Release: United States Supreme Court rules with South Dakota to stop undue taxation to trusts

Pat Powers

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES WITH SOUTH DAKOTA TO STOP UNDUE TAXATION OF TRUSTS

PIERRE, S.D. – Today the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kaestner 1992 Family Trust. The case examined whether North Carolina could tax the gains of a trust located in New York because one beneficiary of the trust was a North Carolina resident, even though the beneficiary had no  control  over  the  trust assets and none of the gains were paid as income to the beneficiary.

The South Dakota Attorney General filed a brief in support of the North Carolina Supreme

Court’s decision striking down the tax. The United States Supreme Court also struck down the tax, 9-0, with a decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saying that North Carolina’s attempt to tax the New York trust violated the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution.

The decision comes on the one-year anniversary of the Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, which upheld the state’s imposition of a sales tax on out-of-state internet retailers who marketed and sold goods in South Dakota. The Wayfair court ruled that these sales were subject to taxation because they depended on and made use of infrastructure provided by the State of South Dakota.

“Unlike internet retail sales, the activities of a South Dakota trust do not impose on the infrastructure of another state,” said Ravnsborg. “The Kaestner decision affirms that South Dakota trusts should not be subject to taxation in North Carolina or another state simply because a beneficiary resides there.”

-30-

29 thoughts on “Release: United States Supreme Court rules with South Dakota to stop undue taxation to trusts”

    1. It is a victory for the NC government. He filed an amicus brief, which are freqiently never read because there are so many of them. Come on , lol.

      2. North Carolina lost, they wanted to tax more..maybe you should actually read what is going on here

  2. This clown show of an AG is taking credit in a decision for writing an amicus brief?? Dear lord he’s even more clueless than I thought.

    1. The hate just oozes out of your pores, doesn’t it? Why are you filled with such hate?

      2. Because he’s bragging about something he deserves no credit for. He doesn’t understand the law, legal practice, or the basic fundamentals of the judicial system. He’s a joke.

        1. Where is he bragging in the article? I see he makes a statement, but nowhere do I see him taking any credit. There is a joke, but the joke appears to be the person who cannot read the article.

    2. “When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether it be good or bad.” – Tacitus

      1. No South Dakota lawyer (except for maybe Fitzgerald) is envious of our current AG. He’s got a fancy title but there’s no substance behind it.

        1. I’m a South Dakota Lawyer, in private practice and I have observed that Mr. Ravnsborg is a hard working, intelligent and highly competent attorney. You are speaking through your proverbial (and possibly actual) AS*. Sorry he isn’t liberal enough for you and determined to drive this state to the waste-hole status of all of the other jurisdictions that are run by liberals and democrats. Get some better ideas and some facts. You have no idea what the other attorneys in South Dakota think. If you think you do, your succumbing to your narcissistic instincts, which is common for Dems.

    3. I see Mary Fitzgerald is back on the blog again. Hi Mary, still sore you lost????

    4. commit a major crime, get arrested and let us know how it goes for you ok? lol

  4. AG Ravnsborg will go down in history as THE most effective Attorney General in South Dakota history. Looking forward to have a future Senator Ravnsborg from South Dakota in DC.

  5. So it looks to me like Texas , Alaska and Nevada joined with AG Ravnsborg and the state of South Dakota in their brief, I guess the AGs of those states are fools too…Ken Paxton of Texas is no fool and a leading conservative voice in legal circles, if he thinks Ravnsborg’s brief had merit enough to join that speaks volumes to me. Sounds like the sour grapes crowd above continues along without merit.

    1. All of them joined with the original litigants. It’s the very definition of a bandwagon, which our clueless AG jumped on and then, with this press release, tried to make us think he was driving.

      1. are you actually reading the material NO

        Look at the brief, they joined the AG’s brief

  6. It was a 9-0 decision. If anyone thinks Ravnsborg’s brief made one bit of difference in this case they’re dreaming.

    1. funny they seemed to use a lot of the talk about wayfair and quill the brief discussed, but I guess that would take actually reading the case and the brief and knowing what you were talking about, which you don’t.

      Talk to people in the trust industry of the state , we are very happy with the AG’s brief and the court’s decision

  7. It seems like the couple of haters are back on the blog again trying to tear down Jason because their person lost the election. Just pathetic Mary, and you few liberals.

    All I know is that I am very glad Jason was elected as our AG, so far all good things I hear from my contacts in the AG office.

    Keep up the good work Jason, the majority of South Dakota supports you!!!

  8. For what it’s worth I’ll comment. This is my one and only comment. I did not write any of the above comments. Whomever is attacking me please stop. Thank you.

  9. If you look at the brief and case log you will see SD stood apart==20 some states supported North Carolina and they lost

    Then read the brief and the opinion, it is clear they read the brief

    Good job AG!

  10. The trusts in South Dakota are like letting a car thief park cars in your barn because it’s in the sticks and no one (except the FBI) will look there. And, we don’t even get tax money for providing tax havens to billionaires. Fools.

    1. What about all of the jobs created by the Trust industry in the state. Everyone who works at a bank with a trust department and pays bank franchise taxes to the state. There are other types of tax besides income tax. The fact that we don’t have an income tax is a major factor that helps brings those trusts (and associated well-paying jobs) to our state. It is 100% legal. It is good that there are some cookie jars that the government can’t steal from. You clearly don’t know what your talking about Grudznick, but you are skilled at dribbling out a lot of inaccurate non-sense. Perhaps South Dakota should tax nit-wittery and then you could move to California to avoid that tax collect California’s subsidies for stupid ideas.

Comments are closed.