This is an application by the petitioner, Christopher J. Quakenbush, for an extension of time to file a renunciation in accordance with EPTL 2-1.11. Jurisdiction has been obtained over all interested parties and no one has appeared in opposition to the relief requested.

The decedent, Christopher Quackenbush, died on September 11, 2001 survived by his wife, Traci and three children, Whitney, Kelsey and Christopher. The decedent's will dated August 21, 1997 was admitted to probate by decree of this court dated January 24, 2002. The petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's death. The decedent's will directed that his estate be divided into two separate shares: the "GST Exemption Share" and the "Balance Share." The GST Exemption share is to be held in a trust for the benefit of the decedent's spouse to be known as "Marital Trust A." Upon the death of the spouse, the then principal of Marital Trust A is to be divided into as many equal shares as there shall then be living children of the decedent as well as a share for any predeceased child with then living issue. The share for a then living child is to be held in continuing trust. The will gives such child a general power of appointment over the principal of his or her trust.

The petitioner correctly states that, as a result of the general power of appointment, the property in the continuing trust for his benefit will be included in his estate for estate tax purposes pursuant to Section 2041 of the Internal Revenue Code. Petitioner believes that the decedent intended to create a trust which would ultimately pass to his grandchildren free of estate taxes. In support of his assertion, petitioner points out that Marital Trust A was funded with only the amount of the generation-skipping transfer tax exemption, and the executors allocated the exemption to the trust. Accordingly, the inclusion of a general power of appointment is contrary to the decedent's intent.

In support of his application, petitioner notes that he was a minor at the time the right to renounce expired (nine months after September 11, 2001). Petitioner turned 21 years of age on March 23, 2013. Section 2518 (b) (2) (B) of the Internal Revenue Code extends the time for a minor to file a disclaimer until nine months from attaining 21 years of age. [*2]

A beneficiary under a will may file a renunciation for any reason within nine months of the decedent's death (EPTL 2-1.11). After nine months, however, the court in its discretion may extend the time to file a renunciation, and permit its filing only for reasonable cause (EPTL 2-1.11 [b] [2]; Matter of Palmeri, 75 Misc 2d 639 [Sur Ct, Westchester County 1973], affd 45 AD2d 726 [2d Dept 1974], affd 36 NY2d 895 [1975]).

This application demonstrates one of the areas in which the requirements for a qualified disclaimer under the Internal Revenue Code are not congruent with the requirements of EPTL 2-1.11. EPTL 2-1.11 does not extend the permissible nine months' period for renunciation where the person seeking to disclaim has not reached age 21, whereas under Internal Revenue Code 2518 (b) (2) (B), the period is nine months from the later of the date of the transfer creating the interest sought to be disclaimed, or the date when such person attains age 21. As a result, petitioner requests a judicial extension of the time for filing a renunciation which may be granted on a showing of reasonable cause under EPTL 2-1.11 (b) (2). An extension of the time to renounce could not, however, in any event, extend the permissible period for a tax effective disclaimer under the Internal Revenue Code (Matter of Kravis, 154 Misc 2d 236, 238 [Sur Ct, New York County 1992]).

The petitioner has established reasonable cause. The application is granted. Petitioner is authorized to file a renunciation with respect to the general power of appointment granted to him over the property of the trust for his benefit under Article TEN (C) of the decedent's will. The time within which to file the renunciation is hereby extended for a period of thirty days from the decree to be entered herein.

A proposed decree (improperly denominated an order) has been submitted to the court and will be signed if found to be in proper form.

Dated: August 8, 2013

EDWARD W. McCARTY III

Judge of the

Surrogate's Court