James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comKey Contacts
Back
The Madoff scandal is no longer the lead story on the evening news; however, the ripple effect of the scandal remains with us even today.
In Estate of Warshaw v. Director, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division (“Appellate Division”) reversed the decision of the Tax Court of New Jersey that granted the estate a tax refund. The descendent died in 2006 and his executors filed a New Jersey Estate Tax Return in July 2007 paying tax on the value of an IRA that was managed by Bernard L. Madoff Securities LLC. The value of the IRA was provided to the estate by the custodian, an entity controlled by Mr. Bernard Madoff. You may recall that Mr. Madoff was arrested in December 2008 and he pled guilty to various charges on March 12, 2009.
In January 2009, the estate filed a claim for refund of estate taxes because the IRA was always worthless, even before death. The Division of Taxation (the “Division”) denied the refund claim and the estate sued in Tax Court. The Tax Court decision ordered the Division to pay the refund. The Division appealed and won a reversal in the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division held that no one had knowledge of the Ponzi scheme at the date of death; therefore, the value of the IRA for New Jersey estate tax purposes was the overstated value reported by the custodian.
The Warshaw case is an example of when and to what extent post-death events are considered in valuing assets for estate tax purposes. This area is unsettled and taxpayers may not find consistency between state and federal decisions.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Madoff – The Aftermath
Author: James F. McDonough
The Madoff scandal is no longer the lead story on the evening news; however, the ripple effect of the scandal remains with us even today.
In Estate of Warshaw v. Director, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division (“Appellate Division”) reversed the decision of the Tax Court of New Jersey that granted the estate a tax refund. The descendent died in 2006 and his executors filed a New Jersey Estate Tax Return in July 2007 paying tax on the value of an IRA that was managed by Bernard L. Madoff Securities LLC. The value of the IRA was provided to the estate by the custodian, an entity controlled by Mr. Bernard Madoff. You may recall that Mr. Madoff was arrested in December 2008 and he pled guilty to various charges on March 12, 2009.
In January 2009, the estate filed a claim for refund of estate taxes because the IRA was always worthless, even before death. The Division of Taxation (the “Division”) denied the refund claim and the estate sued in Tax Court. The Tax Court decision ordered the Division to pay the refund. The Division appealed and won a reversal in the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division held that no one had knowledge of the Ponzi scheme at the date of death; therefore, the value of the IRA for New Jersey estate tax purposes was the overstated value reported by the custodian.
The Warshaw case is an example of when and to what extent post-death events are considered in valuing assets for estate tax purposes. This area is unsettled and taxpayers may not find consistency between state and federal decisions.