Brooke v. Norfolk

3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. State Tax on Trust Income Based Solely on In-State Residence of Beneficiaries Found Unconstitutional

    Proskauer - Tax TalksMitchell GaswirthJuly 5, 2019

    See Guaranty Trust Co. v. Virginia, 305 U.S. 19 (1938); Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12 (1920).SeeSafe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Virginia (Safe Deposit), 280 U.S. 83 (1929); Brooke v. Norfolk, 277 U.S. 27 (1928).See N.C. Gen. Stat.

  2. State Tax on Trust Income Based Solely on In-State Residence of Beneficiaries Found Unconstitutional

    Proskauer Rose LLPRichard M. CornJuly 3, 2019

    [7]See Guaranty Trust Co. v. Virginia, 305 U.S. 19 (1938); Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12 (1920).[8]SeeSafe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Virginia (Safe Deposit), 280 U.S. 83 (1929); Brooke v. Norfolk, 277 U.S. 27 (1928).[9]See N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 105-160.2 (providing for a tax on any trust income that “is for the benefit of” a North Carolina resident).

  3. North Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms the Unconstitutionality of a State Income Tax on a Non-North Carolina Trust: Kimberly Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust vs. North Carolina Department of Revenue

    McGuireWoods LLPRonald AucuttJuly 11, 2016

    The taxpayer’s position is that a trust and beneficiary are separate legal entities for tax purposes, and therefore, the residence of the beneficiary (alone) should not form the basis by which a trust is subject to income tax. In agreeing with the taxpayer’s position, the Court of Appeals not only noted the decision of the Supreme Court in Brooke v. Norfolk, 277 U.S. 27 (1928), but found it controlling. In Brooke, the taxpayer, a trust created by a resident of Maryland and administered by a trustee located in Maryland, appealed the assessment of taxes (in that case, ad valorem taxes) by the state of Virginia on the basis that the trust beneficiary was a resident of Virginia.