Matter of Romita

3 Citing cases

  1. In Matter of Hicks

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 50118 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2006)

    r the marital deduction ( Matter of Pasquale, NYLJ, Mar. 21, 1997, at 38, col. 5; Matter of Opperman, NYLJ, Oct. 18, 1989, at 26, col. 4; Matter of Martin, 146 Misc 2d 144; Matter of Khadad, 135 Misc 2d 67; Matter of Lepore, 128 Misc 2d 250); to maximize the generation-skipping transfer tax exemption ( Matter of Choate, 141 Misc 2d 489); to take advantage of the tax-savings aspect of a credit shelter trust ( Matter of Quigan, NYLJ, Nov. 17, 1994, at 34); and to limit a power in a trust instrument in order to avoid inclusion for estate tax purposes ( Matter of Gottfried, NYLJ, Apr. 11, 1997, at 25, col. 6). In addition, there is precedent for reformation of a trust to meet the requirements of a qualified subchapter S trust as provided in Section 1361 of the Internal Revenue Code ( 26 USC ยง 1361) ( Matter of Fischer, NYLJ, June 26, 1996, at 26; Matter of Gordon, NYLJ, June 27, 1994, at 32, col. 3; Matter of Pivnick, NYLJ, Aug. 24, 1992, at 25, col. 5; Matter of Mainzer, 151 Misc 2d 203; Matter of Romita, 134 Misc 2d 410). Here, if the trusts are not reformed, they will fail to meet the qualified subchapter S trust requirements.

  2. Matter of Schlesinger

    167 Misc. 2d 938 (N.Y. Misc. 1996)

    Before EPTL 7-1.13 was enacted, a trust could not be split without court approval. Although our Surrogate's Courts reformed wills and trusts to obtain various tax benefits (Matter of Choate, 141 Misc.2d 489 [generation-skipping transfer tax (GST) exemption]; Matter of Kaskel, 146 Misc.2d 278 [GST grandfathering]; Matter of Nossiter, 146 Misc.2d 879 [GST exemption]; Matter of Martin, 146 Misc.2d 144 [qualified terminable interest property (Q-TIP) requirements]; Matter of Romita, 134 Misc.2d 410 [subchapter S requirements]; Matter of Heller, 161 Misc.2d 369 [minimize liability on real property]), there was a concern that the Internal Revenue Service, under Commissioner v Estate of Bosch ( 387 U.S. 456), would not be bound by the decisions because they were not rendered by the State's highest Court or pursuant to a State statute (see, Legis Mem in Support of L 1995, ch 523, 1995 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 2221, 2224; see also, Fraiman, Trust Splitting Under the New Statute, NYLJ, Nov. 20, 1995, at 1, col 1). This uncertainty is eliminated by the new legislation which authorizes a trustee or executor, unless prohibited by the disposing instrument, to establish two or more trusts without court approval or the consent of the beneficiaries for the following tax purposes: to separate qualified terminable interest property (Q-TIP) or property held in a qualified domestic trust (Q-DOT) for purposes of the marital deduction; to effectuate a marital deduction by segregating the

  3. Matter of Choate

    141 Misc. 2d 489 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1988)   Cited 37 times

    In other instances, wills have been reformed to authorize the splitting of a single trust into two trusts to allow one to qualify for the charitable deduction. In Matter of Romita ( 134 Misc.2d 410), the court authorized the separation of trusts to permit a closely held corporation to qualify for the subchapter S election. In Matter of Stalp (supra), the court separated a single charitable remainder trust into two separate trusts to permit the larger one to qualify for the charitable deduction.