000			01457nab a2200265 c 4500
999			_c141465 _d141465
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20191129114126.0
007			ta
008			191128t2019 us ||||| |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
041			_aeng
100	1		_962506 _aEntin, Jonathan L.
245			_aState taxation of out-of-state trusts _bminimal guidance about minimun contacts _cJonathan L. Entin
260			_c2019
500			_aDisponible también en formato electrónico.
500			_aResumen.
520			_aIn 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.
650		4	_947502 _aTRUSTS
650		4	_aIMPUESTOS _946896
650		4	_aLOCALIZACION _947647
650			_aESTADOS UNIDOS _942888
773	0		_9161285 _oOP 235/2019/1 _tJournal of Taxation of Investments _w(IEF)51921 _x 0747-9115 _g v. 37, n. 1, Fall 2019, p. 65-74
856			_uhttps://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/online/PDF/JTI-3701-05-Trusts.pdf
942			_cART