Estate Tax Repeal – Could It Be Real?

Introduction

U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa) introduced a bill called the Death Tax Repeal Act on Feb. 13, 2025, with more than 170 representatives signing on. U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced companion legislation in the U.S. Senate. No odds-on passage as the Ouija Board has not proven adept at predicting tax law changes. So instead, this article will discuss some of the impacts repeal may have on estate planning. While for some it will assuredly be cause for a happy dance, there are important planning considerations, and implications to your estate planning documents, that should be considered. We’ll explain some of these below.

Presumably calling the estate tax a death tax enhances the negative connotations of the tax. The proposal would “permanently” repeal the estate. What “permanent” means in Washington is rarely clear or certain as tax laws may only be permanent until there is sufficient change in the composition of Congress and the White House to again come up with snappy slogans for a newfangled tax law change. By the way, the Washington definition of “permanent” is why people with material wealth should probably continue to plan. While there is no assurance that planning done now before repeal (yes, you may want to), or after repeal, will circumvent a future Democrat administration reinstating the estate tax (or a wealth tax, or both), it may be worth a shot. Other implications of repeal could be the destruction of your wealth distribution plan. This will be illustrated in some detail below as its pretty important to lots of people, not just the uber-wealthy.

While the key point for taxpayers is that elimination of the estate tax is a game-changer for estate planning, some of the arguments being advocated for repeal do sound quite similar to reasons suggested in prior repeal proposals. The claim is that the death tax imposes an unfair and costly tax on the transfer of property, land, and other assets from a decedent to his or her heirs and that can decimate small businesses and family farms. Without belaboring the points, with a nearly $14 million exemption now, and double that or $28 million for a couple, it is hard to suggest that businesses or farms subject to the estate tax are in any sense “small.” Further, many businesses and farms fail not because of the estate tax but because of the lack of succession and other planning. So, while there is no question that the estate tax is detested by perhaps everyone in the country (other than the obvious, estate planners themselves), there may be a lot of spin in the arguments for its repeal. That is unlikely to deter efforts at repeal.

Another sound bite argument to repeal the evil death tax is that it creates double taxation. While double points on your rewards card is a good thing, double taxation sounds inherently unfair and unreasonable. But one quick note on that point. If you realize capital gains your income may be taxed at a dramatically lower rate than ordinary income realized by working folk. Further, tax deferred exchanges of real estate, borrowing on appreciated assets to obtain cash flow without triggering income tax, and other tax favored techniques result in many wealthy taxpayers reducing significantly the income tax burden they face. So, the double taxation argument is not necessarily applicable to many. But repeal efforts won’t likely concern themselves with these realities.

Another pro-repeal statement goes something like this: “The last thing American families [family is as American as apple pie and goes right to the heart strings] need is the IRS knocking on their door to collect a Death Tax as the family mourns the loss of their loved one.” Not quite. And is it really necessary to demonize the folks that are responsible for collecting the taxes Congress enacts? The tax is not due for 9 months after death, so no knocking on doors during the mourning period. The tax can easily be deferred with a marital bequest so that no tax is due until the second death. The estate tax rules permit a deferral of estate tax for about 14 years. Also, if you consider the statistics on the estate tax cost large estates actually pay, the picture is a lot different than the repeal sales pitch suggests. But none of that is likely to derail repeal efforts.

What no one can argue with is that the estate tax is incredibly complex, difficult to administer and a hassle for everyone affected.

The real impediment to estate tax repeal might be the impact on the already burdensomely huge federal deficits. Yes, those have long passed nosebleed territory. In defense of repeal, the estate tax to many legislators was supposed to dampen wealth concentration. Not sure that is really working well are we?

But the real questions are what taxpayers should do now and as the changes unfold.

Estate Planning When Uncertainty Abounds And May Rebound

There is simply no way to predict changes in tax law. Tax seers have a batting average well below that of the local weather forecaster. It is just not possible to predict what each successive Congress and administration might change in terms of tax laws. The only certainty is uncertainty. The continuum of possible estate tax changes is also incredibly broad ranging from no change to the current law to the repeal of the estate tax and many potential variations of those to end point outcomes and the options in between. Even if the Republican’s succeed in repealing the estate tax (should we call it the evil death tax?) that doesn’t mean that a future Democratic administration won’t reinstate it along with the myriad of harsh estate tax changes that Democratic members of Congress have been proposing for more than a decade. So, waiting to see and ignoring planning might be reasonable, or a really poor decision. Since nothing can be determined without hindsight, is there any practical guidance?

