One of the most important provisions in a will is the tax allocation clause, which allocates a decedent’s estate or inheritance tax burden among the estate beneficiaries by specifying the source or fund from which the death taxes are to be paid. The allocation of taxes among beneficiaries of an estate is generally governed by the terms of a testator’s will, a non testamentary instrument passing non probate property or the default rules under applicable state law. Despite the importance of tax allocation clauses, which can dramatically alter the dispositive provisions of a client’s estate plan, many practitioners rely on general “boilerplate” tax clause provisions for all clients without fully examining the impact that such clauses have on the plan. Generally, a tax clause contained in a will charges the estate’s tax burden to the residuary estate or apportions the tax burden among the estate beneficiaries in proportion to their share of the estate tax liability. Often, a “boilerplate” tax allocation clause commonly found in wills charges the testator’s residuary estate under the will with the burden of all taxes imposed on both probate and non-probate property. An example where a tax allocation clause resulted in a presumably unintended result involved the estate of Charles Kuralt. His 1994 will provided that all estate, inheritance and other death taxes imposed by reason of death would be paid, without apportionment, by his residuary estate. The residuary beneficiaries included his surviving spouse and two children. Shortly before his death, he prepared a handwritten codicil (which was ultimately admitted to probate) that devised his Montana ranch to his longtime companion. Since the terms of Kuralt’s will provided that the taxes were to be paid from the residuary estate, the residuary beneficiaries (his wife and kids) bore responsibility for payment of taxes attributable to the property that passed to the companion.