Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog

Editor: Gerry W. Beyer
Texas Tech Univ. School of Law

Sunday, March 17, 2019

High Court Should Affirm Kaestner State Trust Tax Case

CourtroomNorth Carolina’s Supreme Court held that the state cannot tax the income of a trust created and administered outside of North Carolina, even though the trust’s beneficiaries reside in North Carolina in Kimberly Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust v. North Carolina Department of Revenue. Now, the nation's higher court has agreed to hear the case.

The lower court founded its decision on two premises: that a trust is a separate entity from the beneficiaries - much like a corporation, and that the trust such as the one in the case lacked the required minimum contacts constitutionally required to be subject to taxation by the state. South Dakota v. Wayfair may have modified the minimum contacts requirement under the Commerce Clause, the due process analysis from Quill Corp. v. North Dakota remained the same. Because the state supreme court applied the proper analysis, the Supreme Court of the United States should affirm the decision.

“Purposeful availment” for minimum contact purposes pertains to the trust’s governance and the administration of its assets, not to trust communications with beneficiaries. Just because the beneficiaries reside in North Carolina does not give the state enough contact with the trust to tax the trust itself.

See Edward Zelinsky, High Court Should Affirm Kaestner State Trust Tax Case, Tax 360, March 5, 2019.


Current Affairs, Current Events, Estate Administration, Estate Planning - Generally, Income Tax, New Cases, Non-Probate Assets, Trusts | Permalink


Post a comment