Nevada does not impose income taxes or gift, estate, inheritance, or generation-skipping transfer taxes.

Not applicable within this jurisdiction.

Not applicable within this jurisdiction.

Nevada is an ideal state for both pre-immigration and exit planning. Nevada has no state income, gift, estate, inheritance, or generation-skipping transfer taxes, and is among the top jurisdictions for trusts. Those looking to immigrate to the United States can establish trusts in Nevada and take advantage of the wide variety of trust options as well as eliminating income taxes.

As to exit planning, clients regularly establish Nevada as their tax residency prior to exiting the US to minimise applicable income taxes. Moreover, with Nevada’s robust statutory framework, those looking to exit the US can establish trusts with provisions minimising taxes while allowing for fluid movement anywhere in the world.

Nevada has a cap on real estate property taxes of 3% for the primary home of a resident of the state. There is no other differential tax treatment for real estate owned by non-residents and non-citizens in Nevada. Generally, Nevada imposes property taxes and transfer taxes in the same manner for non-residents and non-citizens as are applied to residents and citizens.

Nevada has never imposed income taxes or gift, estate, inheritance, or generation-skipping transfer taxes. Any attempts to introduce these types of taxes have been repeatedly rejected. Nevada produces significant gaming revenues and relies on gaming revenues, mining operations, sales taxes, property taxes, and business taxes to fund its operations.

Not applicable within this jurisdiction.

Nevada is often considered a melting pot in terms of culture – particularly in urban areas such as Las Vegas and Reno. Its diverse population reflects a blend of ethnicities, nationalities and traditions, shaped by factors such as tourism and hospitality, a large immigrant population, a transient population, and notable Native American influence.

Not applicable within this jurisdiction.

Not applicable within this jurisdiction.

Nevada is a community property state. All assets and property interests acquired and/or earned during a marriage are presumed to be community property, meaning that each spouse has an equal and undivided interest in said property. Generally, one spouse cannot sell community property without the other spouse’s consent.

Premarital agreements are enforceable in Nevada. Premarital agreements are governed by the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act under NRS Chapter 123A.

In order to establish a valid and enforceable premarital agreement, the agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties before marriage; both individuals must sign freely, without duress, coercion, misrepresentation or undue pressure; before signing, each party must receive a fair and reasonable disclosure of the other’s assets, liabilities and financial obligations; the agreement must not be unconscionable at the time of signature (ie, it must not be extremely one-sided or unfair); and each party is advised to have independent legal counsel.

There is no effect on cost basis for lifetime transfers of property in Nevada. Pursuant to federal law, in most circumstances, an individual’s interest in property receives a stepped-up cost basis to the fair market value of said property as of the individual’s death. Because Nevada is a community property state, any property that a married couple owns as community property at death will receive a stepped-up cost basis in the entirety of the property at the first spouse’s death, including a stepped-up cost basis in the surviving spouse’s interest in the property.

Nevada leads the nation when it comes to estate planning, setting the standard for other states to follow. Its robust statutory framework and favourable case law have positioned the state as the premier jurisdiction for ironclad generational wealth protection in the US.

Key advantages that make Nevada a top choice for long-term estate planning and wealth preservation include the following.

• Extended trust duration – Nevada allows trusts to last up to 365 years, permitting long-term preservation and management of wealth across multiple generations.
• Significant tax-planning benefits – Nevada trusts can be structured to take full advantage of federal gift, estate, and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemptions. Properly established Nevada Dynasty Trusts may eliminate the application of these taxes for future generations, allowing beneficiaries to inherit assets free of transfer tax liabilities.
• No state income tax on trusts – Nevada is one of the few states with no state income tax. Trusts domiciled and administered entirely in Nevada may circumvent state income taxation altogether.
• Flexibility in trust administration – progressive trust laws in Nevada allow for modifications to the administrative provisions of irrevocable trusts, providing the flexibility to adapt to future changes in tax laws and other legal developments.
• Superior creditor protection – some of the strongest asset-protection laws in the country are offered by the state of Nevada. Its legal precedent supports upholding trusts against creditor claims, helping to shield wealth for the benefit of future generations.

