You are here: / / LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH...
,

LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.

The Second Department determined the value of properties transferred upon decedent's death was the fair market value at the time of death. The fact that decedent willed life estates in the properties did not diminish the value of the properties for estate tax purposes:

“Because the estate tax is a tax on the privilege of transferring property upon one's death, the property to be valued for estate tax purposes is that which the decedent actually transfers at his death rather than the interest held by the decedent before death or that held by the legatee after death” … . An estate tax taxes “not the interest to which the legatees and devisees succeeded on death, but the interest which ceased by reason of the death” … . “The value of every item of property includible in a decedent's gross estate … is its fair market value at the time of the decedent's death” … . An estate tax is a tax on the privilege of passing on property, not a tax on the privilege of receiving property; “[t]he tax is on the act of the testator not on the receipt of the property by the legatees” … .

Therefore, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the life estates in the condominium and cooperative apartment granted by the decedent to his longtime companion upon the decedent's death did not diminish the value of those properties for estate tax purposes and should not have been taken into account on the estate tax return. Matter of Cleary, 2016 NY Slip Op 04410, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES)/TAX LAW (ESTATE TAX, (LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES)/ESTATE TAX (LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES)

You might also like
HERE THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (CPLR 213(4)) ESTOPPED PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED AND ADJUDICATED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Access to Financial Support from Family Properly Considered In Calculating Father’s Child Support and Child Care Obligations
OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE A SIDEWALK HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL DEFECT IS TRIVIAL; HOWEVER, HERE THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE OPINION OF A HUMAN FACTORS EXPERT (WHICH WAS NOT BASED ON OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS) DID NOT SUPPORT SUPREME COURT’S FINDING THE DEFECT IS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT
THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT WHERE A DEFENDANT IS UNAWARE OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA AND THEREFORE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FIRST “NAIL AND MAIL” AFFIDAVIT BY THE PROCESS SERVER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIRED MAILING; A SECOND AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED WHICH DESCRIBED THE MAILING; THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT DID NOT CURE THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE A HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF A RUSTY DRAINAGE PIPE IN THE WATER AT A TOWN BEACH AND WAS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR THE INJURY TO THE INFANT PLAINTIFF WHO CUT HIS FOOT ON THE PIPE WHEN WALKING IN THE WATER (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER RUNOFF CONSTITUTED TRESPASS AND NUISANCE. APPELLATE DIVISION WRONGLY EXTENDED COMMON INTEREST ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE...