SLAT, ILIT, CRT, CLAT, DAF, and a private foundation are not interchangeable. Each is a distinct legal vehicle, with a distinct sponsor / trustee / fiduciary architecture, a distinct tax treatment, a distinct charitable-vs-family beneficiary calculus, and a distinct administrative cost curve that compounds annually. The wealth-advisor's job in 2026 is not to memorize the acronyms — it's to walk a $5M-to-$50M client through a structured decision tree, with AI-extracted facts (Holistiplan tax posture, Wealth.com or FP Alpha estate posture, RightCapital projections) feeding a Reg BI-defensible recommendation memo, a clean attorney handoff, and a one-page client decision summary. This lesson is the decision tree and the workflow that turns it into a defensible 2026 estate strategy.

Why an Advisor Decision Tree, Not an Attorney Recommendation

An estate attorney drafts the document. An advisor frames the decision. In a 200-household practice, the advisor sees the household-level facts first — appreciated stock pre-sale, the 2025/2026 estate-tax-exclusion sunset, charitable orientation, GST planning, illiquid asset gifting — and recognizes which vehicle category the situation calls for before the attorney is engaged. The Reg BI Care Obligation under §240.15l-1(a)(2)(ii) requires the advisor's recommendation to rest on documented consideration of reasonably available alternatives; a six-vehicle decision tree is that documentation made structural. The advisor's deliverable is a recommendation memo (vehicle category, rationale, alternatives considered), an attorney-handoff brief (facts, planning objectives, suggested vehicle, decision points the attorney owns), and a client decision summary (one-page plain-English version that walks the household through the choice).

The "not legal advice" disclosure is non-negotiable on every vehicle recommendation that touches drafting. The advisor frames; the attorney drafts; the client signs. AI helps the advisor frame faster — extracting facts from the prior estate plan via Wealth.com or FP Alpha, projecting tax outcomes via RightCapital or eMoney, drafting the attorney-handoff brief and the client decision summary via the firm's locked system prompts (L3 Ch9.1 personas). AI does not replace attorney drafting; the workflow keeps the lanes clear under Reg BI and the CFP Code.

The Six-Vehicle Decision Tree

SLAT — Spousal Lifetime Access Trust

An irrevocable trust created by one spouse (grantor) for the benefit of the other spouse (and typically descendants), funded with the grantor's lifetime gift-tax exemption. The grantor uses exemption now (before the 2025/2026 sunset cuts it roughly in half), removes the asset and future appreciation from the gross estate, and the beneficiary-spouse retains indirect access via distributions during the marriage. When to use: married couples with combined net worth above the post-sunset exclusion threshold (currently $13.61M / $13.99M per person inflation-adjusted; post-sunset roughly $7M per person), who want to use exemption before it shrinks but still need access to the funds. Key risks: reciprocal-trust doctrine if both spouses fund SLATs that look mirror-image (use staggered timing, different beneficiaries, different trustee identities, different distribution standards); loss of beneficiary access on divorce or death of beneficiary spouse. The advisor's decision-tree node: "Is the household above the post-sunset exclusion, and is at least one spouse willing to give up direct ownership of significant assets?"

ILIT — Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust

An irrevocable trust that owns a life insurance policy, with the death benefit removed from the insured's gross estate. Funded by annual gift-tax-exclusion contributions (Crummey notice mechanics) or by larger lifetime exemption gifts. When to use: estates approaching or exceeding the federal estate-tax threshold where a life insurance death benefit would otherwise push the estate further over the line; closely-held business owners using life insurance for liquidity to pay estate tax or fund buy-sell agreements; high-net-worth households layering ILIT-held policies for legacy planning. Key complexity: the three-year lookback under IRC §2035 if the insured transferred an existing policy (premium-payment trail matters); Crummey-notice administration; ongoing premium funding via annual gifting. The advisor's decision-tree node: "Does the household need life insurance for estate liquidity, business continuation, or legacy, and is the estate large enough that the death benefit's tax-exclusion matters?"

