Back in 1992, this dude Joe Rice set up a trust in New York for his three kids. We’re all gonna die someday, gotta take care of that shit before it happens. Then in 2002, the trust was broken up into three separate trust for his kids individually, and each of their kids, Joe’s grandchildren. But they were still based in New York.

None of his kids at the time the trust was set up, lived in North Carolina. But eventually, Kim found herself living there. And when a new trustee was appointed in 2005 to manage the trust, those greedy commie motherfuckers in North Carolina decided to start taxing the trust. The whole fucking trust…you know…the one that was in New York and not North Carolina? Clearly, NC is learning from California.

North Carolina’s argument was that, “Hey, we provide protections for this ungrateful bitch, and we pay for that via taxes, so we want our motherfucking cut.”

So Kim was like, “this is some bullshit!”

So off to SCOTUS to try to get her fucking trust back.

At one point, and incredulous Justice Breyer said:

Stephen G. Breyer

Look, the trustee lives in New York, okay? The settlor is in New York.

All the administration is in New York. There is one thing that’s going to happen in North Carolina.

The thing that’s going to happen in North Carolina is if she is there when it’s distributed, she’ll get some money. Okay? Which you’re totally free to tax. But that isn’t what you want to tax. You want to tax all these things which are everyone except her is in New York, and moreover, we don’t even know if she’ll ever get the money. Now there’s something wrong with that. I don’t know, it doesn’t say specifically about trusts in the Constitution, but, thus, I mean, lots of trusts say there are 10 beneficiaries, each one lives in a different state, and I, the trustee, have total discretion as to who give this money to and maybe I’ll give it to none of them. So here’s a woman who might get none of it, and you want to tax that.

Is that right? Do I have the facts right?

Matthew W. Sawchak

I would — I would point out some additional facts, Your Honor.

First of all, Ms. Kaestner did actually receive this money.

Stephen G. Breyer

Well, is that — is that — I’m talking about the law of North Carolina.

And I’d only add to this that, by the way, if the trust has a million dollars extra income in year 4, and if you say she’s entitled to that, she isn’t going to get it ’til year 14, at most, do you discount the increased value of the trust by the time she has to wait? Because she has nothing that increased in value more than the million discounted by the probability that she will ever get it and when.

Matthew W. Sawchak

So —

Stephen G. Breyer

Is that how the law works in North Carolina, is what I’m asking. And, of course, I suspect the answer is no, but go ahead. (Laughter.)

The solicitor for Kaestner rightly pointed out, Kaestner didn’t receive a fucking dime while North Carolina did. And there was no guarantee she would ever receive a dime while living in North Carolina, or not at all if she dies, or the trust somehow bankrupted itself. But in the meantime, North Carolina was taking their cut.

Clearly, North Carolina is whack on this bullshit, and SCOTUS wasn’t having it. Surprising unanimous decision for Mrs. Kaestner. A clear, “Go fuck yourself” to those greedy commies in North Carolina.

On a side note, this is a great example of SCOTUS being their own best skeptics. You cannot listen to this case, and think Sotomayor was ever going to side with Kaestner. Her questions seemed like she was firmly in the camp of North Carolina. But since it was a unanimous decision, it would appear she was just truly questioning her own beliefs, and came to the conclusion her own beliefs were against the principles laid forth in the constitution.