With such an environment what can, or should, you do? First, which has been a truth of estate planning forever, plan both long term and holistically. Estate planning should never be only about estate taxes but about saving income taxes, protection of wealth from lawsuits, divorce and other claims, protecting heirs from their own irresponsibility and more. So, shifting assets to long term trusts that accomplish one or more of these goals might be a reasonable and stable long-term strategy.

With such consistent and significant uncertainty about tax laws, societal values, and more, it would seem another truism or foundation for estate planning should be to infuse as much flexibility into the plan, in particular into long-term irrevocable trusts, as is both feasible and comfortable given the potential that each mechanism of added flexibility might also add a greater risk of your planning goals being undermined. Some of the possible mechanism for flexibility are discussed below.

Uncertainty and Formula Dispositions — Potentially A Problem

The following illustrates just one aspect of estate planning, so-called formula clauses to distribute wealth and how estate tax uncertainty can wreak havoc with such plans. Many estate plans use formula approaches to distribute wealth. That is because formulas can be flexible, but within limits. Formulas may be useful to allocate wealth in a tax efficient manner. However, if the estate and GST taxes are repealed, the underlying assumptions on which the formulas were based could be shattered. That could lead to results that are the opposite of what you intended. While the amount in the illustrations following might be high (or low, depending on your wealth and perspective) it is merely used to illustrate how all the estate tax uncertainty might resolve and affect your estate plan.

Consider the following case study. A couple is in a second marriage. The husband’s net worth is $30 million. For simplicity assume that the estate consists of ABC stock with an income tax basis of $15 million. His goal is to leave as much wealth as possible in trust for his children from his first marriage. He is not particularly concerned about bequeathing assets to his new wife as she has substantial wealth of her own, and their prenuptial agreement indicated that there was no obligation to leave assets to the other spouse. Husband’s current will bequeaths the maximum amount that will not trigger any estate or GST tax to a trust for his children. Look at how the potential changes to the transfer tax system might impact that bequest.

Death in 2025. In 2025 the husband could bequeath $13,990,000 to a trust for his children. He may have provided for that by pegging that bequest to his remaining exemption amount. Any excess, about $16 million, might be bequeathed to a trust for his wife that she will receive income from, and on her later death the assets in that marital trust will pass back to his children. That defers the estate tax for her over life (the years she lives after his passing) and permits the assets to compound free of estate tax, but subject to income being paid to her (as is required for a QTIP marital deduction trust election). That dispositive plan may have comported with husband’s wishes. All of the ABC stock will receive an income tax basis adjustment on husband’s death eliminating any capital gains tax. The assets in the marital trust will receive a second basis step-up on the wife’s later death, but will then be subject to estate tax.

Death in 2026 with No Change in Current Law. In 2026 under current law and assuming that the republicans are not successful in extending the so-called bonus exemption nor in repealing the estate tax, the exemption is reduced by half to $5 million inflation adjusted instead of $10 million inflation adjusted. For simplicity assume that amount is $7 million. So, barring any change the husband’s dispositive plan is undermined and his children will only receive about $7 million initially. That is about half of what they would have received if 2025 were his year of death. The trust for his second wife would receive $23 million. It is hard to imagine anyone would find the yo-yo results of this result and the preceding 2025 example to their liking. All of the ABC stock will receive an income tax basis adjustment on husband’s death eliminating any capital gains tax. The assets in the marital trust will receive a second basis step-up on the wife’s later death, but will then be subject to estate tax.

