30.04.2015 Views

Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

2. Exercise the power of appointment to create another limited power of<br />

appointment; and<br />

3. Exercise the power of appointment to create another limited power of<br />

appointment that, under the applicable local law, can be validly exercised<br />

to do one of the following for a period ascertainable without regard to the<br />

date of the creation of the first power:<br />

c. Estate of Murphy v. Commissioner<br />

a. Postpone the vesting of any estate or interest in such property; or<br />

b. Suspend the absolute ownership or power of alienation of such<br />

property.<br />

The determination as to whether the donee springs the Delaware<br />

Tax Trap is based on:<br />

1. The instrument creating the power of appointment;<br />

2. The instrument exercising the power of appointment;<br />

and<br />

3. Applicable local law. 21<br />

The only reported case involving IRC § 2041(a)(3) is Estate of Murphy v.<br />

Commissioner, 22 in which the Tax Court held that the exercise of a limited power of<br />

appointment to create another limited power of appointment did not spring the Delaware<br />

Tax Trap because, under applicable Wisconsin law, the exercise of a limited power of<br />

appointment did not commence a new perpetuities period. Consequently, the Delaware<br />

Tax Trap was not violated in Wisconsin, which had a perpetuities statute expressed in<br />

terms of a rule against suspension of the power of alienation rather than a rule based on<br />

the remoteness of vesting. The IRS acquiesced in Murphy.<br />

Please Note: The Murphy case was relied upon by both Idaho 23 and South<br />

Dakota 24 in the creation of their RAP laws prior to 1986 and the imposition of the<br />

GST tax. Alaska 25 and Delaware 26 have since amended their RAP laws to rely on<br />

the Murphy case. Missouri, 27 New Hampshire, 28 New Jersey, 29 and North<br />

Carolina 30 are other states that relied on the Murphy case in designing their RAP<br />

modifications.<br />

21 Nenno, supra note 5.<br />

22 Estate of Murphy v. Comm’r, 71 T.C. 671 (1979), acq., 1997-2 C.B.2.<br />

23 IDAHO CODE ANN. § 55-111.<br />

24 S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 43-5-1 – 43-5-9, 55-1-20.<br />

25 ALASKA STAT. §§ 34.27.100, 34.27.051.<br />

26 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 25, § 503.<br />

27 MO. REV. STAT. § 456.025.<br />

28 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 564:24, 547:3-k.<br />

29 N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 46:2F-9 – 46:2F-11.<br />

30 N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 41-15 – 41-27.<br />

© South Dakota <strong>Trust</strong> Company LLC – All Rights Reserved<br />

Page | 6

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!