Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 34

Decedent's partnership interest in a partnership holding New York real property is not subject to New York estate tax

Proskauer Rose LLP
-
USA
-
December 5 2011

On October 12, 2011, the New York Department of Taxation and Finance issued an Advisory Opinion building upon its previous April 8, 2010 Advisory Opinion (TSB-A-11(1)M and TSB-A-10(1), respectively) regarding the conversion of real property interests into intangibles for New York estate tax purposes, in both cases ruling that a Florida decedent holding an interest in New York real property via an interest in a partnership (or an LLC) held by her revocable trust did not own an interest in the underlying real property for New York estate tax purposes

McGowen v. Comm’r, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 18407 (10th Cir., Sept. 2, 2011)

Proskauer Rose LLP
-
USA
-
November 15 2011

The Tenth Circuit has affirmed a Tax Court decision finding that a taxpayer who borrowed against the cash value of an insurance policy must realize income under I.R.C. 72 when the policy was terminated by the carrier

Estate of Turner v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2011-209 (Aug. 30, 2011)

Proskauer Rose LLP
-
USA
-
November 15 2011

The Tax Court has held that (a) assets contributed to a family limited partnership (“FLP”) were includable in a decedent’s gross estate under section 2036(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“I.R.C.”), and (b) premiums paid directly to a carrier on behalf of an insurance trust qualified for the annual gift tax exclusion as present interest gifts

New York Tax Appeals Tribunal reverses itself in holding that property rights to a New York residence, not regular use as a dwelling, is determinative in New York income tax residency in the matter of the petition of John Gaied, decision DTA No. 821727,

Proskauer Rose LLP
-
USA
-
September 14 2011

In Gaied, the taxpayer lived in New Jersey and commuted daily to his business in Staten Island, New York

Tax Court holds that trusteebeneficiary's power to invade trust principal for her "welfare" is limited by an ascertainable standard and trust principal not includible in her estate under IRC 2041(b)(1)(a) estate of Ann R. Chancellor, et al. v. Commiss

Proskauer Rose LLP
-
USA
-
September 14 2011

Frequently, trust agreements ensure that the principal invasion power held by a trustee who is also a beneficiary is limited to distributions for the beneficiary's "health, education, maintenance and support"

Tax Court finds that life insurance proceeds were estate tax includible on account of decedent’s retained incidents of ownership, that annuities were estate tax includible, and that estate was liable for failure to file timely penalty Estate of Coaxum v

Proskauer Rose LLP
-
USA
-
August 5 2011

In Coaxum v. Commissioner, the Tax Court found that the decedent retained incidents of ownership in six life insurance policies, rendering their values includible in the gross estate, that the value of the annuities owned by the decedent was includible in the gross estate, and that the estate was liable for a failure to file timely penalty

Tax Court upholds use of “defined value clause” on transfer of closely held stock to family trusts and charitable foundation Hendrix v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2011-133 (June 15, 2011)

Proskauer Rose LLP
-
USA
-
August 5 2011

In Hendrix v. Commissioner, the taxpayer scored yet another victory in a growing line of cases finding favorably for the use of defined value clauses

Tax Court finds taxpayers who employed Roth IRA conversion tax shelter were liable for excise tax and penalties Paschall v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. No. 2 (July 5, 2011); Swanson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2011-156 (July 5, 2011)

Proskauer Rose LLP
-
USA
-
August 5 2011

In the companion cases of Paschall v. Commissioner and Swanson v. Commissioner, the Tax Court found that taxpayers who employed a Roth IRA conversion tax shelter were liable for excise taxes on account of excess contributions to the Roth IRAs and were also liable for failure to file penalties

Estate not entitled to discount the value of three marital trusts for claims by ESOP members against the marital trusts’ assets Estate of Foster v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2011-95 (4282011)

Proskauer Rose LLP
-
USA
-
July 5 2011

In Foster, the Tax Court considered the following: (1) whether an estate was entitled to discount the value of assets in three marital trusts due to the potential for litigation; and (2) whether assets in the marital trusts could be discounted for lack of control over and lack of marketability of the marital trusts’ assets

Malpractice claim against an estate was too uncertain to be deductible as of date of death and thus, the deduction would be based only on the amount actually paid by the estate Estate of Gertrude H. Saunders, et al. v. Comm’r, 136 T.C. No. 18 (4282011

Proskauer Rose LLP
-
USA
-
July 5 2011

In Saunders, a malpractice claim for $90,000,000 was filed against the decedent’s predeceased husband’s estate, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by the decedent’s husband

< back next >