Death in 2026 with Bonus Exemption Extended. The “bonus” estate, gift and GST, exemption was enacted as part of the 2017 Tax Act effectively doubling the estate tax exemption from $5 million inflation adjusted to $10 million inflation adjusted. The Republicans seem to have made clear that they wish to extend all of the 2017 Tax Act reductions. If they are successful in doing so, then the estate tax exemption will be over $14 million in 2026 with another inflation adjustment. If this occurs taxpayers will not need to have used their exemption before 2026 to lock it in before the scheduled reduction. Estate planning will be able to proceed as it has for years. In our hypothetical case study husband’s children would receive over $14 million if he died in 2026 (not half that amount if current law is not changed) and the excess of $16 million would pass to the marital trust and eventually to his children. Recognize the arbitrariness of results. If Congress doesn’t act the kids get $7 million, if Congress extends all 2017 Tax Act benefits, the kids get $14 million. That just doesn’t seem like desirable results or good planning. Depending on the facts involved, the wife’s estate tax exemption of $14 million would also remain intact, and would increase by inflation adjustments until her later death. So, it may even be feasible that the estate tax deferral on the husband’s death will result in less tax being paid on the bequest that is temporarily sheltered by the marital deduction before passing on her death to his children. Hey, but the exact opposite could occur if in a future election the Democrats sweep and enact all the harsh estate tax proposals they have proposed repeatedly for more than a decade. So, that is a coin toss at best. That is why, as explained above, consider shifting assets to flexible long-term trusts now, rather than waiting to see if an estate tax guillotine is enacted.

Republicans Repeal Estate Tax Leaving Step-Up. Under this scenario the Republicans repeal the estate tax but leave intact the rules that provide that assets held on death will still be subject to an income tax basis adjustment on death. This would be a huge boon to the uber wealthy and would that be politically palatable? A different mechanism (tax return) would have to be created to report the basis step up since presumably without an estate tax there would no longer be an estate tax return. Historically, the quid-pro-quo of the basis step up on death was paying an estate tax on assets in your estate. But as the exemption has grown from $600,000 in 1986 to about $14 million in 2025, few estates have actually had to pay that cost to garner a basis step up that would eliminate capital gains tax when heirs sell assets. But repealing the estate tax while leaving the rules permitting assets held on death to be adjusted to fair market value (thus eliminating capital gains on those assets) would full break this historical concept. But that may be a possibility. So, if the estate tax is repealed the husband would want to have his children receive the entirety of his estate. No estate tax would be due. There would be no need to give his wife a trust interests in the excess assets to defer estate tax. His kids could inherit the whole $30 million estate without tax cost on his death. Further, if the basis step up rules are left intact capital gains tax on $15 million in appreciation will disappear, giving husband’s children an income tax free opportunity following his death to diversify out of the concentrated ABC stock position by just selling stock and buying new investments. This latter point illustrates how the repeal of the estate tax may impact estate planning, will drafting, income tax planning, investment planning and more. The ripple effects of significant tax law changes are often far reaching, and the nuances can take quite some time for advisers to identify. But alas, what at initial blush sounded to be a great result for the husband’s plan, and a really great result for his children (all the money immediately on their father’s passing, no estate tax, no capital gains tax and improved investment opportunities) is just a mirage. The results might actually be pretty awful. Consider that if husband’s will bequeaths to the trust for his children the maximum amount that can pass free of estate tax, once the estate tax is eliminated, what is that amount? Is the bequest to the children infinite in size or zero in value? It may well be zero which would mean all assets would pass to their step-mother in trust and they may inherit nothing until her passing which could be decades later.

Let’s tweak the above hypothetical to show how an awful result might actually an unfettered disaster. Let’s say husband’s estate is $15 million. The exemption is about $14 million. Husband, when he planned his will decided that for the $1 million that might pass to his wife there was no need to bother with a marital trust. Husband, like so many clients, wanted his will to be simple (as if simple rather than effective is a rational priority) so his lawyer did what he asked. The will left, as in the above example, husband’s unused estate tax exemption amount to a trust for his children, and the small excess simply outright to his new wife. Afterall he reasoned, lawyers push trusts so they can complicate things and bill more. If the estate tax is repealed, not only might his children get nothing (since he has no estate tax exemption as there is no estate tax) but his new wife receives the entire estate outright and can spend it or give it to her children from her prior marriage.

Republicans Repeal Estate Tax and Repeal Step-Up. Under this scenario the Republicans repeal the estate tax but also repeal the rules that provide that assets held on death will still be subject to an income tax basis adjustment (step-up to fair market value) on death. This would be less of a huge benefit to the very wealthy than if the step up remained intact with estate tax repeal. But even this may be viewed politically as unpalatable in terms of the benefit it would provide. Perhaps estate tax repeal will be paired with a capital gains tax on death.

