In re: Estate of A.M. Crum, ~ Appeal of: J.D. Crum, of the Estate of A.M. Crum

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 12, 2025
Docket223 C.D. 2023
StatusPublished

This text of In re: Estate of A.M. Crum, ~ Appeal of: J.D. Crum, of the Estate of A.M. Crum (In re: Estate of A.M. Crum, ~ Appeal of: J.D. Crum, of the Estate of A.M. Crum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: Estate of A.M. Crum, ~ Appeal of: J.D. Crum, of the Estate of A.M. Crum, (Pa. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Estate of Anna Mae Crum, : deceased : No. 223 C.D. 2023 : Appeal of: Jay D. Crum, Executor of : Argued: April 9, 2024 the Estate of Anna Mae Crum, : deceased :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE DUMAS FILED: March 12, 2025

Jay D. Crum (Husband), executor of the estate of Anna Mae Crum (Wife), deceased, appeals from the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Orphans’ Court Division (orphans’ court), which granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (Department), dismissed Husband’s motion for summary judgment as moot, and denied Husband’s appeal. On appeal, Husband challenges the Department’s imposition of a particular tax rate following Wife’s death. We reverse. I. BACKGROUND1 During the Crums’ marriage, they acquired certain assets, which included real property. In 2015, the Crums created a Trust and transferred those assets into the Trust. Husband was the sole trustee and was required to distribute the Trust’s income from the Trust’s assets equally to both Husband and Wife. Wife was a beneficiary of at least a 50% share of the Trust’s income. Husband or Wife, as the 1 The parties stipulated to the facts. Joint Stip. of Facts (Stip.), 8/12/21; see generally In re Est. of Plance, 175 A.3d 249, 259-60 (Pa. 2017). settlors, also had the power to order the trustee to disburse the Trust principal or sell any of the Trust’s assets. Wife died in 2018. Because Wife predeceased Husband, “the Trust estate, if any, including any additions thereto . . . shall be retained by Trustee in trust, to be held, managed, administered and distributed as follows . . . .” Tr. at art. 4(B). During Husband’s life, the trustee must “pay so much or all of the income and principal of this Trust as [Husband] requests . . . whether such payments are to Husband” or others. Id. at art. 4(B)(1). Husband, as the sole trustee, retained the Trust estate and was required to pay the Trust’s income and principal at his own discretion. Husband retained the right to amend or revoke the Trust. Id. at art. 2(C). Relatedly, Wife’s Will had a clause that bequeathed her residuary estate to the Trust, i.e., a pourover clause. Wife’s Will, at art. 3.2 On Wife’s death, Husband filed an inheritance tax return that reported the value of Wife’s Trust interest as around $1.25 million and taxable at the surviving spouse rate of 0%. The Department, however, disagreed, contending that the tax rate

2 Article 4(B) of the Trust provides as follows if Husband survived Wife: If [Wife] predeceases [Husband], the Trust estate, if any, including any additions thereto at or from time to time after [Husband’s (sic)] death, shall be retained by Trustee in trust, to be held, managed, administered and distributed as follows: (1) During the lifetime of [Husband], Trustee pay so much or all of the income and principal of this Trust as [Husband] requests in writing, whether such payments are to [Husband], or to any other person and in any other manner, in accordance with the instructions of [Husband]. Tr. at art. 4(B). Article 3 of Wife’s Will stated the following: I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, of whatever nature and wherever situated, to the then acting trustee(s) of that certain inter vivos trust agreement executed October 14, 2015, by and between my Spouse and me as grantors and my Spouse as trustee . . . to be added to and thereafter treated as of part of THE CRUM FAMILY TRUST; . . . . Wife’s Will, at art. 3

