How much should he have left them for it not to be a tax nightmare?
The article says that he had a trust already set up for his family - raising the question why the will didn’t specify turning everything over to the trust.
Zero. Leave it to a trust or foundation. Play the tax game. It costs a bit but can be done.
He should have died six months earlier.
“How much should he have left them for it not to be a tax nightmare?”
It’s not how much he left to whoever, it’s how it’s structured. It seems to me he should have set up some trusts, etc. providing for the wife in her life but having the remainder going to his children, etc. I’m sure something similar could have been done for the sisters.
I’m not a tax or estate atty, but I did work for attys that specialized in this, it’s very complicated and the law is changing all the time.
I’m not sure the daughter’s share is affected by this, but maybe it is.
It’s also unclear why the son was not included in the will as it seems from this report.
I can’t imagine why such a wealthy man wouldn’t have gotten better advice on his estate planning, but maybe he didn’t care about avoiding the taxes, maybe he was a big lib and felt the gov’t should get “their share”, it’s not coming out of his pocket now, but those of his heirs to whom he’s giving a boatload of money no matter the tax hit.
Makes the lawyers look stupid though.
He should have placed it in a trust with them named as beneficiaries...
Then it would have been 0%. It’s what the elites do!