I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters
of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her
name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John
consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my
mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters
of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her
name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left to a spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be otherwise?
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters
of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her
name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
On 24/02/2024 08:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience >>> or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John
consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a >>> very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my >>> mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters
of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred >>> to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her
name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left to a
spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be otherwise?
but the civil partnership nullified the will, and as there is no new
will, doesn't that mean John died intestate and the laws of intestacy
then apply?
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John
consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my
mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters
of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her
name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
A civil partnership only exists once it has been registered. It's not
clear from what you say whether it was, and it may not actually have
been possible in the stated time frame.
"You and your partner will each need to give notice of your intention to register a civil partnership to the local register office where you
live. You must do this in person.
"When you give notice, you will be asked to give details of the date and place where the civil partnership is to be registered, so you should
contact the venue where you are going to register first.
"Once you have given notice of your intention to register a civil partnership, details from the notice will be made available in a
register office for people to see. This will be in the area in which
both of you live and the area where you're going to register, if this is different.
The details must be made available for people to see for 28 days before
you can register your civil partnership. This is to give an opportunity
for objections to be made.
After 28 days, you will be free to register your partnership, as long as there are no objections and no legal reasons why you can't go ahead."
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/registering-a-civil-partnership/#:~:text=A%20civil%20partnership%20is%20a,give%20your%20relationship%20legal%20recognition.
If it was validly registered, that will revoke any previous Will.
If it was not, it doesn't. And in that case Jane will only be entitled
to what she was left. From what you say, that does not apparently
include either of his houses.
Under 'Cons' in relation to [validly registered] civil partnerships,
Pearce Legal Solicitors say:
"If one partner dies, the living partner will only inherit the
properties if it is left in their name."
https://pearcelegal.co.uk/blog/what-are-civil-partnerships
Maybe that's a 'random blog' you don't want to believe, but there it is
in black and white from what would appear to be a reputable source.
If what they say is correct, Jane will not get either of his houses
unless he left them to her specifically, and the answer to your question would appear to be (c).
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down
advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario. >> John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends
each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors,
John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to >>achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension)
until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or
an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less
than a week later ******************************************* ********************
without making a new will (the old one being automatically nullified),
and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into joint names.
The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my mother
left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of which
are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two
houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in
his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in
the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries
(which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
A civil partnership only exists once it has been registered. It's not
clear from what you say whether it was, and it may not actually have
been possible in the stated time frame.
"You and your partner will each need to give notice of your intention
to register a civil partnership to the local register office where you
live. You must do this in person.
"When you give notice, you will be asked to give details of the date
and place where the civil partnership is to be registered, so you
should contact the venue where you are going to register first.
"Once you have given notice of your intention to register a civil >partnership, details from the notice will be made available in a
register office for people to see. This will be in the area in which
both of you live and the area where you're going to register, if this
is different.
The details must be made available for people to see for 28 days before
you can register your civil partnership. This is to give an opportunity
for objections to be made.
After 28 days, you will be free to register your partnership, as long
as there are no objections and no legal reasons why you can't go ahead."
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-ci >vil-partnership/registering-a-civil-partnership/#:~:text=A%20civil%20par >tnership%20is%20a,give%20your%20relationship%20legal%20recognition.
If it was validly registered, that will revoke any previous Will.
If it was not, it doesn't. And in that case Jane will only be entitled
to what she was left. From what you say, that does not apparently
include either of his houses.
Under 'Cons' in relation to [validly registered] civil partnerships,
Pearce Legal Solicitors say:
"If one partner dies, the living partner will only inherit the
properties if it is left in their name."
https://pearcelegal.co.uk/blog/what-are-civil-partnerships
Maybe that's a 'random blog' you don't want to believe, but there it is
in black and white from what would appear to be a reputable source.
If what they say is correct, Jane will not get either of his houses
unless he left them to her specifically, and the answer to your
question would appear to be (c).
On 24/02/2024 08:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience >>> or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John
consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a >>> very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my >>> mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters
of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred >>> to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her
name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left
to a spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be >>otherwise?
but the civil partnership nullified the will, and as there is no new
will, doesn't that mean John died intestate and the laws of intestacy
then apply?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John
consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my
mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters
of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her
name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left to
a spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be
otherwise?
On 24 Feb 2024 at 09:24:09 GMT, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2024 08:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience >>>> or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but >>>> as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John >>>> consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age >>>> of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a >>>> very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my >>>> mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters >>>> of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred >>>> to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her >>>> name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account, >>>> for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice, >>>> but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left to a >>> spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be otherwise?
but the civil partnership nullified the will, and as there is no new
will, doesn't that mean John died intestate and the laws of intestacy
then apply?
