Estate planning isn’t created equal. Where you establish and administer a trust matters enormously, particularly for high-net-worth (HNW) and ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) clients. Eight states have emerged as the nation’s premier trust jurisdictions: Alaska; Delaware; Nevada; New Hampshire; Ohio; South Dakota; Tennessee; and Wyoming. Each offers distinct advantages in perpetual trust duration, asset protection, tax benefits and privacy. For advisors serving wealthy clients, understanding these differences, and knowing when to bring in specialized legal counsel, can mean the difference between adequate planning and truly exceptional wealth preservation.
The stakes are significant. A properly structured trust in a favorable jurisdiction can protect assets across multiple generations, potentially saving families millions in taxes while shielding wealth from creditors and litigation. A trust established without considering jurisdictional advantages may leave money on the table and expose assets to unnecessary risk.
Perpetuity Matters
The rule against perpetuities (RAP) is one of those law school concepts that make practitioners’ eyes glaze over. But for wealthy families, it has very real consequences. In California and most other states, trusts must terminate within a life in being plus 21 years. This means you can leave assets to your children and perhaps your grandchildren, but the trust eventually must distribute its assets outright, triggering potential estate taxes and exposing wealth to creditors, divorce and poor financial decisions.
The top trust jurisdictions have changed this calculus dramatically. South Dakota became the first state to abolish the RAP entirely in 1983, allowing truly perpetual trusts. Delaware permits perpetual trusts for personal property (though real estate is limited to 110 years). New Hampshire and Ohio also allow perpetual duration. Alaska and Wyoming permit trusts lasting 1,000 years. Nevada allows 365 years and Tennessee permits 360 years.
For a billionaire client, establishing a dynasty trust in Nevada rather than California could mean 365 years of tax-advantaged growth instead of perhaps 90. That family can place $100 million in the trust, and beneficiaries can live off the income for generations without triggering additional transfer taxes. The math becomes compelling quickly.
What most ignore in the very loud debate over which state is most favorable is that it matters very little to the typical American family with assets of far less than $1 million. If I’m worried about which state will allow my trust to be preserved the longest decades from now, it would logically follow that the assets should be large enough to last that long. When a family is just worried about their children receiving the assets (and if there won’t be anything left), it doesn’t matter if the trust could last for one year or 365 years.
Top Jurisdictions
South Dakota has emerged as the dominant force in trust administration, with trust assets growing from $165 billion in 2014 to over $800 billion today. The state offers perpetual duration, no state income tax on trust income, automatic court privacy that seals trust filings permanently and excellent asset protection with only a 2-year statute of limitations for fraudulent transfer claims. South Dakota also permits community property trusts for non-residents seeking a stepped-up basis advantage.
Nevada distinguishes itself through the strongest creditor protection available. Unlike other states, Nevada has no exception creditors whatsoever, meaning even child support and alimony claims likely won’t pierce a properly structured Nevada spendthrift trust if those obligations were unknown when the trust was created. Nevada also imposes no state income tax and offers 365-year trust duration with strong privacy protections.
Delaware brings over 250 years of trust law expertise through its specialized Court of Chancery. The state pioneered directed trust statutes in 1986 and offers a sophisticated judicial infrastructure for complex trust disputes. Delaware permits perpetual trusts for personal property and provides favorable decanting provisions. However, its 4-year fraudulent transfer lookback period is longer than South Dakota or Nevada’s two years.
Alaska holds the distinction of creating the first domestic asset protection trust legislation in 1997 and remains the only state with a favorable Internal Revenue Service (Private Letter Ruling 200944002) confirming that such trust assets may be excluded from the grantor’s estate. Alaska permits 1,000-year trusts and offers an opt-in community property trust for non-residents. The state imposes no income, capital gains or estate taxes on trusts.
Wyoming combines 1,000-year dynasty trusts with the nation’s strongest limited liability company (LLC) protections. As the first state to codify LLCs in 1977, Wyoming provides that charging orders are the exclusive creditor remedy even for single-member LLCs. For clients holding significant assets through business entities, combining Wyoming’s entity law with a South Dakota or Nevada trust creates layered protection.
Ohio offers perpetual trust duration and the nation’s shortest statute of limitations for fraudulent transfers at just 18 months. Tennessee permits 360-year trusts with favorable asset protection provisions. New Hampshire allows perpetual trusts and has no state income tax, though its trust industry infrastructure is less developed than the leading states.
Software Limitations
Here’s where advisors must recognize the boundaries of technology. Estate-planning software can efficiently generate documents and identify planning opportunities, but it can’t advise clients on which state best serves their unique circumstances. That determination requires understanding the client’s complete financial picture, family dynamics, litigation exposure, business interests and long-term objectives.
A client with significant creditor concerns may need Nevada’s unmatched asset protection. A family prioritizing multigenerational privacy might favor South Dakota’s automatic court sealing. An entrepreneur with complex LLC structures could benefit from Wyoming’s entity protections combined with another state’s trust advantages. These decisions require attorney judgment that software simply can’t replicate.
The Advisor’s Role
Advisors working with HNW and UHNW clients shouldn’t ask whether to involve specialized legal counsel, but when. The complexity of selecting optimal trust jurisdictions, structuring dynasty trusts and coordinating with corporate trustees demands expertise that goes beyond standard estate planning.
For example, when advisors identify clients who might benefit from South Dakota’s perpetual trusts, Nevada’s creditor protection or Delaware’s judicial sophistication, they can connect those clients with attorneys who understand the nuances of each jurisdiction. This collaboration ensures clients receive both technological efficiency and specialized legal guidance. Attorneys will often work closely with trust companies that understand how to efficiently and effectively administer trusts in that state.Â
Looking Ahead
The competition among trust-friendly states continues to intensify. Florida recently extended its maximum trust duration from 360 years to 1,000 years. Texas expanded to 300 years in 2021. Oklahoma enacted comprehensive trust reform in 2024. As more states recognize the economic benefits of attracting trust business, the landscape will continue to evolve.
This competitive environment creates both opportunity and responsibility for advisors. Clients with millions of dollars in assets deserve consideration of whether their current trust jurisdiction serves their interests. Those with substantially greater wealth almost certainly warrant a detailed analysis. The combination of smart software tools and knowledgeable attorneys makes that analysis more accessible than ever.
Estate-planning software should provide a financial advisor with three options for ensuring their clients’ estate plans are complete:
-
Get straightforward client estate plans done where there are no generational wealth concerns, disinherited children or other red flags.
-
Use these tools while looping in an estate-planning attorney, either on the front- or back-end, to handle a more complex issue that requires legal guidance.
-
Know when to refer their clients to an attorney, especially if an advisor ever feels like the client is demanding that they provide legal advice and won’t digest any educational materials to make their own choices.
Â