The succession of digital assets is typically governed and approved by the probate courts in Nevada. However, Nevada law also provides certain mechanisms for transfer on death by operation of law that can help pass digital assets to heirs outside of the probate court’s purview.

Common types of trusts used for tax and estate planning purposes in Nevada include the following.

• The Revocable Living Trust – primarily established for probate court avoidance and future generational planning.
• The Self-Settled Spendthrift Trust (also known as the Nevada Asset Protection Trust) – primarily established for creditor-protection purposes to shield assets from an individual’s creditors during their lifetime.
• The Dynasty Trust – mainly established to take advantage of federal gift, estate and generation-skipping-transfer tax benefits in a manner that can help limit tax liabilities, sometimes eliminating them. With a Nevada Dynasty Trust, assets that are subject to federal gift, estate and GST taxation (or application of the federal estate tax lifetime exemption) initially upon transfer to a trust can eliminate application of said taxes for future generations if a trust is properly structured, allowing many generations to enjoy gifted assets inheritance tax free.
• Private foundations – Nevada statutes create significant flexibility relating to the establishment and governing provisions private foundations. Further, Nevada’s governmental involvement and oversight of private foundations is minimal.
• Charitable trusts – Nevada’s statutes allow charitable trusts, such as charitable remainder and charitable lead trusts, to be designed with unmatched flexibility.

Nevada leads the nation when it comes to estate planning, setting the standard for other states to follow. Its robust statutory framework and favourable case law have positioned the state as the premier jurisdiction for ironclad generational wealth protection in the US.

Key advantages that make Nevada a top choice for long-term estate planning and wealth preservation include the following.

• Extended trust duration – Nevada allows trusts to last up to 365 years, permitting long-term preservation and management of wealth across multiple generations.
• Significant tax-planning benefits – Nevada trusts can be structured to take full advantage of federal gift, estate, and GST tax exemptions. Properly established Nevada Dynasty Trusts may eliminate the application of these taxes for future generations, allowing beneficiaries to inherit assets free of transfer tax liabilities.
• No state income tax on trusts – Nevada is one of the few states with no state income tax. Trusts domiciled and administered entirely in Nevada may circumvent state income taxation altogether.
• Flexibility in trust administration – progressive trust laws in Nevada allow for modifications to the administrative provisions of irrevocable trusts, providing the flexibility to adapt to future changes in tax laws and other legal developments.
• Superior creditor protection – some of the strongest asset-protection laws in the country are offered by the state of Nevada. Its legal precedent supports upholding trusts against creditor claims, helping to shield wealth for the benefit of future generations.
• Trust modification – Nevada law allows for the modification of irrevocable trusts through multiple different mechanisms, including modification/reformation through court approval, modification by way of non-judicial settlement among parties interested in the trust, and via a process called “decanting,” through which a trustee with discretion or authority to distribute trust income or principal to or for a beneficiary of the trust may exercise such discretion or authority by appointing the property subject to such discretion or authority in favour of a second trust – provided that the second trust may only have as beneficiaries one or more of the beneficiaries of the original trust to or for whom a distribution of income or principal may be made from the original trust.

As Nevada does not impose an income tax, estate tax, gift tax, or inheritance tax, any trust, foundation, or similar entity structure established within or outside Nevada does not generally impose additional tax burdens. Indeed, under some circumstances, a Trust established in Nevada can avoid income taxation arising from other jurisdictions, both within and outside of the US.

Nevada does not impose state income taxes on trusts, fiduciaries, or beneficiaries. Generally, any ultimate income tax consequences to a fiduciary or beneficiary will be governed by the terms of the trust along with the jurisdiction in which the fiduciary or beneficiary resides. Removing the state income tax burden allows for unique income tax planning for non-residents and, properly drafted, can reduce or even eliminate income taxes imposed by other jurisdictions. Notably, however, if the fiduciary or beneficiary resides in Nevada, there are state imposed income tax burdens that would apply.

