Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxes And Revenue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bar Association, Probate Officials Back Restoring 9‑Month Estate Tax Deadline; Committee Hears Funding Concern from Probate Courts
Summary
The Connecticut Bar Association urged the committee to restore a nine‑month estate‑tax filing deadline (HB 7,177), saying the current six‑month deadline forces near‑universal extension requests and burdens executors. The bar and DRS said the six‑month rule adopted years ago created timing problems; probate administrators warned of fee timing and
The Connecticut Bar Association told the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee the state should restore a nine‑month filing deadline for estate tax returns under HB 7,177, reversing a change made to address an earlier budget gap.
Why it matters: Connecticut currently requires estate tax returns six months after death, with many estates seeking extensions. The bar association argued the shorter deadline causes practical difficulties for executors, who often cannot identify assets, value property or gather documentation in six months. Extending to nine months would align Connecticut with federal and most other states and reduce routine extension filings.
What witnesses said: James Doherty of the Connecticut Bar Association described the administrative difficulties executors face and said Connecticut is an outlier; 12 other states and DC that have estate taxes use a nine‑month filing deadline. Doherty said the six‑month change was made in 2009 to shift revenue between fiscal years and has created the current default extension practice. He supported a nine‑month deadline with an existing extension mechanism preserved.
Probate funding concerns: A representative of the probate court administrator’s office said the courts rely on fees tied to estate filings and that changing the statutory timeline could shift when fees are collected; he urged the committee to consider court funding impacts. Doherty and others said the change to nine months with a six‑month extension keeps timing for larger estates effectively the same (15 months) but may shift some revenue timing for smaller estates.
Ending: The committee asked for additional analysis of probate fee timing and possible offsets; witnesses said the bar, DRS and probate representatives had coordinated on the proposal and would provide follow‑up materials.
