United States: Delaware Trust With Pennsylvania Settlor And Discretionary Beneficiaries Not Subject To Pennsylvania Personal Income Tax

In what may represent a sea change in Pennsylvania's long-standing reliance on a trust settlor's in-state residency to impose Pennsylvania income tax on the trust, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held the taxation of a Delaware trust to be unconstitutional even though the trust was set up by a Pennsylvania resident for Pennsylvania discretionary beneficiaries.1 The Court focused on the fact that the trust itself was the taxpayer at issue, in finding that taxation of the trust violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Since the trust was governed by Delaware law and was both located and administered in Delaware, the Court found taxation inappropriate.

Tax Treatment of Inter Vivos Trusts in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania subjects every resident inter vivos trust to the personal income tax ("PIT") on income received during the taxable year.2 The term "resident trust" includes any trust created by a person who was a resident of Pennsylvania at the time of the trust's creation.3 Pennsylvania regulations further provide that the residences of the fiduciary and the beneficiaries of the trust are immaterial for purposes of determining whether the trust is a resident trust.4

The PIT is imposed on a trust beneficiary's income if it is received by the trust for the taxable year and is required to be distributed, paid or credited to the beneficiary.5 The income or gains taxable to the trust consist of the income or gains received by it which have not been distributed or credited to the beneficiaries.6


The Court considered whether the imposition of PIT on two Delaware inter vivos trusts ("Trusts") set up by a Pennsylvania resident for Pennsylvania discretionary beneficiaries violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.7 For the 2007 tax year, following a distribution of $1.4 million to one of the Trusts' discretionary beneficiaries, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue assessed $232,164 and $276,263 of PIT, interest and penalties against the respective Trusts. The Trusts, established during 1959 by a Pennsylvania resident, had no Pennsylvania income, interests or assets in 2007. The Trusts named discretionary beneficiaries that were also Pennsylvania residents.8 The Trusts had an administrative trustee that did not have offices or conduct trust business in Pennsylvania and three general trustees, none of whom were residents of Pennsylvania. Further, all of the Trusts' books and records were maintained in Delaware.

The Trusts appealed the assessments to the Pennsylvania Board of Appeals and Pennsylvania Board of Finance and Revenue,9 arguing that they were Delaware resident trusts administered in Delaware, and the imposition of PIT violated the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Upon rejection by both tax authorities,10 the Trusts petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review of their position.

The Commonwealth Court based its decision on the Commerce Clause, citing the governing four-prong test enumerated in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady11 for determining whether a state tax withstands constitutional scrutiny. Failure of any of the following four prongs renders the tax unconstitutional: (1) the taxpayer must have a substantial nexus to the taxing jurisdiction; (2) the tax must be fairly apportioned; (3) the tax being imposed upon the taxpayer must be fairly related to the benefits being conferred by the taxing jurisdiction; and (4) the tax may not discriminate against interstate commerce. Citing failure of the first three prongs, the Court held that taxation of the Trusts by Pennsylvania was unconstitutional.12

Substantial Nexus

In deciding whether the Trusts had substantial nexus with Pennsylvania, the Court relied on the standard developed in Quill Corporation v. North Dakota.13 In Quill, the U.S. Supreme Court required physical presence to establish a substantial nexus with a state. Here, the Court focused its attention on the Trusts themselves as the taxpayers. It agreed that, in creating the Trusts, the settlor relinquished continuing control of appointment over the Trusts' property. In addition, the discretionary in-state beneficiaries had no current or future right to income or assets under the Trusts. The Trusts' only contacts with Pennsylvania were the residency of its discretionary beneficiaries and that of its settlor in 1959.

Notwithstanding the provision of the PIT regulation that the residence of the beneficiary is immaterial, the Commonwealth attempted to satisfy the substantial nexus requirement by arguing that the Pennsylvania residency of the discretionary beneficiaries established substantial nexus. The Court rejected the Commonwealth's argument.

Accordingly, the Trusts lacked the necessary physical presence in Pennsylvania to establish a substantial nexus with the state for the years at issue.14 Further, due to the Trusts' discretionary nature, the beneficiaries had no current or future right to the income or assets from the Trusts. The settlor chose to have the Trusts governed by Delaware law, established the administration of the Trusts in Delaware and did not reserve any continuing control or power of appointment over trust property. The Court noted that relying on the settlor's in-state presence in 1959 would be equivalent to applying the slightest presence standard rejected in Quill.

Fair Apportionment

Even though the Court had decided that the substantial nexus prong of Complete Auto had been violated, the Court continued its constitutional analysis. To satisfy the fair apportionment prong of the Complete Auto test, a tax must be both internally and externally consistent. A tax is internally consistent if it is structured so that, if every taxing jurisdiction were to apply the identical tax, the taxpayer would not be subject to double taxation. A tax is externally consistent if there is a rational relationship between the income attributed to the state and the value of the business being transacted by the taxpayer in the state.