2 should be 15%, because the Department construed Wife’s assets as “in, or pouring into, the Trust.” Stip. ¶¶ 34, 46, 59 & Ex. A. Husband timely appealed to the Board of Appeals (Board), contending that the Department erred by taxing assets held within a nontaxable revocable trust. Per Husband, when Wife died, those assets passed “within and to” the Trust “to the surviving spouse,” and thus should have been taxed at 0%. Ex. C to Stip. The Board, however, affirmed the 15% tax, although it adjusted the underlying amounts. Bd. Op., 4/2/20.3 Husband timely appealed to the orphans’ court.4 The parties stipulated that if the orphans’ court agreed with Husband, then the estate’s total tax liability would be about $65,000,5 but if the court agreed with the Department, then the estate’s tax liability would be about $250,000. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The orphans’ court granted the Department relief, reasoning that the “answer lies not in the trust agreement, but in” Wife’s Will. Orphans’ Ct. Op., 2/17/23, at 7 (cleaned up). The court noted that Wife’s Will stated that “her residuary estate shall pass” to the trustee and become part of the Trust. Id. The court succinctly reasoned that the transfer “is not a transfer to [Husband]. This is a transfer to the 3 To be clear, the Board assessed Wife’s bequeathment to the Trust at 0%, and thus, this amount is not at issue. 4 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 933(a)(1)(vi); Sections 2186 and 2188 of the Inheritance and Estate Tax Act (Inheritance Act), Act of March 4, 1971, P.L. 6, as amended, added by Act of August 4, 1991, P.L. 97, 72 P.S. §§ 9186(a) (appeals to the court must occur within 60 days), 9188(a) (same). “These section numbers are distinct from, but correspond to, the sections provided in Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes, which is an unofficial codification of Pennsylvania law. . . . For clarity, we [may] refer to provisions of the [Inheritance Act] only by their Purdon’s citation.” Herold v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 329 A.3d 1159, 1166 at n.1 (Pa. 2025). Such appeals are analogous to property tax assessment appeals, in which the taxing authority must present its record. See, e.g., In re Clabby’s Est., 162 A. 207, 208 (Pa. 1932); In re McLure’s Est., 32 A.2d 885, 886 (Pa. 1943). 5 Wife had bequeathed certain non-Trust assets, with an approximate value of around $1.4 million, to their children and grandchildren. The parties agreed that at a 4.5% tax rate, the tax liability for those non-Trust assets was around $65,000. See Ex. A to Stip.

3 trustee to become part of the Trust. The trustee just happens to be” Husband. Id. at 8. The court rejected Husband’s argument that if there was no trust, then this would have been an inter-spousal transfer taxed at 0%. Thus, the court affirmed the Board’s 15% tax rate. The court opined that the Trust did not provide for holding assets with the right of survivorship. Accordingly, the court declined to classify the transfer as a tax-exempt transfer of property owned by husband and wife with right of survivorship. Husband timely appealed to this Court and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. II. ISSUE Husband contends that Wife’s “assets within, or passing to, a revocable trust for the use of” Husband should be taxed at 0% under 72 P.S. § 9116(a)(1.1)(ii). Husband’s Br. at 4. III. DISCUSSION6 A. Application of the Trust Act and Probate Law For context, we provide a simplified overview of trust and probate law. When a property owner desires to confer a benefit, e.g., a property asset, upon an

6 “[T]his Court reviews orphans’ court decisions to determine whether the court committed legal error and whether the evidence supports the court’s factual findings.” In re Est. of Potocar, 283 A.3d 936, 940 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (en banc) (citation omitted). In construing the Inheritance Act and the Uniform Trust Act (Trust Act), 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 7701-7799.3, we follow the rules of statutory construction. 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1901-1991. Those rules permit us to rely on the Acts’ comments and caselaw of other states that adopted the Trust Act. Id. §§ 1927, 1939; 72 P.S.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v. Commonwealth
668 A.2d 110 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)
Braman Estate
258 A.2d 492 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1969)
In Re Estate of Ross
815 A.2d 30 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Lander Estate
207 A.2d 753 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1965)
In Re Estate of Warden
2 A.3d 565 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2010)
Estate of W.A. O'Connor, Jr., Appeal of J. O'Connor, Administratrix
140 A.3d 77 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016)
Jones v. Jones
25 A.2d 327 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
McLure Appeal
32 A.2d 885 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1943)
Clabby's Estate
162 A. 207 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Re: Trust Under Deed of D. Kulig Apl of Budke, C.
175 A.3d 222 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)
In Re: Estate of Plance Appeal of: Plance, J.
175 A.3d 249 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)
Pilchesky v. Lackawanna County
88 A.3d 954 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: Estate of A.M. Crum, ~ Appeal of: J.D. Crum, of the Estate of A.M. Crum, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-am-crum-appeal-of-jd-crum-of-the-estate-of-am-pacommwct-2025.