Time to Make the Soup
Recently, our office, sent a client alert regarding IRS news that hit the estate and financial planning communities late this summer. If you or someone you know has a small business, the information below will probably be of interest. What Is Given Can Be Taken Away In August, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Proposed Regulations that could have a dramatic impact on estate and business succession planning by eliminating valuation discounts traditionally available to closely held businesses. Discounts are currently used to help protect a family or closely held small business from the risks of future divorce, lawsuits, or malpractice claims while maximizing the value of the underlying assets. When a Valuable Business Can\’t Be Sold: Discounts Explained Consider this example: Thomas has a $7M estate that includes a $5M family business. He gifts 40% of the business to a trust to grow the asset out of his estate. The gross value of the 40% business interest is $2M. Since a minority 40% shareholder (the trust) cannot force a sale or redemption of its interest, the non-controlling interest in the business transferred to the trust is worth less than the pro-rata fair market value of the underlying business. Thus, the value of the business interest should be reduced to reflect the difficulty of marketing the non-controlling interest. As a result, the value of the 40% business interest transferred to the trust might be appraised, net of discounts, at $1.2M. The discount has reduced the estate by $600,000. From another perspective, consider the issue if Thomas\’ children buy the business and the taxes they would have to pay for a business interest that isn\’t \”marketable\” were it not for the valuation discount. Timing Is Everything Once the Proposed Regulations eliminating or decreasing discounts are effective, which could be as early as December 31 of this year, the ability to obtain discounts might be substantially reduced or eliminated, thus curtailing wealth planning flexibility. Furthermore, as the 2016 year–end gets closer, it will become more difficult and, at some point, will become impossible to have banks and trust companies create trust accounts. If you’re unsure of what you might wish to do, you may want to take the preliminary steps as soon as possible. For example, if you don’t already have trusts that could serve as appropriate receptacles for 2016 discounted gifts, it would be wise to establish trusts immediately. You can always determine later which assets and how much to transfer. Get in the Kitchen Make that alphabet soup, i.e., contact your planning team. A collaborative effort is essential to solid, effective wealth planning. Your wealth transfer strategy team, i.e., your attorney, CPA, CFP, and insurance professional, can review strategic wealth transfer options that will maximize your benefit from discounts while still meeting other planning objectives. Projections completed by your wealth manager could be essential to confirming how much planning should be done and how. ***Disclaimer*** The Law Offices of Max Elliott advises clients on legal strategies regarding estate and wealth planning issues; we do not provide financial planning or tax planning advice. We\’re only one letter – albeit a good one – in the alphabet soup.
Not the \”Bump\” Couples Want…
High income households can strategically plan their income tax payments to better limit their Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) liability exposure. The AMT structure differs from the regular tax system in that it subtracts fewer deductions and instead deducts one significantly larger exemption. This exemption phases out once a threshold is reached and as income increases. The AMT applies a tax rate of 26% on the first $175,000 of income and 28% thereafter. Households pay the AMT when a great tax liability results when using the regular system; thus, paying the AMT usually results in reduced marginal tax rates. However, as the AMT exemption phases out, the marginal tax rate increases and approaches a “bump zone” of tax rates. The marginal tax rates jump to 32.5% and 35% until the exemption completely phases out. After this, the marginal tax rate returns to 28%. Appropriate tax planning allows households to avoid “the bump” of rising marginal rates. Deferring income at the lower end will preserve the exemption taken. If income is higher, accelerating additional income to exit the zone and completely phase out the exemption would return the 28% marginal rate. However, accelerating too much income may subject a taxpayer to the regular 39.6% marginal tax rate instead of the 28% AMT rate. The phaseout threshold depends on the taxpayer’s state income tax rate and how much in excess AMT-adjusted deductions the taxpayer has. To maximize the AMT exemption and avoid the unwanted \”bump,\” taxpayers should consult with their tax advisor to discuss anticipated income and deductions in addition to identifying potential areas of liability. Timing can be everything. — Danielle Haseman, Team Max Elliott Law
The IRS Takes a Bite Out of DOMA, Pt 3