CRT — Charitable Remainder Trust

An irrevocable split-interest trust paying an income stream to non-charitable beneficiaries (typically the grantor and/or spouse) for a term of years or for life, with the remainder passing to one or more charities. Two variants: CRAT (Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust — fixed annual payment) and CRUT (Charitable Remainder Unitrust — fixed percentage of trust assets recalculated annually). When to use: appreciated low-basis assets pre-sale (the CRT sells without immediate capital-gain recognition because the trust itself is tax-exempt under §664), business-sale pre-funding (a CRT funded pre-binding with company stock before a sale defers/eliminates capital-gain recognition by the grantor), retirement-income substitute with charitable intent. The grantor receives a current-year charitable deduction equal to the present value of the remainder interest (subject to AGI limitations under §170). The advisor's decision-tree node: "Does the household have appreciated low-basis assets, charitable intent, and want an income stream for life or term?"

CLAT — Charitable Lead Annuity Trust

The mirror of a CRT — pays an annuity stream to charity for a term, with the remainder passing to non-charitable beneficiaries (typically children or grandchildren). When to use: low-interest-rate environments (lower §7520 rates produce lower remainder values, hence lower gift-tax cost), households wanting to fulfill charitable pledges over time while transferring wealth to descendants, "zeroed-out" CLATs structured to produce near-zero remainder value for gift-tax purposes while transferring the trust's eventual investment outperformance to heirs tax-free. Two grantor-vs-non-grantor variants matter — a grantor CLAT gives the grantor an upfront income-tax charitable deduction but taxes trust income to the grantor each year; a non-grantor CLAT does not give the upfront deduction but separates the trust's tax liability. The advisor's decision-tree node: "Does the household want to combine charitable giving with wealth transfer to the next generation, and can it tolerate the term commitment?"

DAF — Donor-Advised Fund

A charitable giving account held at a sponsoring 501(c)(3) (Schwab Charitable, Fidelity Charitable, Vanguard Charitable, American Endowment Foundation, community foundations, ImpactAssets for impact-oriented donors). The donor receives an immediate charitable deduction in the year of contribution, the asset grows tax-free in the DAF, and the donor recommends grants to qualified charities over time. When to use: charitable bunching strategy (cluster multiple years of giving into one tax year to clear the standard deduction threshold), appreciated stock giving (avoid capital-gain recognition + receive deduction at FMV up to AGI limits under §170(b)), simple no-administrative-burden charitable strategy for clients without operational appetite for private foundation overhead. The DAF is the workhorse charitable vehicle for HNW households below the $5M-$10M charitable-asset threshold where a private foundation becomes attractive. The advisor's decision-tree node: "Does the household want simple, tax-efficient, flexible charitable giving without the administrative cost of a foundation?"

Private Foundation

A standalone tax-exempt 501(c)(3) entity controlled by the donor family. Higher administrative cost (annual Form 990-PF filing, 5% annual minimum distribution requirement, excise tax on net investment income under IRC §4940 (reduced from 2% to 1.39% under the 2019 SECURE Act), self-dealing prohibitions under §4941, jeopardizing investments under §4944), but higher control (family governance, multi-generational legacy, employment of family members in legitimate foundation roles). When to use: HNW or UHNW households with $10M+ committed charitable assets, multi-generational family legacy goals, desire for direct grantmaking with family member involvement, or charitable activities (operating foundations) beyond pure grant distribution. AGI deduction limits are lower for private foundations than for public charities / DAFs (30% AGI for cash to PF vs 60% to public charities; 20% AGI for appreciated stock to PF vs 30% to public charities under §170(b)). The advisor's decision-tree node: "Does the household have $10M+ to commit charitably, want family-controlled grantmaking, and accept the administrative overhead and lower deduction limits?"