Which means that since the estate is worth more than 276,000 (or thereabout) >relatives other than the spouse may be beneficiaries. I know this applies to >children, I didn't find out if it goes wider than this.
https://pearcelegal.co.uk/blog/what-are-civil-partnerships
Maybe that's a 'random blog' you don't want to believe, but there it is
in black and white from what would appear to be a reputable source.
If what they say is correct, Jane will not get either of his houses
unless he left them to her specifically, and the answer to your question
would appear to be (c).
That particular document is riddled with mistakes and inconsistencies.
For instance, lower down it says of civil partners: "If you or your
partner dies without leaving a will, the other partner is allowed to
inherit some or all of the property."
So I suggest checking other sources too.
In message <l3ts28F9085U1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:43:36 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 09:24:09 GMT, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2024 08:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:but the civil partnership nullified the will, and as there is no new
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience >>>>> or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but >>>>> as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each >>>>> living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John >>>>> consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace >>>>> pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady >>>>> income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age >>>>> of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a >>>>> very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was >>>>> made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week >>>>> later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my >>>>> mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that >>>>> stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters >>>>> of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred >>>>> to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her >>>>> name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account, >>>>> for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>>
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would >>>>> probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice, >>>>> but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>> the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left to a >>>> spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be otherwise? >>>
will, doesn't that mean John died intestate and the laws of intestacy
then apply?
Which means that since the estate is worth more than 276,000 (or thereabout) >> relatives other than the spouse may be beneficiaries. I know this applies to >> children, I didn't find out if it goes wider than this.
No other relatives at all. It sounds like you regurgitating blogs, which
is precisely what I asked people *not* to do!
In message <urccjq$145vo$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:24:09 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, SH <i.love@spam.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 08:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but >>>> as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John >>>> consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age >>>> of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the
mess my
mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters >>>> of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her >>>> name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account, >>>> for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice, >>>> but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left
to a spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be
otherwise?
but the civil partnership nullified the will, and as there is no new
will, doesn't that mean John died intestate and the laws of intestacy
then apply?
With no children involved, the civil partner will eventually get the
lot; but the question is whether that's after some IHT require paying.
By the way, what's your personal experience/expertise in this subject?
On 24/02/2024 10:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <urccjq$145vo$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:24:09 on Sat, 24 Feb >>2024, SH <i.love@spam.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 08:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal >>>>>experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down >>>>>advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically
less dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each >>>>> living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John >>>>> consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace >>>>> pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady >>>>> income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age >>>>> of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised >>>>>with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was >>>>> made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week >>>>> later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the >>>>>mess my
mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that >>>>> stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters >>>>> of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being >>>>>transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her >>>>> name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account, >>>>> for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>>
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would >>>>> probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice, >>>>> but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>> the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets
left to a spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it
might be otherwise?
but the civil partnership nullified the will, and as there is no new >>>will, doesn't that mean John died intestate and the laws of intestacy >>>then apply?
With no children involved, the civil partner will eventually get the
lot; but the question is whether that's after some IHT require paying.
By the way, what's your personal experience/expertise in this
subject?
Dealing with 2 different people's estates, both of which had valid
wills thankfully....
I do know of one other person who died intestate, he had no children,
was married and the wife inherited his estate.
It was not a big estate, all cash and investments as they were renting
their house. So did not own any property and didn't go over the lowest
IHT threshold of 325k.
On 24 Feb 2024 at 10:12:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l3ts28F9085U1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:43:36 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 09:24:09 GMT, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2024 08:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:but the civil partnership nullified the will, and as there is no new
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience >>>>>> or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from >>>>>> random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but >>>>>> as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each >>>>>> living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John >>>>>> consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace >>>>>> pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady >>>>>> income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age >>>>>> of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three >>>>>> houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a >>>>>> very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was >>>>>> made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week >>>>>> later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my >>>>>> mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that >>>>>> stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters >>>>>> of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred >>>>>> to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her >>>>>> name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account, >>>>>> for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>>>
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would >>>>>> probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the >>>>>> short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice, >>>>>> but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>>> the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left to a >>>>> spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be otherwise? >>>>
will, doesn't that mean John died intestate and the laws of intestacy
then apply?
Which means that since the estate is worth more than 276,000 (or thereabout)
relatives other than the spouse may be beneficiaries. I know this applies to
children, I didn't find out if it goes wider than this.
No other relatives at all. It sounds like you regurgitating blogs, which
is precisely what I asked people *not* to do!
I resent a) your telling posters what answers you are prepared to hear,
and b) groundlessly insulting me by implying somehow that I learnt
nothing from the recent death of my wife and managing her intestacy.
In fact the above which I discovered was sufficient to answer *my*
question, so I did not research it further and am specifically *not*
telling you things I did not learn with certainty.
You could have saved us all a bit of time if you had mentioned he had no other >living relatives than his partner.
