Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Volckening

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided March 21, 1972PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nathan R. Sobel, S.

The executors have requested construction of several provisions of Mrs. Volckening’s will admitted to probate in 1969.

I

The principal problem concerns the meaning of the tax clause. Since the bulk of the estate consists of stock in a family corporation, construction of the tax clause in turn may require a section 303 Internal Revenue Code stock redemption to meet the tax obligation.

In this State the statutory tax apportionment rule (EPTL 2-1.8) is “ burden-on-the-recipient ”. Testator may of course make an ‘ ‘ otherwise direction ’ ’. The common otherwise direction is “…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of SmallmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
  2. Tifft v. . PorterNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
  3. In re the Estate of PepperNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
  4. In Re the Estate of HayesNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
  5. In Re the Accounting of ClaytonNew York Court of Appeals · 1927

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of KramerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1974
  2. In re the Estate of VolckeningNew York Surrogate's Court · 1973
  3. In re the Estate of CheneyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1976
  4. In re RhodesNew York Surrogate's Court · 2008
  5. In re FeilNew York Surrogate's Court · 2009

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API