The Decision Tree Walked End-to-End

The structured advisor question chain for a $15M-$30M household exploring estate vehicles:

1. Is total household net worth above the post-sunset federal estate-tax exclusion (roughly $7M per person if sunset proceeds as currently legislated)? If yes, exemption-using vehicles (SLAT, ILIT funded with lifetime gifting) are on the table. If no, skip to charitable-only branches (DAF / CRT for income, foundation only if family legacy goal).
2. Is there charitable intent? If yes, the charitable vehicle branches (CRT, CLAT, DAF, foundation) are in scope. If no, skip charitable branches and focus on family-only vehicles (SLAT, ILIT, GRAT, dynasty trust).
3. Are there appreciated low-basis assets pending sale (concentrated stock, business interest, real estate)? If yes, CRT funding pre-sale or DAF appreciated-stock contribution is high-leverage. If no, skip to cash/marketable charitable strategies.
4. Is there a multi-generational family-legacy goal with family governance? If yes, a private foundation is worth the overhead. If no, a DAF is almost always the better default.
5. Is there a life insurance need (estate liquidity, business continuation, legacy)? If yes, ILIT is the vehicle. If no, skip.
6. What's the income-stream need? If retirement income substitute is part of the picture, CRT is in scope (CRUT for inflation hedge, CRAT for predictable payment). If pure wealth transfer, CLAT is in scope (especially in low-§7520-rate environments).

The advisor's recommendation memo names the answer for each node, the vehicle (or combination) recommended, the rationale under Reg BI Care Obligation, the alternatives considered and rejected, the attorney handoff, and the next-step list (engagement letter with estate counsel, draft document review, funding and titling). The Smarsh / Global Relay archive picks up the memo under Rule 4511 / SEC Rule 204-2.

The AI-Assisted Workflow End-to-End

For a HNW client engagement that surfaces vehicle decisions, the workflow:

1. Holistiplan extracts the 1040 — AGI, MAGI, charitable carryforward, prior-year giving pattern, AMT exposure if relevant.
2. Wealth.com or FP Alpha extracts the existing estate plan — current trust structures, beneficiary designations, prior gifting via Form 709 if available, GST allocations.
3. RightCapital or eMoney projects scenarios — exclusion-use scenarios (SLAT now vs wait), CRT income-stream modeling, projected gift-tax impact of CLAT funding, donor-advised-fund vs foundation NPV comparison over a 10-year giving horizon.
4. The locked CCO persona (L3 Ch9.1) reviews the advisor's draft recommendation memo for Marketing Rule trips, ESG-claim risks (if values-aligned investing is part of the conversation per L3 Ch8), and "not legal advice" disclosure presence.
5. The recommendation memo follows the Reg BI 6-component template (recommendation, alternatives considered, costs comparison, client-specific rationale, registered-person signoff, retention chain).
6. The attorney handoff brief includes the household facts, the recommended vehicle category, the decision points the attorney owns, and an explicit "not legal advice" disclosure on the advisor's portion.
7. The client decision summary is the one-page plain-English version that walks the household through the decision, the vehicle's mechanics, and the next steps — drafted with the firm's house voice (L2 Ch8.1 system prompts).
8. The retention chain — prompts, extracted-document outputs, projection outputs, draft and final memos, advisor edits, signoff — flows to Smarsh / Global Relay under Rule 4511 / SEC Rule 204-2 (L3 Ch10.1 archive pipeline).

Reg BI Care Obligation Anchor

The §240.15l-1(a)(2)(ii) framing demands reasonable diligence, care, and skill to understand the recommendation's risks, rewards, and costs and to consider reasonably available alternatives. For an estate-vehicle recommendation, the alternatives are the six vehicles above plus the null option (do nothing, defer, fund existing structures). The documented consideration must address: which vehicle category fits the household's stated facts, which alternatives were ruled out and why, the costs (legal drafting, ongoing administration, tax cost of acceleration), the client-specific rationale (why THIS household, given THEIR stated values and constraints), and the registered-person signoff. The 2025-2026 FINRA AWC pattern on inadequate documentation extends conceptually to estate-vehicle recommendations even where the advisor's role is framing rather than drafting — the file must show the alternatives consideration regardless.