The results will be the same in terms of the estate tax and dispositive scheme implications as in the above example, but now, whatever is inherited will face a capital gains tax on sale. This will further complicate planning. Whoever the heirs are will have to grapple with the various approaches tax and investment advisers have used for years to address highly appreciated and often concentrated asset positions. These might include harvesting and offsetting gains and losses, charitable gifts to offset gain, charitable remainder trusts to defer the taxable gain on diversification, exchange funds, and so forth.

What Can You Do About Formula Clauses?

The easy and simple answer is revise your estate plan and documents anytime the law changes. But that will not be a winning answer in many situations. First of all, how often do most people revise their documents? Not nearly as often as they should. Often not for decades. So, assuming you will update regularly may not be reliable. There is also an assumption underlying the approach “I’ll update my plan and documents when the law changes.” That assumption is that you will be well enough and competent enough to do so. That is a gamble. So, sure, revising works, but is not really a failsafe approach.

You probably won’t like the complexity and incremental cost of the suggestions following, but as illustrated above, the results of ignoring the possibilities don’t seem savory.

Estate planning documents could be drafted to address some or even all of the above scenarios. You could state, for example, if an estate tax exists, then no more than your remaining exemption amount will pass to your children, the balance to your spouse. If the estate tax is repealed than you might provide that the entirety of your estate will pass to the trust for your children, and so on. That is a bit of “what-if” type drafting. And while the results cannot be assured, the end result may be more likely to comport with your wishes.

You could consider putting caps and floors on certain bequests. So, for example, you could state that not less than $10 million shall be bequeathed to the trust for your children in the above example, no matter what the tax consequences are. In other situations, you could add caps, such as no matter the tax consequences, no more than $15 million shall be bequeathed to my wife in a marital trust.

You might provide for a combination of the above.

Infuse Flexibility Into Your Plan And Documents

Given the broad continuum of possible estate tax outcomes, all of which might change in a future administration, evaluate different options for integrating flexibility into your plan and documents. What might these flexible mechanisms include? The following are some of the provisions to consider.

Powers of appointment are a right granted to a named person in a will or trust for that person to appoint or direct the assets subject to the power in specified ways. For example, a common power of appointment that is often included in many trusts gives the beneficiary the right on their death (i.e., in their will) to direct that the assets in the trust they benefited from, which could potentially pass to their spouse, children or even more broadly friends or charity. The scope of the power and the restriction that may be placed on it will depend on a myriad of factors, but the key point is that in a time of so much uncertainty giving people the right to effectively rewrite the dispositive provisions can provide considerable flexibility to modify a plan to deal with changes in the tax law. But will powers of appointment function as anticipated, or even at all, if Code Section 2041 which governs the tax considerations of powers of appointment is repealed? If state law permits powers of appointment, they may still be viable for property transfer purposes even if the tax implications change.

Appoint trust protectors in trusts and, if you are comfortable, grant them broad powers. Trust protectors are a relatively new provision that carves out certain rights and powers for a person other than a trustee. This can provide checks and balances on the trustee, but it also can infuse greater flexibility in the trust document to deal with unpredictable changes in tax laws. For example, a trust protector could be given the right to change trustees as well as the situs and governing law for a trust. So, if say Nevada is first out of the starting blocks to pass new laws to deal with changes in the tax law (perhaps statutory ways to reform a trust whose obvious intent fails because of the repeal of the estate tax) perhaps the trust protector moves the trust to that state so those new rules can be utilized. Perhaps a trust protector may be given certain latitude to modify trust provisions to address changes in tax laws to better align the results of the trust with what they were when the trust was signed.

Setting up your trusts in states that are leaders in modifying trust laws in progressive ways to address tax law and other changes from the inception of the trust can prove advantageous for the reasons illustrated in the preceding paragraph.

Permitting loans to the settlor and others. This may provide a way to unlock some of economic value in a trust to facilitate planning for tax law changes. For example, if a loan can be made to the settlor (or perhaps someone else) from the trust those funds might be used to grow assets back in the settlor or other person’s estate to reduce the impact of what might be a less favorable result in the trust after the changes.

Swap or substitution powers could be more important. This power gives the designated person, typically the settlor who created the trust, the power to swap cash equal to the fair market value of a trust asset. That would remove the particular asset, e.g. interest in a family business, from the trust for cash with no income tax consequences. The settlor could then devise a new plan to deal with the family business in light of law or other changes.