Before beginning today’s article in earnest, a brief recognition and review of the legislative process is relevant. Yesterday, Tuesday, November 5, 2013, was a historic day for Illinois. The state’s legislature voted affirmatively on the question of marriage equality, i.e., allowing Illinois same-sex couples to marry. Thus, Illinois LGBT couples, as of June 1, 2014, may enter into a legal state of loving matrimony. Listening to members on the floor of the House deliver the reasons why they favored the bill, SB10, one theme rang loud and clear: We should not be a society where the law treats individuals or groups in our population differently because other individuals or groups disagree with their lifestyles, don’t like them, or may not understand what makes them “different.” Sidebar: I’m saving arguments that address the reductio ad absurdum issue for later. Being one of those “different” kinda folks myself, I have always been a proponent of marriage equality and LGBT equal rights. Yet, when I saw and heard Catholics and African American men steadfastly and eloquently place their support behind the law, a sense of pride in our legislature, in our democratic system of governance, in our state, washed over me. While Illinois, most assuredly, has its fiscal woes, our money problems aren’t, or at least shouldn’t be, the ultimate issue. The ultimate issue is whether those of us with immutable differences, such as sexual orientation and identification, skin color, or ethnicity, should be afforded the same rights as those whose immutable characteristics are more commonplace. Surely, if we look deep enough, we will recognize that, in some way, we are all different, and our differences should not be the sole basis for refusing, abrogating, eliminating, or enlarging our rights individually and collectively. The fundamental rights of all should be equal. Therefore, if a state gives the right to marry or literally speaking, license to marry, to one group, it is an abomination to our system of democracy if we do not provide the same license to another. So it stands that Illinois citizens should applaud our legislators who lifted the rights of all Illinoisans yesterday when they provided marriage equality to our LGBT community. Now back to the business at hand, which is even more poignant for Illinois couples given the last 24 hours. Because of Windsor and the flurry of guidance that followed, disparate treatment of lawfully married same-sex couples under federal tax laws has been virtually eliminated. Therefore, estate and tax planning for same-sex married couples is more aligned with traditional estate planning methods for opposite-sex married couples. In the post Illinois Civil Union – make that the Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness – Act and post Windsor plus guidance world, a same-sex married couple in Illinois should receive equal federal and Illinois treatment for purposes of income tax, estate tax, qualified retirement plans under ERISA, and FICA. However, practitioners must be mindful of the nuances between Illinois and federal law, such as, statute of limitations for amending returns, date of marriage recognition, portability*, and the fact that Illinois estate tax exemption is lower than the federal exemption. *Portability is the “check the box rule” that allows a surviving spouse to use the unused portion of the deceased spouse’s lifetime gift exemption. EXAMPLE: Michael dies on June 30, 2014 and used $1M of his $5.34M federal exemption. David, Michael’s surviving spouse can add the remaining $4.34M of Michael’s exemption. This means if David hasn’t used his, he now has $9.68M to give away tax free during his lifetime. NOTE: Before the Rev. Rule 2013-17, this wasn’t available to lawfully married same-sex couples anywhere in the U.S. So what does this mean for filing purposes? Because lawfully married same-sex couples are now equal in the eyes of the state and federal tax regimes for Illinois, they don’t have to complete “dummy” federal returns for income or estate tax purposes. WARNING: Illinois couples who are currently only in Civil Unions are not in federally recognized relationship; so, they must still complete the “dummy” forms. IRS Notice 2013-61 followed Rev. Rule 2013-17 and is at the center of the tax return amending issue for most married same-sex couples. The Notice requires employers to amend their 941 returns with respect to over withholding, FICA overpayment, and benefits counted as wages. Why is this relevant to estate tax returns? To file an accurate estate tax return, Form 706, an accountant or attorney should have an accurate income tax return record. Therefore, for these purposes especially, before amending a 706, a decedent spouse’s 1040 should probably be amended to account for Notice 2013-61 issues. Debates wage among colleagues about whether to file an amended return for an estate that is not taxable and, given the level of the federal exemption for a married couple, only very few estates are taxable at the federal level and even at Illinois’ level. Yet, if the income tax return is being amended, then filing a 706 might be advisable for consistency’s sake. Also, a surviving spouse should file a 706 if he or she wants to or should elect portability. All of this ultimately suggests that surviving spouses of same-sex marriages should request a filing extension on original returns to ensure that all tax records are thoroughly reviewed before filing amendments. The same premises apply for Illinois estate taxes because federal numbers drive state numbers. Of course, just because tax returns that fall within the statute of limitations should be reviewed, doesn’t mean they should be amended. Like a surviving spouse of an opposite sex marriage, a surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage might have to pay more taxes. Nevertheless, couples should review the amendment issue. As discussed last week, Rev Rule 2013-17 stipulates that “affected taxpayers may rely on this revenue ruling for the purpose of filing original returns, amended returns, adjusted returns or claims for credit or refund for any overpayment of tax resulting from these holdings providing the applicable limitations period for filing such claim