Nevada law provides for the creation of Self-Settled Spendthrift Trusts (also known as the Nevada Asset Protection Trusts), which are primarily established for creditor-protection purposes to shield assets from an individual’s creditors during their lifetime.

Moreover, Nevada’s laws provide robust asset protection for properly drafted third-party spendthrift trusts (ie, a spendthrift trust established and funded by a third party, such as a parent establishing a spendthrift trust for a child). Nevada’s laws allow for significant flexibility without losing asset protection.

In addition, Nevada law provides protection for business owners through various types of entities, such as limited liability companies, corporations, limited partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships (LLLPs), restricted limited liability companies, etc.

A well-designed structure that incorporates self-settled spendthrift trusts, third-party spendthrift trusts, and limited liability business entities can provide maximum asset protection.

Dynasty Trust planning is the most popular tool for passing wealth and control from generation to generation. Dynasty Trusts are primarily established to take advantage of federal gift, estate and generation-skipping transfer-tax benefits in a manner that can help limit tax liabilities, sometimes eliminating them. With a Nevada Dynasty Trust, assets that are subject to federal gift, estate and generation-skipping transfer taxation (or application of the federal estate tax lifetime exemption) initially upon transfer to a trust can eliminate application of said taxes for future generations if a trust is properly structured, allowing many generations to enjoy gifted assets inheritance-tax free. Dynasty Trusts can also be designed to layer control in almost unlimited ways, through trusteeship, trust protectors and trust advisors. These layers can include third parties who can mediate family disputes and/or modify trust dispositive provisions, including dividing trusts, limiting problem beneficiary’s access and eliminating a beneficiary’s rights to force distributions.

Nevada’s laws allow for incredible flexibility in creating interests that are subject to conditions that allow for maximum discounts on lack of marketability and control. Nevada’s corporate statutes have been designed to allow for multiple types of restrictions to be built into interests, including restricted limited-liability companies, allowing for voting and non-voting interests, and delayed or conditional vesting of interests.

Nevada’s attractive estate, trust, family offices and creditor-protection laws have increased trust-related disputes, which include, but are not limited to, the following.

• Validity of estate planning documents – disputes may arise due to questions surrounding a settlor’s capacity, susceptibility to undue influence, fraud or mistake.
• Unclear terms – unclear or ambiguous language contained within estate planning documents can lead to disputes regarding interpretation of said documents.
• Failure to communicate – communication between a fiduciary and beneficiaries is key, and failure to communicate clearly, including failing to account for or produce other necessary documentation and information may lead to disputes.
• Estate plan does not achieve intended goal – potential flaws in planning may lead to disputes.

Such disputes can be resolved informally through a non-judicial settlement agreement prior to the initiation of litigation; however, if a resolution is not reached it often results in formal litigation that is ultimately ruled upon by a district court judge or, in some circumstances, an arbitrator.

Nevada law recognises different types of damages that can be awarded in wealth disputes or disputes involving trusts, foundations or similar entities, as follows.

• Compensatory damages – type of monetary award intended to compensate a party for losses incurred as a result of another party’s wrongful conduct. Compensatory damages are intended to restore the injured party to their pre-injury state by covering actual expenses and losses.
• Punitive damages – to punish and deter egregious or malicious behaviour and deter a party (and others) from engaging in similar misconduct in the future. Nevada law imposes caps on punitive damages in most cases. Specifically, if compensatory damages are USD100,000 or more, punitive damages are limited to three times the compensatory damages, and if compensatory damages are less than USD100,000, punitive damages are capped at USD300,000.
• Equitable remedies – it is also common in wealth disputes for remedies beyond monetary compensation to be sought and granted, including:

1. injunctions – an order precluding a fiduciary from taking specific actions;
2. disgorgement of fees – compelling a fiduciary to return a fee allowed under the estate planning document or law;
3. rescission of documents or actions – rescinding estate planning documents or actions undertaken by a fiduciary;
4. accounting – requiring a complete accounting from a fiduciary for any and all actions undertaken; or
5. removal of a fiduciary – sometimes the actions of a fiduciary are so severe it warrants the removal of a fiduciary.

