Heckerling 2026: Why Estate and Trust Administration Has Quietly Become a Procedural Minefield - and How Technology Now Matters

For much of modern trust and estate practice, administration was treated as the quieter cousin of planning. The intellectually demanding work traditionally happened upfront: designing structures, optimizing tax outcomes, drafting instruments to withstand future scrutiny. Administration, by contrast, was viewed as execution. Important, but largely mechanical.

The cumulative message of Heckerling’s session recapping 2025 Recent Developments is that this model no longer holds.

Across federal legislation, IRS guidance, tax cases, procedural developments, and state law trends, a clear theme emerges: estate and trust administration has become one of the highest-risk phases of wealth transfer, not because the rules are new, but because enforcement, permanence, and procedural rigor have fundamentally changed.

What follows is not a summary of recent developments, but an interpretation of what they collectively mean for practitioners, fiduciaries, and the systems they rely on.

1. The End of “Temporary” Planning Has Changed the Stakes of Administration

One of the most consequential shifts highlighted at Heckerling is not a single Code section, but a structural reality: many tax provisions once treated as temporary are now permanent - at least as “permanent” as legislation can be.

Ordinary income tax rates, AMT thresholds, bonus depreciation, QBI, and other core provisions are no longer sunset-driven planning variables. For trusts and estates, already subject to compressed brackets, this permanence fundamentally changes administration.

Distribution decisions are no longer tactical deferrals awaiting a future rate change. They are structural, compounding decisions that affect fiduciaries year after year. Retaining income unnecessarily is no longer a timing mistake; it is a recurring wealth transfer failure.

The implication is simple but profound: every fiduciary year now matters.

Administration can no longer be reactive or minimalist. It must be intentional, repeatable, and documented.

2. Procedural Compliance Has Become Substantive Law

Another dominant theme running through the Heckerling discussion is the collapse of the historical divide between “procedural” and “substantive” errors.

Charitable deductions fail not because the gift was invalid, but because acknowledgments were imperfect. Conservation easements fail not because land lacked value, but because appraisals were flawed. Portability elections fail not because Congress intended harshness, but because returns were incomplete.

Across cases and guidance, courts and the IRS are delivering a consistent message:

Good intent does not excuse technical failure.

For estate and trust administration, this is a critical shift. Fiduciaries have traditionally relied on professional involvement, historical practice, or equitable arguments to soften technical missteps. Heckerling’s recap makes clear that these defenses are weakening.

Administration today requires the same rigor once reserved for planning:

• Elections must be explicit.
• Substantiation must be perfect.
• Valuations must be defensible.
• Filings must assume future audit scrutiny.

This is no longer clerical work. It is legal and tax execution at the highest standard.

3. “Simplified” Filings Are a Dangerous Illusion

Few developments illustrate modern risk better than the evolving treatment of portability.

The Heckerling session reinforced that a “portability-only” Form 706 must be prepared with the same care as a taxable return. Relaxed reporting is not a safe harbor. Omissions are not forgiven. Substantial compliance is increasingly rejected.

The broader lesson extends well beyond portability:

Any administrative filing that preserves future tax value will be examined as if tax were due.

This includes filings affecting:

• Basis consistency
• Loss carryforwards
• QBI attributes
• Charitable deductions
• Elections embedded in income tax returns

Administration teams can no longer treat these filings as secondary or routine. They are planning decisions with deferred consequences - and deferred risk.

4. Procedural Law Is Now Front-Line Fiduciary Risk

The session also highlighted a quiet but significant elevation of tax procedure from background concern to front-line risk.

Late filings, missed deadlines, jurisdictional disputes, equitable tolling arguments, executor personal liability - these are no longer fringe issues. They are recurring fact patterns.

Courts are less deferential to regulations and more focused on statutory text. Agencies may rely more heavily on executive action. The result is a less predictable enforcement environment where process matters as much as position.

For fiduciaries, this means:

• Deadlines must be managed redundantly.
• Documentation of diligence matters.
• “This is how it’s always been done” is no longer a defense.

Estate and trust administration increasingly resembles litigation management: procedurally unforgiving and record-dependent.

5. Fiduciary Risk Now Extends Well Beyond Income Taxes

Perhaps the most under-appreciated theme from Heckerling is how many modern risks fall outside traditional tax analysis altogether.

Foreign account reporting obligations (FBAR) survive death. Corporate Transparency Act beneficial ownership reporting applies to trust-owned entities. Penalties can be civil, criminal, and personal,  - and often have little relationship to tax due.

These regimes operate differently from income taxation. They are disclosure-driven, form-driven, and unforgiving. They often attach based on control, not benefit.

For trustees and executors, this means fiduciary diligence must now include:

• Foreign asset screening
• Entity ownership analysis
• Non-tax reporting obligations

Failure to identify these risks is increasingly framed not as oversight, but as breach.

6. State Law Is No Longer a Passive Backdrop

Finally, the recap session reinforced that state law developments are no longer academic footnotes.

Trust disputes, arbitration clauses, directed trust statutes, no-contest enforcement, and fiduciary standards are evolving unevenly across jurisdictions. Courts are scrutinizing administration decisions through lenses of undue influence, unjust enrichment, and procedural fairness.

For multi-state practices and national fiduciaries, this erodes the safety of uniform assumptions. Jurisdiction matters,  - deeply.

Administration must be state-aware, not template-driven.

The New Reality: Administration Is the Risk Center of the Practice

Taken together, the Heckerling 2025 developments session point to a fundamental reframing:

The greatest risks in modern trust and estate practice arise not at the moment of planning, but during administration.

This is not because planning has become less important, but because:

• Tax rules are permanent rather than temporary
• Enforcement is procedural rather than discretionary
• Compliance regimes are broader and more punitive
• Fiduciary exposure is more personal and more durable

In this environment, excellence in administration is no longer optional it is the defining competency of a modern fiduciary practice.

Why Software Now Matters

These risks can’t be mitigated by expertise alone. Even excellent practitioners get squeezed when administration depends on memory, static checklists, or one-size-fits-all workflows.

That’s where software, done correctly, becomes essential.

Modern estate and trust administration needs systems that are:

• Jurisdictionally aware (state law differences matter)
• Trust-type specific (revocable trusts, QTIPs, SNTs, GST trusts, estates all behave differently)
• Procedurally complete (tasks, deadlines, elections, and documentation tracked together)
• Auditable (decisions recorded, not just made)

When software is built for fiduciary administration (not retrofitted from generic task management), it turns “best practices” into repeatable execution: workflows that adapt based on jurisdiction, entity type, and administration phase, with rules, decision points, deadlines, and dependencies connected in one place.

The result isn’t replacing professional judgment, it’s supporting it, by making procedural rigor the default rather than the exception.

In a world where administrative failure is now a primary source of fiduciary risk, that distinction matters.

‍