The IRS Takes a Bite Out of DOMA, Pt 2
As mentioned in the first article of this series, the U.S. Supreme Court’s (aka SCOTUS) Windsor decision resulted in a flurry of guidance from several government agencies. The agency leading the charge, because its treatment of estate taxes was called to the carpet in Windsor, was the IRS. Sidebar: When SCOTUS or an agency, such as the IRS, decides on an overall course of action, the action typically can’t or, better yet – shouldn’t, occur until the agency provides a legal how-to analysis and procedural guidelines (aka “guidance”) for those who depend on the agency when performing their respective jobs. In this case, it would be estate planners, CPAs, and others. The IRS responded to Windsor faster than most of us have ever seen with respect to an issue of discriminatory treatment of individuals; it’s response was Revenue Ruling (Rev. Rule) 2013-17. WARNING: Despite my best efforts the following language will likely be a little dry. Rev. Rule 2013-17 painstakingly crafted an IRS rule based on (1) gender neutrality, (2) the IRS’s historical treatment of common law marriage, and (3) the burdens placed on both the taxpayer and the IRS by the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Though somewhat spliced between most sections of the analysis, the rule provides that in the eyes of the IRS, “husband,” “wife,” and “spouse” each mean a “married person” and that “marriage” is a lawful union between “married people.” Thus, the Rev. Rule completely removed gender from the analysis of tax treatment for married couples. The IRS reached this conclusion by examining the references to gender within the Internal Revenue Code (Code) itself and found few instances of express, gender-specific terms. Further examination of legislative history and recognition of statutory construction (how laws should be interpreted) supported the gender neutrality basis for the federal tax treatment of married same-sex couples. Next, to answer whether credence should be given to state law if the state didn’t recognize the marriage as valid (recall, SCOTUS didn’t invalidate DOMA Section 2 which allows a state to not recognize valid same-sex marriages), the IRS considered its historical treatment of common law marriages. More than 50 years ago, the IRS decided that it would recognize common law marriages even if a state didn’t; therefore, it saw no reason to undo more than 50 years of precedent. (I will resist the strong temptation to comment on Citizens United here.) Equally important, the IRS determined that despite the lack of uniformity among the states regarding marriage and state taxes, “uniform nationwide rules are essential for efficient and fair tax administration.” Considering how inefficient DOMA Section 3 made tax administration, the IRS stated that “more than 200 Code provisions and Treasury regulations” contain terms pertaining to marriage. Additionally, more than 1,000 statutes and regulations are affected by DOMA, placing a huge burden on same-sex couples by forcing them to use a complicated tax return filing process. Finally, the IRS also recognized the increased healthcare costs to these families created by a loss of the tax benefits opposite-sex spouses enjoy though employer benefits. Also, looking at DOMA and its Section 3’s affect on tax administration, the IRS pointed to Windsor, where the reason for Section 3 was noted as anything but fair but, on the contrary, designed to “injure and disparage” same-sex couples seeking to marry. The Rev. Rule also acknowledged and agreed with SCOTUS\’s Fifth Amendment analysis inWindsor, stating that the IRS would prefer to pass rules and regulations that are more constitutionally valid than not. Accordingly, the IRS per Rev Rule 2013-17 affords legally married same-sex couples the same tax treatment with respect to the federal tax regime as married opposite-sex couples, even if the couple resides in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage (an “unfriendly” state). The rule, however, also expressly provides that this treatment does not extend to those couples in a Civil Union, Registered Domestic Partnership, or other relationship that bears a substantial similarity in state law benefits to marriage but are not, in fact, marriages. IRS v. DOMA: IRS score BIG ONE; DOMA down 1 ½ . Tune in next week for what this means practically speaking for married LGBT couples. The IRS Bites DOMA, Pt 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
3 Lessons about Grapes and Taxes
As Baby Boomers start retiring, thoughts of mortality and legacy planning begin to dance in their heads. While most boomers don’t have taxable estates…for now…the future is still a question mark for many. While enjoying retirement – golf course, cruises, mountain climbing, museum walks, wine tasting, and theatre galas – plans should be made for a time when the retirement funds must be transferred to someone else. It is critical to know how to transfer retirement proceeds properly so the distributions won\’t be literally and figuratively taxing: Claire and Cliff are in their mid 60’s. They’ve a modest estate – home valued at about $250K with most of its equity remaining, life insurance, and retirement benefits at about $2 million. Half of the retirement proceeds is in a 401(k), 25% is in an IRA, and 25% is in an annuity. They also have 2 kids: Lenny and Lisa. Lisa’s a starving artist, who is