Consider including a tax reimbursement provision in the trust if feasible. This would permit (but not mandate) the trustee of an irrevocable grantor trust to reimburse the settlor for income taxes the trust settlor may pay on trust income. That provides a mechanism to remove value from the trust and possibly address shifting tax dynamics.

Trusts could include broad authority to hold personal use assets. This may provide flexibility to control assets in the trust and even the amount of appreciation inside a trust.

Include broad decanting (merger) provisions so that administrative and perhaps other provisions in the trust might be modified to adjust to change. Even though many state laws include such provisions it may be advantageous to have this included in the event that the provisions included are broader or more readily executed than what state law might provide.

Providing for a mechanism to unwind the plan, such as a disclaimer. For example, a person may be named as the primary beneficiary of the trust and given the authority to disclaim on behalf of the entire trust, assets given to the trust. That might provide a nine-month window in which to unwind a transaction done now to lock in tax benefits in case the plan turns out not to be desirable, after-tax law changes are known.

Providing for a mechanism that could facilitate future inclusion back in the settlor’s estate. This could make sense if the estate tax is eliminated but assets in the estate still are able to receive a basis adjustment. One approach to this may be to add a Code Sec. 2038 Power to a trust, but the question is will that be effective if the estate tax is repealed? That may be unlikely, but what if the clause were automatically triggered if the estate tax was repealed? Would that suffice? Would it help? Consider permitting a named disinterested person, acting in a non-fiduciary capacity, i.e. not a trustee or trust protector (assuming you conclude that a protector will be deemed to be acting in a fiduciary capacity), in his or her absolute discretion, to give the Grantor one or more powers to control the beneficial enjoyment of trust property such that the subject property would thereby become taxable in the Grantor’s gross estate under IRC Section 2038. For instance, the Grantor might be given such a Section 2038 power(s) overall or a specific portion of the trust property (or even specific assets) following a possible repeal of the Federal estate tax and in order to obtain a step-up in basis for appreciated trust property that should be available under the new regime. Consider adding that the trust protector can terminate this power.

Gift Tax Will (May) Remain

Taxpayers often assume that the gift tax was enacted to backstop the estate tax. After all, if you can gift away all of your assets before you die there won’t be much for the estate tax to reach. That is true, but the gift tax is also a backstop for the income tax. If there were no gift tax you could gift appreciated assets to low tax family members or friends, they could sell the assets at their lower income tax rates, and then they could gift the net proceeds back to you. So, even if the estate tax is repealed the gift tax might remain.

The gift tax rate would be reduced to 35% and the exemption would remain $10 million inflation adjusted (about $14 million in 2025 and more in future years).

For the vast majority of taxpayers this might suggest that income shifting can be intentionally practiced as these high exemption levels are well beyond the wealth levels of most people. But as explained in the introduction above, wealthy taxpayers have had and likely will have an array of financial and tax strategies to access wealth without necessarily triggering income taxes.

But in the post-repeal world the calculus of planning may change. Gifts will continue to have the donor’s income tax basis (carryover basis). That means if the donee sells the assets, gain and income tax will be triggered. However, if in contrast to current law, and this gift tax rule, assets transferred on death might receive a step-up in income tax basis but perhaps face no estate tax, the better wealth transfer approach, leaving aside asset protection concerns, may prove to be retaining all assets until death rather than make lifetime gifts of them.

Should You Transfer Assets To A Grantor Trust?

A grantor trust is a trust that is ignored for income tax purposes and you as the settlor creating such a trust would generally pay the income tax on income earned by the trust. If these trusts are disregarded for income tax purposes after estate tax repeal, transfers to them may not be treated as taxable gifts since there is no means to use them to lower the gift tax. If that is the case, might it make sense if repeal occurs and transfers to disregarded grantor trusts don’t constitute gifts, to shift much of your wealth into an irrevocable trust that is both protected from creditors and divorce, but which might remain outside the transfer tax system if the Democrats reinstate the estate taxes in future years? Maybe.

An issue with the above plan is that if the estate and GST taxes are eliminated it may not be possible to make the trust exempt from future GST taxes. So, if you shift wealth gift tax free to a grantor trust, but the Democrats reinstate the estate tax, that trust might not be able to keep the assets outside the transfer tax system long term, or potentially at all. That by the way, however odd it sounds in light of even a possibility of the repeal of the estate and GST taxes, to structure traditional planning to shift large amounts of wealth (and/or freeze the value on large amounts of wealth) to irrevocable grantor trusts while you can with certainty under current law allocate GST exemption to those trusts and perhaps keep them outside the transfer tax system in perpetuity. Not perhaps intuitive, but perhaps worthwhile.

