it would not tax trust income if the trustees and trust assets are located outside New Jersey. The trust at issue was established under the will of a deceased New Jersey resident. The trust owned cash, bonds, and stock in the taxable year at issue. The trust held stock in four S corporations, and a portion of those S corporations' income was allocated to New Jersey. The trust paid New Jersey income tax on that income. The trust did not, however, pay New Jersey taxes on earned interest income or income from the S corporations that was allocated outside New Jersey. The Division of Taxation issued a deficiency notice, claiming all such income was subject to New Jersey tax. Although the division changed its published guidance in 2011 to state that if a trust had any New Jersey income, all of its retained income would be subject to taxation in New Jersey, the taxable year in question was 2006. The Superior Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, noting the unfairness of and potential confusion caused by retroactively applying the change in guidance.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More