Serena Calman has twin adult children who currently have considerable income but have not saved much for their retirement. She is considering funding a trust that will accumulate income until they reach age 65, ten years hence. She will fund the trust with corporate bonds plus $60,000 cash to be used over the years to pay tax on the trust income. Annual interest on the bonds will be $20,000, and the cash will produce no income. Upon termination of the trust, the trustee will distribute the accumulated income and bonds equally to the twins. In the event one twin dies before attaining age 65, the trust, nevertheless, will continue until the end of the ten year term. At that rime, the mist will distribute the accumulated income and bonds to the surviving twin. If both twins die before attaining age 65, the trust will terminate at the end of the ten year term and distribute the accumulated income and bonds to Serena's nephew, Buster Bennett. Serena plans to name a bank as trustee, and the bank has quoted her an annual trustee's fee of $1,000. Her accountant has suggested that instead she split the assets and set up two trusts (of equal size and with equal annual income), one for each twin. Serena is reluctant to do this because the bank would increase its total annual fee to $1,800, $900 per trust. In either situation the trustee's fee will include fiduciary tax return preparation. Prepare a schedule that shows the difference in the total amount to distribute to the twins at the end of ten years in each scenario, one trust and two mists. For simplicity, ignore present values and assume that tax rates and capital gains tax rate breakpoints do not change and that the trustee continues to hold the bonds until termination of the trust. Based on your analysis, which option (one trust or two trusts) do you recommend?