Again, that's information to assist with the intestacy, not the IHT. And would have unnecessary prompted people to post off on a tangent about intestacy, when that's not what I'm trying to untangle.
The intestacy aspect is irrelevant, because that only kicks in as a
project *after* you've agreed the amount of IHT with HMRC (and paid it!)
In message <urcaqo$13n0q$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:53:46 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience >>> or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John
consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a >>> very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my >>> mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters
of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred >>> to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her
name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left to
a spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be
otherwise?
Because some blogs are not quite so self-assured about it. Also, there's
no will, so the verb "left to" isn't quite right.
In message <l3tr0sF831dU4@mid.individual.net>, at 09:25:50 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:********************
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down
advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less
dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific
scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends
each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors,
John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to
achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension)
until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or
an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less
than a week later *******************************************
without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess
my mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to
that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of
which are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two
houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in
his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate). >>> (b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses
in the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
A civil partnership only exists once it has been registered. It's not
clear from what you say whether it was, and it may not actually have
been possible in the stated time frame.
"You and your partner will each need to give notice of your intention
to register a civil partnership to the local register office where you
live. You must do this in person.
"When you give notice, you will be asked to give details of the date
and place where the civil partnership is to be registered, so you
should contact the venue where you are going to register first.
"Once you have given notice of your intention to register a civil
partnership, details from the notice will be made available in a
register office for people to see. This will be in the area in which
both of you live and the area where you're going to register, if this
is different.
The details must be made available for people to see for 28 days
before you can register your civil partnership. This is to give an
opportunity for objections to be made.
After 28 days, you will be free to register your partnership, as long
as there are no objections and no legal reasons why you can't go ahead."
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-ci
vil-partnership/registering-a-civil-partnership/#:~:text=A%20civil%20par
tnership%20is%20a,give%20your%20relationship%20legal%20recognition.
If it was validly registered, that will revoke any previous Will.
There's a fast-track for deathbed ceremonies, which is what happened in
this case (see above). Sorry it wasn't clear enough. MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE TYPED IT IN CAPITALS.
If it was not, it doesn't. And in that case Jane will only be
entitled to what she was left. From what you say, that does not
apparently include either of his houses.
Under 'Cons' in relation to [validly registered] civil partnerships,
Pearce Legal Solicitors say:
"If one partner dies, the living partner will only inherit the
properties if it is left in their name."
https://pearcelegal.co.uk/blog/what-are-civil-partnerships
Maybe that's a 'random blog' you don't want to believe, but there it
is in black and white from what would appear to be a reputable source.
Sorry, that's a typical "random blogger" which has dumbed things down.
If what they say is correct, Jane will not get either of his houses
unless he left them to her specifically, and the answer to your
question would appear to be (c).
In message <l3ts28F9085U1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:43:36 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 09:24:09 GMT, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2024 08:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down
but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each >>>>> living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John >>>>> consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace >>>>> pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady >>>>> income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the
age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was >>>>> made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week >>>>> later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the
mess my
mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that >>>>> stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters >>>>> of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her >>>>> name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current
account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her
estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would >>>>> probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>> the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left
to a
spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be
otherwise?
but the civil partnership nullified the will, and as there is no new
will, doesn't that mean John died intestate and the laws of intestacy
then apply?
Which means that since the estate is worth more than 276,000 (or
thereabout)
relatives other than the spouse may be beneficiaries. I know this
applies to
children, I didn't find out if it goes wider than this.
No other relatives at all.
It sounds like you regurgitating blogs, which
is precisely what I asked people *not* to do!
On 24/02/2024 10:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l3tr0sF831dU4@mid.individual.net>, at 09:25:50 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:********************
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down
advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less
dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific
scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends
each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors,
John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to
achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension)
until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or
an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less >>>> than a week later *******************************************
without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess
my mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to
that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of
which are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog): >>>> (a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two
houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in
his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate). >>>> (b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>> (c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses
in the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect). >>>> There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
A civil partnership only exists once it has been registered. It's not
clear from what you say whether it was, and it may not actually have
been possible in the stated time frame.
"You and your partner will each need to give notice of your intention
to register a civil partnership to the local register office where you
live. You must do this in person.
"When you give notice, you will be asked to give details of the date
and place where the civil partnership is to be registered, so you
should contact the venue where you are going to register first.
"Once you have given notice of your intention to register a civil
partnership, details from the notice will be made available in a
register office for people to see. This will be in the area in which
both of you live and the area where you're going to register, if this
is different.
The details must be made available for people to see for 28 days
before you can register your civil partnership. This is to give an
opportunity for objections to be made.
After 28 days, you will be free to register your partnership, as long
as there are no objections and no legal reasons why you can't go ahead." >>>
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-ci >>> vil-partnership/registering-a-civil-partnership/#:~:text=A%20civil%20par >>> tnership%20is%20a,give%20your%20relationship%20legal%20recognition.
