Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2113
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2113.86 (2026)

Apportionment of taxes

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 6, 2017
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 432 - 131st General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Unless a will or another governing instrument otherwise provides, and except as otherwise provided in this section, a tax shall be apportioned equitably in accordance with the provisions of this section among all persons interested in an estate in proportion to the value of the interest of each person as determined for estate tax purposes.

(B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, any tax that is apportioned against a gift made in a clause of a will other than a residuary clause or in a provision of an inter vivos trust other than a residuary provision, shall be reapportioned to the residue of the estate or trust. It shall be charged in the same manner as a general administration expense. However, when a portion of the residue of the estate or trust is allowable as a deduction for estate tax purposes, the tax shall be reapportioned to the extent possible to the portion of the residue that is not so allowable.

(C)(1) A tax shall not be apportioned against an interest that is allowable as an estate tax marital or charitable deduction, except to the extent that the interest is a part of the residue of an estate or trust against which tax is reapportioned pursuant to division (B) of this section.

(2) Estate tax of this state or another jurisdiction shall not be reapportioned against an interest that is allowable as a deduction for federal estate tax purposes, to the extent that there is other property in the estate or trust that is not allowable as a deduction for federal estate tax purposes and against which estate tax of this state or another jurisdiction can be apportioned.

(3) A provision in a will or other governing instrument that apportions tax to an interest that is otherwise allowable as an estate tax marital or charitable deduction is ineffective unless it refers to the marital or charitable deduction and expressly and unambiguously acknowledges and accepts any resultant partial loss of the deduction.

(D) A tax shall not be apportioned against property that passes to a surviving spouse as an elective share under section 2106.01 of the Revised Code or as an intestate share under section 2105.06 of the Revised Code, to the extent that there is other property in the estate that is not allowable as a deduction for estate tax purposes against which the tax can be apportioned.

(E)(1) Any federal estate tax credit for state or foreign death taxes on property that is includible in an estate for federal estate tax purposes, shall inure to the benefit of the persons chargeable with the payment of the state or foreign death taxes in proportion to the amount of the taxes paid by each person, but any federal estate tax credit for state or foreign death taxes inuring to the benefit of a person cannot exceed the federal estate tax apportioned to that person.

(2) Any federal estate tax credit for gift taxes paid by a donee of a gift shall inure to the benefit of that donee for purposes of this section.

(3) Credits against tax not covered by division (E)(1) or (2) of this section shall be apportioned equitably among persons in the manner in which the tax is apportioned among them.

(F) Any additional estate tax that is due because a qualified heir has disposed of qualified farm property in a manner not authorized by law or ceased to use any part of the qualified farm property for a qualified use, shall be apportioned against the interest of the qualified heir.

(G) If both a present interest and a future interest in property are involved, a tax shall be apportioned entirely to the principal. This shall be the case even if the future interest qualifies for an estate tax charitable deduction, even if the holder of the present interest also has rights in the principal, and even if the principal is otherwise exempt from apportionment.

(H) Penalties shall be apportioned in the same manner as a tax, and interest on tax shall be apportioned to the income of the estate or trust, unless a court directs a different apportionment of penalties or interest based on a finding that special circumstances make an apportionment as provided in this division inequitable.