barely in the 15% tax bracket but who also has a vivacious and smart teenager. Lenny is 10 years older than Lisa and a savvy professional about to move into the highest tax bracket and has no intention of marrying or ever having children. Claire and Cliff want to distribute their estate to Lisa and Lenny equally and have been told to give the retirement proceeds to Lenny and Lisa outright. Before doing that, however, I would ask them to consider the following in a simultaneous death situation, where Claire and Cliff went down with the Titanic III: An outright gift from a 401(k) or a traditional IRA will be taxed and if the beneficiary is over 59 ½, the 10% penalty may also apply. For Lenny, who’s Mr. Money Bags, that doesn’t present too much of a problem, though no one wants to pay taxes. For Lisa, that would be a boon indeed. But an outright distribution to Lisa would yield less than what she would receive were the proceeds titled to a trust because of income tax consequences. Pick the fruit too young and the wine will be bitter; too old and you may taste too much oak. Claire and Cliff could have the proceeds placed in a trust for Lenny and Lisa. Here, part of Lisa’s benefit would be driven by Lenny’s life expectancy because he is the oldest, which would provide her with fewer years of income. Additionally, Lenny and Lisa must be sure to withdraw at least as much as the minimum required distribution annually or face a hefty penalty. Different varietals require different soils. In a qualified (retirement) annuity, the entire amount of the contract must be withdrawn over the 5-year period following Claire and Cliff’s death. Again, okay for Lenny, but not so okay for Lisa. Tax consequences also apply to this issue. Cabernets are as good as zinfandels; it\’s the consumer\’s tolerance that is key. Just like no 2 families are alike, no 2 children are alike. So make sure that your children know how to make decisions about the different types of distributions they can choose, after you enjoy your fruits. That way, the remaining fruit will, in fact, go to your children and not the community jelly jar.
5 Reasons Why the \”Permanent\” Exemption Matters to You
Many people probably know that Congress made permanent the Federal estate tax, which is $5 million, indexed for inflation, per person and $10 million per married couple. This means that approximately 98% of Americans will not have taxable estates on their deaths with respect to the government’s estate tax. A sigh of relief for many families could be heard across the land. However, folks shouldn\’t sigh too heavily because the same matters that existed before for individuals and families were not eliminated by Congress’s act. So the following are 5 issues that have nothing to do with the federal estate tax but are still very important to protecting yourself and your family: You have children. Even families with modest-sized estates should ensure that their children are cared for according to their wishes and values if a tragedy occurs. Minor and disabled children are of primary concern. I’ve written before that without a will that nominates a guardian, minor or disabled children may be placed with someone a parent would consider less than ideal. Beyond that, consider retirement proceeds. If a minor or even young adult child is the beneficiary on a retirement account, depending on the language of that account, Uncle Sam may still take a large bite or equally troubling, a relatively young adult may come into a large sum of money in one fell swoop. You aren\’t married BUT you are in a loving committed relationship with someone. So that means your significant other or partner, while being able to benefit from your lifetime exemption, cannot benefit from portability. Also, the same issue with respect to retirement proceeds as mentioned above also apply in this scenario. If your unmarried in the eyes of the federal or state government but you and your partner have a child, just bring the issues of number one right on down. You are a professional or small business (smallbiz) owner. Unfortunately, we Americans are a litigious bunch. If we believe we have suffered an injury related to professional services, e.g., doctor, lawyer, dentist, or a small business, then many of us have no problem pursuing litigation that will cost much more than the malpractice insurance covers. Estate taxes have little or nothing to do with covering your assets from multimillion dollar litigation. You have income producing assets. The federal government and many state governments tax beneficiaries on 2 levels: estate and income. If your daughter\’s trust has income producing assets, such as the 3-flat apartment building you gave her, then there is a likelihood that the trust will have to pay income tax. How much depends on how well your team works to protect you. Still, like number 3, this has nothing to do with estate taxes. You live in a \”decoupled\” state. Some states are \”coupled\” with the Federal estate tax regime, meaning their state\’s lifetime estate tax exemption is identical to the Federal government\’s. However 28 states are decoupled, and most of those states, unlike Illinois, have a significantly lower estate tax exemption amount. So that means that while estate tax may not be due to Uncle Sam, it may be due to Uncle Quinn – Illinois\’ governor, for example. Estate taxes were a primary focus of estate planning because no one likes paying taxes. Well, estate taxes are no longer a primary focus and those other issues still need to be considered, just like they did before December 31, 2012.
