Podcast appearances and mentions of kimberley rice kaestner

The quarterly Eversheds Sutherland SALT Scoreboard tallies significant state and local tax litigation wins and losses. In this Bottom Line videocast, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Charles Capouet and Justin Brown discuss the results from the first two quarters of 2019, including: how taxpayers have fared in litigation in the first two quarters of 2019 compared to 2016, 2017 and 2018 three of the main cases from the second quarter of 2019: North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, and Department of Revenue v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. the recent Cook County Circuit Court decision, Mercury Sightseeing Boats, Inc. v. County of Cook, in which the court determined that the Department of Revenue violated the taxpayer’s procedural due process rights. Discover more of the latest legal news and topics discussed by our attorneys by subscribing to the Eversheds Sutherland Legal Insights Podcast Channel.

The quarterly Eversheds Sutherland SALT Scoreboard tallies significant state and local tax litigation wins and losses. In this Bottom Line videocast, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Charles Capouet and Justin Brown discuss the results from the first two quarters of 2019, including: how taxpayers have fared in litigation in the first two quarters of 2019 compared to 2016, 2017 and 2018 three of the main cases from the second quarter of 2019: North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, and Department of Revenue v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. the recent Cook County Circuit Court decision, Mercury Sightseeing Boats, Inc. v. County of Cook, in which the court determined that the Department of Revenue violated the taxpayer’s procedural due process rights. Discover more of the latest legal news and topics discussed by our attorneys by subscribing to the Eversheds Sutherland Legal Insights Podcast Channel.

The Supreme Court in June threw out North Carolina’s taxation of a family trust’s income because the trust didn’t have enough of a connection to the state. The decision, in the case of the Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, didn’t give trust and estate attorneys as much instruction as many wanted with respect to state taxation of trusts. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion was narrowly drawn. But lawyers still can draw some guidance from it as they advise wealthy clients how, and where, to structure trusts that will minimize tax burdens. Bloomberg Tax’s Aysha Bagchi spoke with attorney Bob Kleinknecht of Oakstone Law in Florida about how trusts work and what the Kaestner ruling may mean for estate planning. Kleinknecht has experience not only with Florida estate and trust practice but with New York and Massachusetts as well. Listen and subscribe to Talking Tax from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast | Via Spotify

On June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court decided North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, a case considering the ability of states to tax trust income for in-state beneficiaries even when these beneficiaries do not receive any distributions. About thirty years ago, Joseph Lee Rice II formed a trust for the benefit of his children and their families. The trust was formed in New York State and governed by New York law, as well as administered by a trustee who is a New York resident. Kimberley Rice Kaestner moved to North Carolina in 1997 and claimed residency from 2005-2008. After the move, the trustee opted to divide Rice’s initial trust into three separate subtrusts while still maintaining control of all three trusts. The trust at issue in this case is the Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust (“Kaestner Trust”), which North Carolina sought to tax on the grounds that it “is for the benefit of” North Carolina residents. North Carolina taxed the trust for tax years 2005-2008, levying a bill of more than $1.3 million. The trustee paid the tax under protest and sued North Carolina in state court, arguing that the tax as applied to the Kaestner Trust violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Kaestner had received no income from the trust during the years in question, the trust was governed by New York law, and the trustee did not live in North Carolina. The state courts ruled in favor of Kaestner, and the State of North Carolina obtained a grant of certiorari.In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that “the presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a state to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it.” Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Gorsuch.To discuss the case, we have Jon Urick, Senior Counsel for Litigation at the US Chamber Litigation Center.

On June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court decided North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, a case considering the ability of states to tax trust income for in-state beneficiaries even when these beneficiaries do not receive any distributions. About thirty years ago, Joseph Lee Rice II formed a trust for the benefit of his children and their families. The trust was formed in New York State and governed by New York law, as well as administered by a trustee who is a New York resident. Kimberley Rice Kaestner moved to North Carolina in 1997 and claimed residency from 2005-2008. After the move, the trustee opted to divide Rice’s initial trust into three separate subtrusts while still maintaining control of all three trusts. The trust at issue in this case is the Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust (“Kaestner Trust”), which North Carolina sought to tax on the grounds that it “is for the benefit of” North Carolina residents. North Carolina taxed the trust for tax years 2005-2008, levying a bill of more than $1.3 million. The trustee paid the tax under protest and sued North Carolina in state court, arguing that the tax as applied to the Kaestner Trust violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Kaestner had received no income from the trust during the years in question, the trust was governed by New York law, and the trustee did not live in North Carolina. The state courts ruled in favor of Kaestner, and the State of North Carolina obtained a grant of certiorari.In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that “the presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a state to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it.” Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Gorsuch.To discuss the case, we have Jon Urick, Senior Counsel for Litigation at the US Chamber Litigation Center.

In this 18-minute podcast Bob Keebler interviews attorneys David A. O'Neil and Anna Moody, who represented the taxpayer in North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 21, 2019. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this 18-minute podcast Bob Keebler interviews attorneys David A. O'Neil and Anna Moody, who represented the taxpayer in North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 21, 2019. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

A case in which the Court held that the presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a state to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it.

A case in which the Court held that the presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a state to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it.

North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust | 04/16/19 | Docket #: 18-457

The Taxpayer First Act brought controversy recently in the House of Representatives as various people disagreed with the portion related to the IRS Free File program.  The program prevents the IRS from offering their own free tax filing service while for-profit tax companies provide their own free tax software as an alternative.  I think the Taxpayer First Act should be examined in full rather than focusing on that portion alone.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to hear oral arguments this month in North Carolina Department of Revenue v. the Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.  Learn about this state tax issue that brings taxes again before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In this four-minute podcast, Bob Keebler and Professor Mitchell Gans discuss the implications of North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, scheduled for oral argument before the United States Supreme Court this month. They suggest that certain taxpayers in North Carolina and states with similar laws consider filing claims for refund of income tax paid. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this four-minute podcast, Bob Keebler and Professor Mitchell Gans discuss the implications of North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, scheduled for oral argument before the United States Supreme Court this month. They suggest that certain taxpayers in North Carolina and states with similar laws consider filing claims for refund of income tax paid. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com