These Vermont estate tax cases illustrate recurring issues: taxable transfers linked to death, spousal elections, probate timing, apportionment, and finality. For practical steps, see our planning guide. If you need a quick estimate while reading, try the VT estate tax calculator.

In re Boynton’s Estate (1959)

Introduction

Parties: Petition by heirs/representatives of Caroline Boynton Rondeau; respondent: Vermont Commissioner of Taxes. Date: Jan 6, 1959. Court: Vermont Supreme Court. Citation: 121 Vt. 98; 148 A.2d 115 ([1]).

What the case is about

The Court addressed whether a lifetime trust triggered by death and jointly held survivorship property were subject to Vermont transfer/estate tax. It also considered whether a partial payment marked “paid in full” bound the State (accord and satisfaction).

Holding & reasoning

The trust corpus was taxable because enjoyment depended on death; jointly held property was taxable to the extent of the decedent’s contribution. The “paid in full” notation did not discharge the State’s tax claim.

Commentary

Boynton reinforces the breadth of the taxable base. Therefore, planners should review inter vivos trusts and joint property when modeling exposure in the VT guide and in planning scenarios.

In re Sharon’s Estate (1960)

Introduction

Parties: Estate of Isaac P. Sharon; issue raised by widow’s election. Date: Jan 5, 1960. Court: Vermont Supreme Court. Citation: 121 Vt. 322; 157 A.2d 475 ([2]).

What the case is about

The widow argued her statutory spousal share should reduce the tax base despite accepting the will. The dispute turned on the difference between taking under statute versus under the will.

Holding & reasoning

Because the widow took under the will, the assets remained within the taxable estate. Consequently, statutory spousal rights did not automatically reduce Vermont estate tax.

Commentary

Sharon highlights the importance of explicit election strategy. As a result, couples should coordinate marital/QTIP planning (see planning) and verify filing impacts in the forms & deadlines guide.

In re Pierce’s Estate (1965)

Introduction

Parties: Estate of Pierce; Commissioner of Taxes. Date: 1965. Court: Vermont Supreme Court. Citation: 125 Vt. 368 ([3]).

What the case is about

The issue was whether interim probate orders on estate tax are appealable, or whether tax issues must wait for the final decree.

Holding & reasoning

Interim tax orders are not final. Appeals must be taken from the final decree that incorporates tax determinations.

Commentary

Pierce instructs practitioners to preserve all tax objections for the final decree stage. Therefore, align your filing timeline with the VT deadlines and confirm numbers using the calculator.

In re Estate of Davis (1971)

Introduction

Parties: Estate of Davis; Vermont Commissioner of Taxes. Date: 1971. Court: Vermont Supreme Court. Citation: 129 Vt. 150 ([4]).

What the case is about

The case addresses the Commissioner’s standing and confirms that estate-tax assessments belong in probate and are part of the final decree.

Holding & reasoning

The Court recognized the Commissioner’s participation and appeal rights regarding tax determinations embedded in probate.

Commentary

Davis extends Pierce. In practice, coordinate hearings and submissions with your filing team and ensure audit-ready workpapers before the decree stage.

In re Estate of Holbrook (1980)

Introduction

Parties: Estate of Holbrook; disputes among heirs over estate tax apportionment. Date: 1980. Court: Vermont Supreme Court. Citation: 144 Vt. 210 ([5]).

What the case is about

Application of Vermont’s Uniform Estate Tax Apportionment Act when a will has a tax clause, and whether non-probate assets (e.g., joint accounts) are “bequests.”

Holding & reasoning

The Act controls by default unless the will clearly provides otherwise. Joint accounts passing outside probate are not “bequests,” so a clause covering only “bequests” excludes those assets from the tax burden.

Commentary

Holbrook is the leading Vermont apportionment case. To avoid disputes, draft explicit tax clauses that allocate state estate tax across probate and non-probate assets. For model language and checklists, see our planning page.

Chittenden Trust Co. v. MacPherson (1981)

Introduction

Parties: Chittenden Trust Company v. MacPherson. Date: 1981. Court: Vermont Supreme Court. Citation: 144 Vt. 436 ([6]).

What the case is about

Whether final probate decrees fixing taxes and fees could be reopened via separate civil actions; i.e., res judicata in estate-tax matters.

Holding & reasoning

Unappealed final decrees are conclusive and cannot be collaterally attacked to change tax or fee allocations.

Commentary

Chittenden Trust underscores procedural finality. Therefore, teams should calendar appeal deadlines and reconcile figures early using the calculator and the forms & deadlines list.

Need help applying these rulings to your facts? Explore our Vermont estate tax services for fixed-fee planning and filing.