(I) If any part of an estate consists of property, the value of which is included in the gross estate of the decedent by reason of section 2044 of the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986," 100 Stat. 2085, 26 N 2044, as amended, or of section 5731.131 of the Revised Code, the estate is entitled to recover from the persons holding or receiving the property any amount by which the estate tax payable exceeds the estate tax that would have been payable if the value of the property had not been included in the gross estate of the decedent. This division does not apply if the decedent's will or another governing instrument provides otherwise and the will or instrument refers to either section mentioned in this division or to qualified terminable interest marital deduction property.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1986–2013 · leading case: In Re Est. of Sherer, 688 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Est. of Sherer, 688 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 24× “75, and since decedent’s will did not make any provision to the contrary, the taxes were to be apportioned in accordance with R.C. 2113.86. On February 16, 1994, Mary Colvin and Harold Sherer, appellees, filed a motion requesting that the trial court make partial distribution of…”
Pnc Bank v. Roy, 788 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 13× “Because the probate court, in reaching its apportionment decision, incorrectly characterized the bequest to the Munsey children and improperly relied upon precedent based upon a former version of R.C. 2113.86, we reverse its judgment in part.”
In Re Est. of Drosos, 575 N.E.2d 495 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “* * * ” The appellant asserts that the phrase “all just debts” includes the payment of estate taxes.”
Est. of Swallen v. Comm'r, 65 T.C.M. 2332 (Tax Ct. 1993). · cites it 3× “86 (Anderson 1986)) (Ohio apportionment statute) applies to petitioner so as to require that Federal estate tax be allocated among the estate's beneficial shares based on their value or whether Coyla Swallen's will effectively precludes application of the Ohio apportionment…”
Firstar Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Kenosha, 541 N.W.2d 467 (Wis. 1995). “§ 28A-27-2; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2113.86 (1); and N.”
Boerstler v. Andrews, 506 N.E.2d 279 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “R.C. 2113.86, apportionment of estate taxes, provides in pertinent part: “Unless the will or other governing instrument otherwise provides, the tax shall be apportioned among all persons interested in the estate.”
Est. of Frost v. Comm'r, 65 T.C.M. 2101 (Tax Ct. 1993). “Petitioners argue that Diana's liability for the property she received is limited by provisions of the Ohio Revised Code relating to allocations of estate taxes.”
Miller v. United States, 949 F. Supp. 544 (N.D. Ohio 1996). · cites it 2× “Ohio Revised Code § 2113.86 applied to determine apportionment of estate taxes of Decedent’s estate.”
In re Est. of Finke, 508 N.E.2d 158 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 6× “*3 R.C. 2113.86 stated that estate taxes “shall be apportioned among all persons interested in the estate.”
In re Est. of Baltic, 946 N.E.2d 244 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “Barnett claims that the terms of Baltic’s will and the trust clearly and unambiguously evidence his intent to equitably apportion tax liability among all the beneficiaries from the residue of the estate, thereby overriding application of the apportionment statute. R.C. 2113.”
In re Armogida, 2013 Ohio 195 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 22× “{¶8} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on June 29, 2012, the trial court found that R.C. 2113.86 was applicable and held that “the Administrator of the Estate of Velia Armogida may recover from the James Armogida Living Trust that amount by which the estate tax payable by the…”
Swallen v. Comm'r, 98 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “Finally, the statute also specifically directs that “[a] tax shall not be apportioned against an interest that is allowable as an estate tax * * * marital deduction * * Ohio Rev.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2113.86(A) — 5 cases
In Re Est. of Sherer, 688 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “75, and since decedent’s will did not make any provision to the contrary, the taxes were to be apportioned in accordance with R.C. 2113.86. On February 16, 1994, Mary Colvin and Harold Sherer, appellees, filed a motion requesting that the trial court make partial distribution of…”
In Re Est. of Drosos, 575 N.E.2d 495 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “* * * ” The appellant asserts that the phrase “all just debts” includes the payment of estate taxes.”
Pnc Bank v. Roy, 788 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Because the probate court, in reaching its apportionment decision, incorrectly characterized the bequest to the Munsey children and improperly relied upon precedent based upon a former version of R.C. 2113.86, we reverse its judgment in part.”
In re Est. of Baltic, 946 N.E.2d 244 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “Barnett claims that the terms of Baltic’s will and the trust clearly and unambiguously evidence his intent to equitably apportion tax liability among all the beneficiaries from the residue of the estate, thereby overriding application of the apportionment statute. R.C. 2113.”
Swallen v. Comm'r, 98 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 1996). “Finally, the statute also specifically directs that “[a] tax shall not be apportioned against an interest that is allowable as an estate tax * * * marital deduction * * Ohio Rev.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2113.86(B) — 5 cases
In Re Est. of Sherer, 688 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “75, and since decedent’s will did not make any provision to the contrary, the taxes were to be apportioned in accordance with R.C. 2113.86. On February 16, 1994, Mary Colvin and Harold Sherer, appellees, filed a motion requesting that the trial court make partial distribution of…”
Pnc Bank v. Roy, 788 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Because the probate court, in reaching its apportionment decision, incorrectly characterized the bequest to the Munsey children and improperly relied upon precedent based upon a former version of R.C. 2113.86, we reverse its judgment in part.”
In re Est. of Baltic, 946 N.E.2d 244 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “Barnett claims that the terms of Baltic’s will and the trust clearly and unambiguously evidence his intent to equitably apportion tax liability among all the beneficiaries from the residue of the estate, thereby overriding application of the apportionment statute. R.C. 2113.”
Swallen v. Comm'r, 98 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 1996). “Finally, the statute also specifically directs that “[a] tax shall not be apportioned against an interest that is allowable as an estate tax * * * marital deduction * * Ohio Rev.”
Gallagher v. Est. of Stepfield, 2013 Ohio 3113 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2113.86(B)(1) — 1 case
Boerstler v. Andrews, 506 N.E.2d 279 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “R.C. 2113.86, apportionment of estate taxes, provides in pertinent part: “Unless the will or other governing instrument otherwise provides, the tax shall be apportioned among all persons interested in the estate.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2113.86(C) — 1 case
Pnc Bank v. Roy, 788 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Because the probate court, in reaching its apportionment decision, incorrectly characterized the bequest to the Munsey children and improperly relied upon precedent based upon a former version of R.C. 2113.86, we reverse its judgment in part.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2113.86(C)(1) — 1 case
In re Est. of Baltic, 946 N.E.2d 244 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “Barnett claims that the terms of Baltic’s will and the trust clearly and unambiguously evidence his intent to equitably apportion tax liability among all the beneficiaries from the residue of the estate, thereby overriding application of the apportionment statute. R.C. 2113.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2113.86(G) — 1 case
In Re Est. of Sherer, 688 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “75, and since decedent’s will did not make any provision to the contrary, the taxes were to be apportioned in accordance with R.C. 2113.86. On February 16, 1994, Mary Colvin and Harold Sherer, appellees, filed a motion requesting that the trial court make partial distribution of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2113.86(I) — 1 case
In re Armogida, 2013 Ohio 195 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶8} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on June 29, 2012, the trial court found that R.C. 2113.86 was applicable and held that “the Administrator of the Estate of Velia Armogida may recover from the James Armogida Living Trust that amount by which the estate tax payable by the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.