In re Estate of Thompson

4 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Lewis v. Commissioner

    69 T.C.M. 2396 (U.S.T.C. 1995)

    We conclude that Clause Sixth of decedent's will does not conflict with the terms of the Revocable Trust. Petitioner argues that decedent intended the Family Trust to bear the estate tax burden but the estate plan "failed" to fund the Family Trust. Petitioner concludes that, under these circumstances, statutory apportionment is required under New Hampshire law. Petitioner relies on In re Estate of Thompson, 386 A.2d 1280 (N.H. 1978), as authority. In Thompson, testatrix executed a will, a trust, and a trust amendment.

  2. In the Matter of Estate of Gerhard

    455 S.E.2d 683 (S.C. 1995)

    Once the general estate is depleted, liability for the remaining federal estate taxes must be determined under ยง 62-3-916(b).See In re: Estate of Thompson, 118 N.H. 361, 386 A.2d 1280 (1978) (applying apportionment statute to extent residuary estate was insufficient to pay taxes as directed by Will where apportionment statute included the language "unless the will otherwise provides"). Under this section, the tax is apportioned "among all persons interested in the estate." Liability for the remaining federal estate taxes should therefore be apportioned between the New York and Philadelphia trusts according to the proportionate value each bears to the total value of the interests of all persons interested in the estate.

  3. Bartlett v. Dumaine

    128 N.H. 497 (N.H. 1986)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that a New Hampshire court should have declined jurisdiction over a petition regarding a trust with connections to both Massachusetts and New Hampshire

    , In re Farnsworth's Estate, 109 N.H. 15, 241 A.2d 204 (1968); Jenkins v. Lester, 131 Mass. 355 (1881). But see In re Estate of Thompson, 118 N.H. 361, 386 A.2d 1280 (1978); Isaacson v. Boston Safe Deposit Trust Co., 325 Mass. 469, 91 N.E.2d 334 (1950); First National Bank of Mount Dora v. Shawmut Bank of Boston, N.A., 378 Mass. 137, 389 N.E.2d 1002 (1979) (all three cases dealing with allocation of estate taxes) (cases discussed in A. SCOTT, THE LAW OF TRUSTS 576 (3d ed. 1967 (Supp. 1985)).

  4. Rosen v. Wells Fargo Bank Texas, N.A.

    114 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. App. 2003)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing bypass trust

    In arriving at this holding, we note that the majority of states deciding this issue have held that the default apportionment statute applies if the residuary estate is insufficient to pay the taxes. See In re Estate of Fogelman, 3 P.3d 1172, 1182 (Ariz.Ct.App. 2000, rev. denied); Estate of Cochran, 30 Cal.App.3d 892, 897 (Cal.Ct.App. 1973); Naffziger v. Cook, 137 N.W.2d 804, 806-07 (Neb. 1965); In re Estate of Thompson, 386 A.2d 1280, 1282 (N.H. 1978); In re Estate of Kramer, 356 N.Y.S.2d 984, 988 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1974); Barker v. Barker, 672 P.2d 370, 372-73 (Or.Ct.App. 1984, rev. denied); but see Stickley v. Stickley, 497 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Va. 1998) (apportionment statute did not apply when will directed all debts and taxes to be treated same).Assets Subject to Payment of Transfer Taxes