If repeal is enacted and gifts remain taxable to avoid income tax shifting, would therefore transfers to grantor trusts not trigger use of gift tax exemption as there could be no gain shifting? Or might that exception not be carved out? If it is not addressed then transfers to grantor trusts could only be made up to the remaining exemption amount. That still may be a planning opportunity for most taxpayers as asset protection benefits could be secured to that level without gift tax worries. If transfers to grantor trusts are exempted, very wealthy people can shift unlimited (from a transfer tax perspective) wealth into protected trusts, only limited by their personal financial needs and concerns over avoiding a fraudulent conveyance. Further, if the estate tax is reinstated in the future then perhaps those assets may be outside the estate. Or would they? The assets in that trust could not be GST exempt because if the GST tax is repealed how could there be an allocation of GST exemption to the trust? It would seem that would not be possible.

What Happens With State Estate Taxes?

Several states still maintain state estate taxes, but if the federal estate tax is repealed, it may be impractical for states to administer their estate taxes. State taxation often is patterned after and based on federal estate taxes. At minimum, if state estate tax laws refer to federal estate tax laws that have been repealed the state estate taxes may be ineffective unless the statutes are amended to provide that they are based on the federal estate tax rules just prior to repeal. Some state statutes may remain fully effective based on how they are presently crafted. But even apart from technicalities, if there is no federal estate tax will states find the administration of an estate tax too costly or burdensome to maintain? The bottom line is that if you live in a state with an estate tax or own assets that could be subject to a state’s estate tax (e.g., real estate in New York even if you live in Texas which has no estate tax) you really need to meet with your advisers to monitor the situation as it progresses, determine if any action might be beneficial before the law changes, and once the law changes reassess again. Yes, even if that sounds like an annuity for your estate planning attorney, it may be worthwhile. And think of the bonding opportunities those repeat visits might afford you both.

Qualified Domestic Trusts

If your spouse is a U.S. citizen you can make an unlimited gift or bequest to them and avoid any current estate tax. These transfers can be made to trusts, such as qualified terminable interest property trust which can be relatively simple and inexpensive to create and also defer estate tax on unlimited wealth. If your spouse is not a citizen a special trust called a qualified domestic trust must be used, and it creates more cost and complexity. In particular, when principal distributions are made tax must be withheld. If a spouse dies leaving assets to a QDOT for the benefit of a non-citizen spouse, that tax will continue to have to be paid for 10 years after repeal. Then presumably the tax will no longer apply, and the surviving spouse beneficiaries may wish to decant or reform those trusts to eliminate some of the restrictions that may not have been desired but for the tax requirements.

Portability

Portability is a benefit the tax laws give to the surviving spouse to preserve the unused estate tax exemption of their deceased spouse. For example, if the husband dies in 2025 and the wife survives and all of his assets were simply given to the surviving wife (so none of his estate tax exemption was used) she can qualify to retain his $13,990,000 exemption to use in future years. This is referred to as the Deceased Spouse Unused Exemption. If estate tax repeal happens, what will that mean to the tax concept of portability? Since there will be no estate tax there can be no portable exemption. But it may not be that simple. Many advisers believe that if the Democrats gain control in Washington in a future year they will reinstate the estate tax (or a wealth tax). If they do, what happens to those spouses that died from the date of repeal to the date of reinstatement? Let’s say the estate tax is repealed in 2025 and your spouse dies in 2026. There is no portable exemption or DSUE. But if the estate tax is reinstated in 2030 and then you die, you won’t have the benefit of your deceased spouse’s unused exemption as those who died before repeal may have. Will reinstatement address this? There is no way to predict.

Conclusion

Estate tax repeal may just happen this go-round. But taxpayers might still benefit from continued, but perhaps more flexible, planning. If repeal occurs attention will have to be paid to the details of what is actually done. There is a wide range of possible scenarios any of which might ultimately occur. Importantly, everyone should review the estate plans after repeal or whatever other tax legislation occurs and confirm that their plan and documents still accomplish their goals. There may be many unexpected effects of repeal that might require revision to plans and documents. I will not be as simple that there is no more estate tax so planning is irrelevant.