In re the Estate of Volckening
New York Surrogate's Court
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
- In re the Estate of SmallmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
- Tifft v. . PorterNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- In re the Estate of PepperNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- In Re the Estate of HayesNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- In Re the Accounting of ClaytonNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- In re the Estate of KramerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1974
- In re the Estate of VolckeningNew York Surrogate's Court · 1973
- In re the Estate of CheneyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1976
- In re RhodesNew York Surrogate's Court · 2008
- In re FeilNew York Surrogate's Court · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.