Einstein\’s Theory the \”Fiscal Cliff-mas\” Ain\’t
It is unlikely that Congress will come to agreement before January 1, 2013. Ergo, the middle class will take a hit – a number of hits. It will be challenging and we will prevail. We will feed, shelter, and educate our children; we will grow our businesses, careers, and gardens; and we will laugh, cry, and argue. There may be a pack of chewing gum in the stocking, but there will be no coal. There may be a used candle lit each day, but a candle will be lit. Prayers will be offered morning, noon, and night. Chanting and asanas will occur. Quantum mechanics, string theory, and Einstein\’s Theory of Special Relativity will continue to be studied and used as a basis to explain existence. Though Einsteinian intellect isn\’t required, Congress doesn\’t get it while dozens of leaders of major corporations do. These leaders, like the middle class, understand and support the need and the plans seeking tax increases on corporations and the very affluent, which I will define here as the top 2% of our country\’s population. And we in the middle class know that spending cuts are also necessary and we\’re willing to decrease funding for valuable programs. We already have and are still willing to go further but not without some give from the other side. Accordingly, we\’ll take care of our families and businesses the best way we can until Congress realizes that political posturing, scare tactics, and continued polarization and gridlock does not work for our country. Furthermore, kudos to the women engaged in this conversation. I\’ve heard repeatedly, from fiscally conservative women and women who are as liberal as liberal can be: \”Me and my family will take the financial hit; we\’ll work with that. Just don\’t diminish our civil rights or the rights of others because those rights are more important than money.\” That may sound \”warm and fuzzy\” to some, but the rights of others include the right to be recognized as a family, the right to determine how your family will grow in number, the right to determine how your child will be educated, and the right to determine how, where, and if you can practice and express your spiritual beliefs. Ergo, \”warm and fuzzy\” and critical are not mutually exclusive terms that can be applied to legal rights. So, despite the posturing and \”warm and fuzziness,\” we know this isn\’t quantum theory and when asked my thoughts, considering the millions of families who will be impacted but are resilient, with great umbrage toward Congress but great pride in the American spirit, I simply repeat the prudent words of a colleague who stated on a list serve during a mucky debate about guns and religion from which he refrained to participate, \”Carry on.\”
Don\’t Let JT Defeat Your Purpose
A piece I wrote a little while ago described the 3 tenancies of property ownership: Tenants in Common, Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship, and Tenancy by the Entirety. Occasionally, individuals of modest means will ask me about adding a non-spouse family member as a joint tenant to a bank account or to the title of their home. Typically, the individual is elderly, recognizing his or her mortality, or failing health. I applaud their queries because ensuring your financial affairs and making sure that funds are available to address illness or incapacity are in order as the golden years approach is critical. Yet, I caution against using joint tenancy with non-spouses* for the following reasons: Creditors. While the original owner’s credit may be stellar, the son, daughter, or niece may have outstanding debts. Joint tenancy allows creditors to attach liens to the property, thus defeating the purpose of having one’s financial affairs in order or being able to at least financially provide for one’s self in the event of illness or infirmity. Potential Probate. Just because property is in joint tenancy, at least in Illinois, doesn’t mean that probate is automatically avoided. If a gift wasn’t the rationale but a matter of convenience, as mentioned above was the premise and a will is in place, then per Illinois law, the property could have to pass through probate. Taxes. Unless the joint tenancy is between spouses, estate gift taxes may be triggered. Upon one tenant’s death, the estate tax is determined by the amount of contribution by the surviving tenant. If the surviving non-spouse tenant didn’t contribute to paying for the property, then the entire amount of the property is included in the decedent’s gross estate for estate tax purposes. So, we should think again about entering into joint tenancy agreements with non-spouse members, especially if any of the 3 reasons above may loom overhead. *If the surviving tenant is a spouse, then only half of the value of the property is included in the deceased spouse’s estate, reducing potential estate taxes by 50%.