The use of corporate fiduciaries is common in Nevada, with the number of such entities growing each year. While no statute or case law explicitly imposes a heightened standard of conduct on corporate fiduciaries, Nevada trial courts often subject their exercise of discretion to greater scrutiny than that of individual fiduciaries.

Under Nevada law (NRS 163.004), a trust instrument may limit a trustee’s liability, provided the limitation is neither unlawful nor contrary to public policy. To date, the Supreme Court of Nevada has not directly addressed whether the veil of a trust can be pierced. Notably, in Magliarditi v TransFirst Group, Inc., 135 Nev. 681, 450 P.3d (2019) (unpublished), the Court expressly declined to answer a certified question from the US District Court for the District of Nevada regarding whether the alter ego doctrine applies to trusts generally – and to spendthrift trusts in particular.

In 2003, the Nevada Legislature enacted the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (NRS 164.705, et seq) which creates a clear framework for fiduciaries to follow, minimising fiduciary liability. Absent contrary trust terms, it requires a trustee to invest and manage assets with the care, skill, and caution a prudent investor would use, judged in the context of the trust’s overall portfolio and its purposes, terms, and distribution requirements, rather than by evaluating individual investments in isolation; it also imposes a duty to diversify unless the trustee reasonably determines diversification does not serve the trust’s purposes, permits delegation of investment functions, and allows the trustee to consider factors like tax implications and beneficiary circumstances rather than requiring strict adherence to modern portfolio theory optimisation. NRS 164.740 further provides that a trustee who acted in reasonable reliance on the terms of the trust or a court order and determined in good faith to not diversify the investments of a trust is generally immune from liability for investment decisions, even if hindsight shows that a different choice would have performed better.

Moreover, NRS 11.190 was recently amended to confirm there is a two-year statute of limitations for breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims not involving fraud or intentional misrepresentation, running from actual or reasonable discovery.

Unless a trust provides otherwise, Nevada applies the prudent investor rule as the standard for fiduciary investment of assets, codified in NRS 164.705, et seq. This standard requires trustees to invest and manage trust assets with the care, skill and caution that a prudent investor would use, considering the purposes, terms and distribution requirements of the trust. While Nevada’s prudent investor rule reflects many principles of the modern portfolio theory, Nevada’s application is more flexible as trustees may consider non-financial factors, such as tax implications, beneficiary circumstances or ethical considerations, and absolute adherence to statistical optimisation is not required.

In general, to establish residency in Nevada one must be physically present in the state with the intent to indefinitely remain (NRS 10.155). “Indicia of intent” to indefinitely remain in Nevada include, among others, establishing the following there: (i) voter registration; (ii) school attendance; (iii) employment; (iv) a driver’s license; (v) primary residence; (vi) vehicle registration; (vii) funds in Nevada financial institutions, etc. In addition, there are specialised residency requirements that must be met for certain purposes. For example, if being established for: (a) voter registration, one must live in NV for 30 days; (b) to initiate divorce proceedings, one must live in Nevada for six weeks; (c) to obtain in-state tuition at a Nevada university, one must live in NV for at least 12 months prior to matriculation.

There are no expedited means to obtain residency in Nevada.

Special Planning Mechanisms for Adults with Disabilities

Nevada recognises first-party, third-party, and pooled Special Needs Trusts. Nevada also allows trusts to be modified to include Special Needs Trust provisions if not included in the governing trust documents. More information about Nevada Special Needs Trust requirements is located in section F-500 of the Nevada Department of Welfare and Support Services (DWSS) Medical Assistance Manual.

Special Planning Mechanisms for Minors

Nevada has adopted the Uniform Act on Transfer to Minors (NRS Chapter 167), which allows for gifts to minors to be held and managed by a custodian without the need for a formal trust or guardian. It enables the designation of a custodian to manage the property until the minor reaches a specific age, often 21 or 25 in Nevada, as set by the transferor. In addition, assets can be held in trust for the benefit of minors by naming a third-party trustee to manage the assets thereof. Without such planning, the Nevada probate court may require the establishment of the following prior to a distribution from an estate to a minor: (a) a guardianship over the minor; or (b) if the funds are minimal, a minors blocked account under which funds can be deposited.

In Nevada, guardians over a protected person estate and/or person must be appointed via a court proceeding and are subject to ongoing court supervision. See NRS Chapter 159. That said, NRS 449A.454 establishes the priority of default surrogates that may consent to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the absence of a POLST or Healthcare Power of Attorney without a court order.

Nevada has clear statutory provisions allowing for the creation of health care powers of attorney, financial powers of attorney, and related health care directives. The statutory structure also allows for the enforcement of documents executed outside of the state of Nevada. Moreover, in the event an individual is or becomes incapacitated, Nevada’s guardianship courts require such individuals (called “wards”) be represented by counsel prior to any modification of their decision-making.

Nevada’s absence of state income tax, low property tax rates, and sales tax exemptions for services, groceries and prescription medications make it an attractive state for retirees and families focused on long-term financial planning. These savings can be reallocated toward retirement, healthcare or long-term care needs.

In the 2025 Nevada Legislative Session: (i) the Department of Health and Human Services was directed to develop a public education program on long-term care planning; and (ii) the Nevada Supreme Court’s Guardianship Commission was tasked with reviewing the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act and recommending which portions, if any, should be enacted. See NRS Chapter 427A (new section added via AB 461).

In general, adopted children, children born out of wedlock, surrogate children and posthumous children are treated equally to children born within marriage for inheritance purposes as long as parentage is legally established. More specifically:

Adopted Children

“Upon the entry of an order of adoption, the child shall become the legal child of the persons adopting the child, and they shall become the child’s legal parents with all the rights and duties between them of natural parents and legitimate child. By virtue of such adoption the child shall inherit from his or her adoptive parents or their relatives the same as though the child were the legitimate child of such parents, and in case of the death of the child intestate the adoptive parents and their relatives shall inherit the child’s estate as if they had been the child’s natural parents and relatives in fact.” (NRS 127.160).

Children Born Out of Wedlock

Children born out of wedlock have the same inheritance rights as children born within marriage under Nevada’s intestate succession laws, provided paternity or maternity, as applicable, is legally established. Maternity is primarily established via proof of giving birth to the child. Paternity may be established via cohabitation with the mother for six months before the period of conception, by the father openly holding out a minor child as his own in his home, voluntary acknowledgment, genetic testing, etc (NRS 126.051).

Surrogate Children

Nevada explicitly permits gestational surrogacy under NRS 126.500–126.810. “Except as otherwise provided by any other provision of law, unless parental rights are terminated, a parent and child relationship established under NRS 126.500 to 126.810, inclusive, applies for all purposes”. (NRS 126.640). Thus, Surrogate children are entitled to inherit from their legal parent as established by such statutes. Notably, “A donor [of eggs, sperm or embryo] is not a parent of a child conceived by means of assisted reproduction”. (NRS 126.660.)

Posthumous Children

“A posthumous child is deemed living at the death of his or her parent” for purposes of rights of representation (NRS 132.290). It is not yet clear under Nevada law whether this applies only to a posthumously born child, meaning those conceived before but born after a parent’s death, or also a posthumously conceived child, meaning those conceived via assisted reproduction after the death of the donor.

Children Born After Making a Will

“When a child is born after the making of a will by a parent of that child and no provision is made for the child in the will, the child is entitled to the same share in the estate of the testator as if the testator had died intestate” unless it is apparent from the will the parent intended otherwise or apparent that the parent intended to provide for the child via means outside the will (NRS 133.160).

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Nevada since 9 October 2014, when a federal district court judge issued an injunction against Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban, following a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This was codified into law effective 1 July 2017 via amendment to NRS 122.020 (“two persons, regardless of gender, who are at least 18 years of age, not nearer of kin than second cousins or cousins of the half blood, and not having a spouse living, may be joined in marriage”.). In 2020, Nevada voters also approved a constitutional amendment that specifically recognises marriages between couples regardless of gender, making Nevada the first state to enshrine marriage equality in its state constitution.

Nevada has also recognised domestic partnerships since 1 October 2009. See NRS Chapter 122A (Nevada Domestic Partnership Act). Nevada law essentially offers domestic partnerships the same state-level rights, responsibilities, obligations, entitlements and benefits of marriage except that there is no requirement for businesses or governments to provide health benefits to the domestic partners of their employees even if they do so for the spouses of their married employees. Unlike spouses of a marriage, Nevada domestic partners must share a common residence. Otherwise, the requirements for a domestic partnership are similar to the requirements of marriage.

Nevada does not recognise common-law marriage, nor does it grant automatic marital or community property rights to unmarried or cohabitating couples. However, the state has adopted a “community property by analogy” rule (following California’s Marvin v Marvin) according to which courts will divide property between unmarried cohabitants where there is an express or implied agreement to acquire and hold property as if married – pooling funds, holding themselves out as a couple, and similar conduct can establish an implied agreement even without a signed contract. Hay v Hay, 100 Nev. 196, 678 P.2d 672 (1984).

Pursuant to NRS 163.430, Nevada statutes expressly declare that “the policy of the State is to maximise the funds available for charitable purposes by minimising, to the greatest extent practicable, the imposition of federal income and excise taxes upon trust assets otherwise available for charitable purposes”. This declaration is relied upon when questions arise as to the testator/settlor’s intent with charitable giving. In other words, should there be any ambiguity in what a testator/settlor wants to accomplish as it relates to charitable goals, this declaration can be used to maximise charitable giving for income tax and estate planning purposes.

In Nevada, some of the most commonly used vehicles for charitable planning include:

Private Foundations

Advantages

• complete control over grantmaking, investment decisions, mission, and governance;
• immediate tax deduction in the year of contribution, even if grants are made later;
• can be structured to exist indefinitely – good for multi-generational giving and long-term missions; and
• a way to involve multiple generations in philanthropy, governance, and strategic thinking.

Disadvantages

• cost and administrative burden (must file Form 990-PF annually with detailed disclosures; significant recordkeeping, compliance, legal and financial oversight; high startup and ongoing administrative costs);
• must distribute at least 5% of assets annually;
• lower tax deduction limits when compared to other methods (eg, cash contributions deductible up to 30% of AGI);
• subject to 1.39% excise tax on net investment income;
• must publicly disclose donors, salaries, investments, and grantees on IRS filings (Form 990-PF); and
• strict rules on self-dealing, jeopardising investments, and political activity.

Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs)

Advantages

• immediate tax deduction in the year of contribution, even if grants are made later;
• higher tax deduction limits when compared to private foundations (eg, cash contributions deductible up to 60% of AGI);
• simplicity and low-cost (easy setup; no need to file a separate tax return or manage compliance – the sponsoring organisation handles everything);
• contributions can be invested and grow tax-free within the DAF;
• privacy (unlike private foundations, DAFs do not require public disclosure of donors, grants, or finances (though the sponsoring organisation does file IRS Form 990));
• donors can name successor advisors (eg, children or heirs) to continue the giving strategy after their death; and
• unlike private foundations (which must distribute 5% annually), DAFs have no federal payout requirement.

Disadvantages

• lack of control (once one contributes, the assets legally belong to the DAF sponsor (a public charity); one can recommend grants, but the sponsor must approve them (although approvals are usually routine));
• limited grant options (can only donate to IRS-qualified 501(c)(3) public charities); and
• less family engagement (one cannot employ family or staff, run direct charitable programmes or create a branded philanthropic legacy as one could with a private foundation).