Reg BI Meets the Marketing Rule for Estate Strategy

When the firm publishes content describing its estate-planning capability — case studies, blog posts, third-party rankings cited in advertising, client testimonials in the L4 Ch7.2 testimonial workflow — Marketing Rule 206(4)-1 applies. The January 2026 SEC staff FAQs on testimonials, endorsements, third-party ratings, and hypothetical performance tighten the disclosure standard. Any AI-summarized case study, any "we helped a client save $4M in estate tax" framing, any retrospective scenario illustration must satisfy the "clear and prominent" disclosure standard and the performance-presentation rules in 206(4)-1(d). The L4 Ch7 Marketing Rule strategy chapter develops the workflow; the relevant point in this lesson is that AI-drafted estate-planning marketing content is the highest-volume Marketing Rule production surface in many HNW-focused RIAs and the locked CCO persona must catch the trips.

Cross-References to the Rest of the Program

This decision tree pulls from and feeds into:

• L2 Ch4.3 (Trust + Will Five Gaps) — the estate-gap audit surfaces the conditions that trigger the vehicle decision.
• L3 Ch2 (Roth conversion season) — Roth conversion can interact with the SLAT funding decision (depleting pre-tax IRA before exemption-using gifting changes the gift-tax base).
• L3 Ch6.4 (Business sale planning) — CRT pre-funding before a binding sale agreement and QSBS post-OBBBA dual-regime stacking change the pre-sale calculus.
• L3 Ch10.2 (Prompt retention + pre-use review) — the principal review of AI-drafted estate strategy content.
• L4 Ch7 (Marketing Rule strategy) — testimonial and third-party rating mechanics for HNW estate-planning marketing.
• L5 Ch7.5 (Trust accounting + Form 1041) — UPIA/UPAIA principal-vs-income, K-1 DNI timing for the trustee-advisor.

Key Takeaways

• Six vehicles, six distinct decision-tree nodes: SLAT (exemption use + spouse access), ILIT (life insurance + estate liquidity), CRT (income stream + appreciated-asset sale), CLAT (charitable lead + wealth transfer to heirs, sensitive to §7520 rate), DAF (workhorse simple-charitable below $10M committed), private foundation ($10M+ committed + family legacy + administrative overhead).
• The advisor frames; the attorney drafts; the client signs. AI helps the advisor frame faster — Holistiplan, Wealth.com, FP Alpha, RightCapital, eMoney inputs; locked CCO persona reviews under Marketing Rule discipline; firm house voice for client summary. AI does not replace attorney drafting.
• The 2025/2026 estate-tax-exclusion sunset is the SLAT pressure point — using exemption before it shrinks roughly in half is the current planning conversation for $15M-$30M households.
• The decision tree walked sequentially: net-worth threshold → charitable intent → appreciated low-basis assets → family-legacy goal → life insurance need → income-stream vs wealth-transfer preference.
• Reg BI Care Obligation §240.15l-1(a)(2)(ii) requires documented alternatives consideration; the six-vehicle decision tree is the documentation made structural. The 2025-2026 FINRA AWC pattern on inadequate documentation extends conceptually to estate-vehicle recommendations.
• Marketing Rule 206(4)-1 governs AI-drafted estate-planning marketing content; the January 2026 SEC staff FAQs tighten the testimonial / third-party rating / hypothetical performance standards.
• The "not legal advice" disclosure is non-negotiable on every advisor recommendation that touches drafting. The attorney handoff brief and client decision summary both carry it.
• Cross-references: L2 Ch4.3 estate gap audit; L3 Ch2 Roth conversion timing; L3 Ch6.4 business sale planning with QSBS post-OBBBA dual regime + CRT pre-funding; L3 Ch10.2 principal review; L4 Ch7 Marketing Rule strategy; L5 Ch7.5 trust accounting.