The Court found that taxation of the Trusts was not externally consistent. It compared the Trusts to the taxpayer in Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia,15 which was unconstitutionally taxed when the City of Philadelphia imposed the Business Privilege Tax on 100 percent of its media receipts even though half of its media activity occurred outside the city. In comparison, the Department was trying to tax 100 percent of the Trusts' income while actually deriving none of it from Pennsylvania. Since the Trusts did not have any assets or interests in-state and had trustees, books and records in Delaware, the Court determined that Pennsylvania's taxation of 100 percent of the Trusts' income was "inherently arbitrary" and out of proportion to the Trusts' associated Pennsylvania business activities (or lack thereof).16

Fairly Related to Services

Under the third prong of the Complete Auto test, taxes are fairly related to the services a state provides where the taxpayer benefits directly or indirectly from the state's protections, opportunities and services. The Court concluded that such services include: access to the state's economic markets; the benefits and protections of the state's courts, laws and law enforcement; use of the state's roadways and bridges; and police and fire protection, the benefit of a trained work force and the advantages of a civilized society.17

Here, the Court found that Pennsylvania's imposition of PIT on the Trusts' income was not reasonably related to the benefits Pennsylvania provided to the Trusts because the Trusts had no physical presence in the state, none of their income was derived from Pennsylvania sources, none of their assets or interests were located in Pennsylvania, and the Trusts were established under and governed by Delaware law. Though the discretionary beneficiaries benefitted from Pennsylvania's societal and legal framework as Pennsylvania residents, they were not considered to be the taxpayer, and held no present or future right to distributions from the Trusts.


This decision casts light upon Pennsylvania's current method of classifying inter vivos resident trusts. Presumably due to the unanimous holding for the taxpayer on three of the Complete Auto prongs (each of which justifies an unconstitutional result), the Department will not be appealing the decision. McNeil leaves Pennsylvania with limited avenues to tax trusts. The state may need to amend its current laws to close the gap in trust taxation since, unlike some states that tax trusts based on the location of the trustee or beneficiary, Pennsylvania bases its tax only on the location of the settlor.

In the meantime, this decision may offer a significant tax savings opportunity to many taxpayers that use trusts. While the ruling primarily acts to defer taxation since Pennsylvania resident beneficiaries are ultimately taxed on distributions made by the trust, trusts are often set up to exist for years without distributions and beneficiaries often move to other states. If a Pennsylvania beneficiary changed its residency to another state before the time of distribution, a non-taxable distribution for Pennsylvania PIT purposes may result. Similarly, to the extent income comes in the form of capital gains, it would represent an exclusion from Pennsylvania tax, as capital gains are generally only taxable to the trust. It is apparent that several planning strategies may be undertaken by taxpayers to further benefit from this landmark decision.

Regarding prior years, it is imperative that taxpayers review their trust documents for ties to Pennsylvania and protect their appeal rights for years open under Pennsylvania's statute of limitations. Timing is particularly sensitive for the 2009 tax year, which is still open for refund but will expire three years from any extended due date (i.e. no later than October 15, 2013). Pennsylvania is likely to limit the holding to the specific, taxpayer-friendly facts of McNeil at the Pennsylvania administrative appeals levels. Prospective challengers will likely have to offer very similar or better facts than the facts at issue in this decision to obtain refunds from the Department without dispute. However, any effort by Pennsylvania to limit the scope of this decision should not discourage anyone from pursuing refunds or challenging assessments.


1 McNeil v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, No. 651 F.R. 2010, May 24, 2013.

2 72 PA. CONS. STAT. § 7302(a).

3 72 PA. CONS. STAT. § 7301(s)(2).

4 61 PA. CODE § 101.1.

5 72 PA. CONS. STAT. § 7305.

6 Id.

7 The Trusts also argued that subjecting them to PIT as Pennsylvania resident trusts violated the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. By concluding that Pennsylvania's PIT assessments violated the Commerce Clause, the Court noted it was not addressing the other constitutional issues.

8 Pursuant to the agreements governing the Trusts, the Trusts had no obligation to make any distribution until "20 years and 11 months after the death of the last survivor of Nancy and all my lineal descendants living at the time of creation of this trust" or "20 years and 11 months after the death of the last survivor of all my lineal descendants living at the time of creation of this trust." McNeil, No. 651 F.R. 2010, at 5.

9 The Pennsylvania Board of Appeals hears taxpayer appeals from Department of Revenue assessments. The Pennsylvania Board of Finance and Revenue is the second level of appeals, reviewing decisions of the Board of Appeals.

10 Both the Board of Appeals and the Board of Finance and Revenue noted that it did not have jurisdiction to rule upon the constitutional issues.

11 430 U.S. 274 (1977).

12 Prior to the constitutional analysis, the Court addressed the application of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue Ruling PIT-01-040 (Ruling 01-040), July 27, 2001, which was cited by the Trusts as an analogous situation. In Ruling 01-040, the Department of Revenue concluded that a resident testamentary trust, with no Pennsylvania income or administration, may change its situs to outside Pennsylvania if it obtains the appropriate order. The Court rejected use of Ruling 01-040 in this situation because the Ruling was limited to the parties named, expired five months before the 2007 tax year and contained several factual differences from the situation in McNeil.

13 504 U.S. 298 (1992).

14 In arguing for a finding of substantial nexus, states often invoke the principle of economic nexus. In states that follow this rule, a taxpayer can trigger the minimum contacts required for taxation by in-state economic activity alone. Physical presence is not necessary. Here, even if the economic nexus rule applied, neither the administrative trustee nor the general trustees established sufficient economic activity in Pennsylvania.

15 823 A.2d 108 (2003).

16 Id. at 132.

17 Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 447 U.S. 207, 228 (1980) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434, 445 (1979)).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Pepper Hamilton LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Pepper Hamilton LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions