State taxation of out-of-state trusts minimal guidance about minimun contacts Jonathan L. Entin
By: Entin, Jonathan L
.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: 2019Subject(s): TRUSTS | IMPUESTOS | LOCALIZACION | ESTADOS UNIDOSOnline resources: Click here to access online
In:
Journal of Taxation of Investments v. 37, n. 1, Fall 2019, p. 65-74Summary: In North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, the Supreme Court held that the residence of a benefi ciary who did not receive a distribution and had no vested right to distributions did not allow the state to tax an out-of-state trust that had no other contact with the state. But the Court’s decision was limited to the precise facts of the case, thus leaving open a host of questions that will generate uncertainty. This article reviews the Kaestner decision and explains the issues that the ruling left unresolved.
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | URL | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 235/2019/1-5 (Browse shelf) | https://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/online/PDF/JTI-3701-05-Trusts.pdf | Available | OP 235/2019/1-5 |
Browsing IEF Shelves Close shelf browser
Disponible también en formato electrónico.
Resumen.
In North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, the Supreme Court held that the residence of a benefi ciary who did not receive a distribution and had no vested right to distributions did not allow the state to tax an out-of-state trust that had no other contact with the state. But the Court’s decision was limited to the precise facts of the case, thus leaving open a host of questions that will generate uncertainty. This article reviews the Kaestner decision and explains the issues that the ruling left unresolved.
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.