Windsor: An Update on the Same-Sex Marriage March
I wrote about this case in the \”Love & the Law\” series. It has huge estate planning implications for the LGBT community and recently, the Obama Administration has recommended it instead of other same-sex marriage cases that the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to hear. Factual synopsis: When Thea died, the federal government refused to recognize her marriage to Edie (they were legally married in Toronto, Canada) and taxed Edie\’s inheritance from Thea as though they were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes. Traditionally, whether a couple is married for federal purposes depends on whether they are considered married in their state. New York recognized Edie and Thea\’s marriage, but because of a federal law called the \”Defense of Marriage Act,\” or DOMA, the federal government refuses to treat married same-sex couples, like Edie and Thea, the same way as other married couples. Edie challenged the constitutionality of DOMA and sought a refund of the estate tax she was unfairly forced to pay. The Southern District Court of New York (“SDNY”) agreed with Edie and granted summary judgment, stating that it could find no rational basis for Section 3 of DOMA and therefore, Section 3 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”), hired by the House of Representatives to defend the government, appealed to the Second Circuit setting forth 3 basic legal arguments and additional non-legal arguments. The legal arguments were as follows: Federal estate tax law provides that the state of domicile determines marital status and because at the time of Thea’s death, New York didn’t perform same-sex marriages, the lower court’s decision should be overturned. The Second Circuit stated that it could predict that New York would have recognized the marriage at the time of Thea’s death, so that argument was defeated. Congress can prohibit same-sex marriages like states can per Baker v. Nelson. The Second Circuit reminded BLAG that state regulation and federal regulation are different. So Baker wasn’t applicable in this case. Section 3 of DOMA should be analyzed using the rational basis or “rational basis plus.” The Second Circuit stated there is no such thing as \”rational basis plus\” yet and set out a four-prong test for heightened scrutiny per Bowen v. Gilliard and City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center and established that the LGBT community passed this test and should be considered a quasi-suspect class. After reviewing the non-legal arguments to provide rhetorical dicta, the Second Circuit affirmed SDNY’s decision, holding that “Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.” The thorny part of this case is that the Second Circuit’s decision reads like a roadmap for the Supreme Court to punt the cases on DOMA back to the states. However, the argument against the proposition that state and federal regulations are different and, therefore, this should be an issue left for the states to decide, is that many regulations may be different but many state and federal regulations also overlap, if not in substance, in application. Hence, parsing the overlap of the rules and regulations that DOMA implicates may be more burdensome with respect to costs for both the states and the federal government than simply ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional.
4+ Million Reasons and a Kid
It\’s sometimes difficult to understand the federal and state (for my purposes, Illinois) estate tax regimes and how they may affect you and your family. So this post and next week\’s post will try to explain visually and very simply, what the implications may or may not be. And this visual is so simple that it serves a dual purpose – it illustrates why some things should be left to graphic designers and not clipart. This week shows what can happen through December 31 of this year. Next week, you\’ll get to see 2013. 7 Points to Ponder: If you\’ve a minor child, then doing it yourself (DIY) is a bad idea; If you\’ve real property, then the Small Estate Affidavit probably won\’t work in Illinois; If you\’ve more than $100K in personal and/or real property, then a DIY will likely end with your loved ones in court; A trust should generally always include a will but court shouldn\’t be part of the deal; If loved ones end up in court with a sizable estate on a dispute regarding the estate\’s value, then they may also end up with a tax bill; The typical cost to probate a will in Illinois (take it to court) starts at about $2500; If the trust is valid and the estate is under $5.12M, then both Uncles should walk away empty-handed.