Matter of Chemical Corn Exchange Bank

2 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Starr

    203 Cal.App.2d 638 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)

    We cannot agree that any of these authorities are either persuasive or applicable to the facts of this case, for a number of reasons. Including, In re Lissberger's Estate (1946) 188 Misc. 811 [64 N.Y.S.2d 370]; In re Hecht's Trust (1957) 7 Misc.2d 326 [163 N.Y.S.2d 690]; United States Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Jones (1953) 414 Ill. 265 [ 111 N.E.2d 144]. First, we must look to the entire instrument and scheme of the testator.

  2. Matter of Dick

    29 Misc. 2d 648 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1961)   Cited 7 times
    In Matter of Dick, 29 Misc.2d 648, 650 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1961), however, the court recognized the "inequities created by the tax statute," but held it did not have "the authority to alter the impact of the tax statute."

    Sales of trust securities in 1957 resulted in net capital gains of approximately $147,200 and an income tax, computed on such gains, was paid from the trust principal. The fact that the tax on a capital gain is chargeable against the principal account into which the gain is paid is a matter beyond dispute ( Matter of Lissberger, 188 Misc. 811; Gilbert v. Wise, 192 Misc. 101; Matter of Hecht, 7 Misc.2d 326) and the question presented by the objections does not involve this fundamental rule of trust administration but arises solely by reason of the concept of "distributable net income" which was introduced into the tax law by the 1954 Internal Revenue Code (ยงยง 643, 651, 652). Prior to that code the tax statute did not permit deductible items paid from a trust principal to be applied in reduction of the income currently taxable to the beneficiary and the result was that, in the absence of a tax liability payable from principal, such as a liability arising from a capital gain, principal deductions could not be utilized and were wasted.