In re the Estate of Klosk

65 Misc. 2d 1005, 319 N.Y.S.2d 685, 28 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6198, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1745
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedMarch 23, 1971
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 65 Misc. 2d 1005 (In re the Estate of Klosk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Estate of Klosk, 65 Misc. 2d 1005, 319 N.Y.S.2d 685, 28 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6198, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1745 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1971).

Opinion

S. Samuel Di Falco, S.

The executors and trustees seek a construction of paragraph sixth, subparagraphs (1) and (2), and paragraph ninth of testator’s will, and a determination that they have no power or authority which is not permitted by subdivision (e) of section 508 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to an organization exempt from income tax under section 501 of said Internal Revenue Code; and that the trustees shall be deemed specifically restricted from doing any acts in violation of subdivision (d) of section 4941, section 4942, subdivision (c) of section 4943, section 4944 and subdivision (d) of section 4945 of said Internal Revenue Code or corresponding provisions of any subsequent Federal tax laws.

Decedent died on April 25, 1970. His will dated February 5, 1970 was admitted to probate on June 1, 1970 and letters testamentary issued. In paragraph fifth of his will testator created a martial deduction trust for the benefit of his wife, Rose. If she fails to exercise the power of appointment in whole or in part, then such principal of the trust affected shall become part of the residuary estate.

In paragraph sixth testator created a trust of the residue of his estate to accumulate the income and to pay to his surviving spouse 5% of the initial net fair market value of the principal annually. Upon her death, he made 33 bequests of fixed amounts totaling $1,097,000 to various individuals. He directed that the balance thereof be held in trust to be known as ‘ ‘ the louis and boss klosk tbust ’ ’, hereafter referred to as the 1 ‘ Trust ’ ’. His trustees are to select the charitable or educational institutions to which the income and such portion or all of the principal in their discretion are to be paid. He recommended as a guide to his desires the following organizations: The Students Center of the Hebrew University at Jerusalem, created and supported by the Women’s League for Israel; the Hebrew Home for the Aged and the Hebrew Home and Hospital for the Chronic Sick, Inc., both in the Bronx, New York City. He defines the term “ charitable and educational institutions” as follows: “The term ‘ charitable and educational institutions ’ wherever used in this Will shall mean, and shall be limited to, organizations or institutions of a charitable or educational nature or purpose [1007]*1007which shall at the time be exempt from liability to Federal Estate and income taxation. In determining whether any such organization or institution is so exempt, my Trustees may rely conclusively upon any list of exempt organizations published by or under the authority of the Treasury Department of the United States of America.”

Although testator created a trust, it comes within the purview of section 501 (subd. [c], par. [3]) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and was intended to qualify as an organization described therein which would be exempt from Federal income, gift and estate taxes. Testator set forth the powers to be exercised by his executors and trustees in paragraph ninth of his will. The propounded instrument replaced a will of November 13, 1967 in which the testator, after providing for a marital deduction trust, created a residuary trust with the income payable quarter-annually to his surviving spouse, and upon her death, after certain pecuniary bequests, the balance to be held in a charitable remainder trust. There are internal indications of testator’s intent to make that will satisfy all requirements of the Internal Revenue Code as it then existed. It is also apparent that he intended to make his new will in conformity to the 1969 amendments.

Subdivision (e) of section 508, added to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-172; 83 U. S. Stat. 494 eff. Dec. 31,1969), reads as follows:

Governing Instruments.

(1) General rule. A private foundation shall not be exempt from taxation under section 501 (a) unless its governing instrument includes provisions the effects of which are —

(A) to require its income from each taxable year to be distributed at such time and in such manner as not to subject the foundation to tax under section 4942, and

(B) to prohibit the foundation from engaging in any act of self-dealing (as defined in section 4941 (d)), from retaining any excess business holdings (as defined in section 4943 (c)), from making any investments in such manner as to subject the foundation to tax under section 4944, and from making any taxable expenditures (as defined in section 4945 (d)).

(2) Special rules for existing private foundations.

In the case of any organization organized before January 1, 1970, paragraph (1) shall not apply—

(A) to any taxable year beginning before January 1,1972.

(B) to any period after December 31, 1971, during the pendency of any judicial proceeding begun before January 1, 1972, by the private foundation which is necessary to reform, [1008]*1008or to excuse such foundation from compliance with, its governing instrument or any other instrument in order to meet the requirements of paragraph (1), and

(0) to any period after the termination of any judicial proceeding described in subparagraph (B) during which its governing instrument or any other instrument does not permit it to meet the requirements of paragraph (1).”

Petitioners point out that under the Tax Reform Act of 1969 a charitable remainder does not qualify for estate or income tax deduction unless (1) the intervening estate is an “ annuity ” or “ unitrust ”, and (2) the effect of the trust instrument is to prohibit the trustees from exercising specified powers. The decedent’s will was executed on February 5, 1970, only 37 days after the Tax Reform Act of 1969 became effective and before any regulations had been published by the Internal Revenue Service as a guide to will draftsmen. It is evident from the language of the will that testator endeavored to comply with the newly enacted statute in order to insure that the remainder of the residuary trust would in fact qualify for a charitable estate tax deduction. The residuary trust for decedent’s wife, as required by the newly enacted statute, was revamped from an income trust into an annuity trust which tracked the language of the new tax statute. The requirement with regard to the treatment of capital gains dividends declared by investment companies was once again included.

The court holds that the trust provisions in decedent’s will come within the definition of a charitable remainder annuity trust as set "forth in section 1.664-2 of the Treasury Regulations. Indeed there seems to be no real basis for dispute on this matter.

Another section of the newly enacted tax law states that the governing instrument must bar the trustees from engaging in certain prohibitive acts, i.e., (1) engaging in self-dealing as defined in subdivision (d) of section 4941 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; (2) retaining any excessive business holdings as defined in subdivision (c) of section 4943 of said code; (3) investing in such manner as to incur tax liability under section 4944 of said code; (4) making any taxable expenditures as defined in subdivision (d) of section 4945 of said code; and (5) requiring the trustees to distribute trust income for each taxable year at such time and in such manner as not to become subject to the tax on undistributed income imposed by section 4942 of said code.

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

Related

Estate of Mabury
54 Cal. App. 3d 969 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Kohlmeier v. Christian Science Board of Directors
54 Cal. App. 3d 969 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Canal Nat. Bank v. OLD FOLKS'HOME ASS'N, BRUNSWICK
347 A.2d 428 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1975)
Canal National Bank v. Old Folks' Home Ass'n of Brunswick
347 A.2d 428 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1975)
In re the Estate of Baeker
82 Misc. 2d 974 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1975)
In re the Estate of Hammer
81 Misc. 2d 25 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1974)
Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children v. Maryland National Bank
312 A.2d 546 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1973)
In re the Estate of Roche
69 Misc. 2d 481 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 Misc. 2d 1005, 319 N.Y.S.2d 685, 28 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6198, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-klosk-nysurct-1971.