If it was validly registered, that will revoke any previous Will.
There's a fast-track for deathbed ceremonies, which is what happened in
this case (see above). Sorry it wasn't clear enough. MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE
TYPED IT IN CAPITALS.
Maybe you should also have made it clear that a deathbed civil
partnership actually occurred and was registered rather than just a
'decision was made' to have one which is what you said.
If you don't give the relevant facts, you won't get a reliable answer.
If it was not, it doesn't. And in that case Jane will only be
entitled to what she was left. From what you say, that does not
apparently include either of his houses.
Under 'Cons' in relation to [validly registered] civil partnerships,
Pearce Legal Solicitors say:
"If one partner dies, the living partner will only inherit the
properties if it is left in their name."
https://pearcelegal.co.uk/blog/what-are-civil-partnerships
Maybe that's a 'random blog' you don't want to believe, but there it
is in black and white from what would appear to be a reputable source.
Sorry, that's a typical "random blogger" which has dumbed things down.
But it could still be correct. What argument do you have that it is
not, except that you don't want to believe it?
In any case, it's not from a random blogger somewhere on the internet
but on the website of an apparently qualified firm of solicitors who
claim to offer 'reliable legal support in times of need'.
If what they say is correct, Jane will not get either of his houses
unless he left them to her specifically, and the answer to your
question would appear to be (c).
On 24 Feb 2024 at 09:25:50 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience >>> or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John
consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a >>> very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my >>> mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters
of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred >>> to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her
name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
A civil partnership only exists once it has been registered. It's not
clear from what you say whether it was, and it may not actually have
been possible in the stated time frame.
"You and your partner will each need to give notice of your intention to
register a civil partnership to the local register office where you
live. You must do this in person.
"When you give notice, you will be asked to give details of the date and
place where the civil partnership is to be registered, so you should
contact the venue where you are going to register first.
"Once you have given notice of your intention to register a civil
partnership, details from the notice will be made available in a
register office for people to see. This will be in the area in which
both of you live and the area where you're going to register, if this is
different.
The details must be made available for people to see for 28 days before
you can register your civil partnership. This is to give an opportunity
for objections to be made.
After 28 days, you will be free to register your partnership, as long as
there are no objections and no legal reasons why you can't go ahead."
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/registering-a-civil-partnership/#:~:text=A%20civil%20partnership%20is%20a,give%20your%20relationship%20legal%20recognition.
If it was validly registered, that will revoke any previous Will.
If it was not, it doesn't. And in that case Jane will only be entitled
to what she was left. From what you say, that does not apparently
include either of his houses.
Under 'Cons' in relation to [validly registered] civil partnerships,
Pearce Legal Solicitors say:
"If one partner dies, the living partner will only inherit the
properties if it is left in their name."
https://pearcelegal.co.uk/blog/what-are-civil-partnerships
Maybe that's a 'random blog' you don't want to believe, but there it is
in black and white from what would appear to be a reputable source.
If what they say is correct, Jane will not get either of his houses
unless he left them to her specifically, and the answer to your question
would appear to be (c).
That particular document is riddled with mistakes and inconsistencies. For instance, lower down it says of civil partners: "If you or your partner dies without leaving a will, the other partner is allowed to inherit some
or all of the property."
So I suggest checking other sources too.
On 24 Feb 2024 at 15:55:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2024 10:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l3tr0sF831dU4@mid.individual.net>, at 09:25:50 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down
advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>>>> dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific
scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends
each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors,
John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to >>>>> achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension) >>>>> until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or >>>>> an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three >>>>> houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less >>>>> than a week later ******************************************* >>> ********************
without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess >>>>> my mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to >>>>> that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of
which are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog): >>>>> (a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two
houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in
his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate). >>>>> (b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>> (c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses
in the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect). >>>>> There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>> the last 7yrs.
A civil partnership only exists once it has been registered. It's not >>>> clear from what you say whether it was, and it may not actually have
been possible in the stated time frame.
"You and your partner will each need to give notice of your intention
to register a civil partnership to the local register office where you >>>> live. You must do this in person.
"When you give notice, you will be asked to give details of the date
and place where the civil partnership is to be registered, so you
should contact the venue where you are going to register first.
"Once you have given notice of your intention to register a civil
partnership, details from the notice will be made available in a
register office for people to see. This will be in the area in which
both of you live and the area where you're going to register, if this
is different.
The details must be made available for people to see for 28 days
before you can register your civil partnership. This is to give an
opportunity for objections to be made.
After 28 days, you will be free to register your partnership, as long
as there are no objections and no legal reasons why you can't go ahead." >>>>
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-ci >>>> vil-partnership/registering-a-civil-partnership/#:~:text=A%20civil%20par >>>> tnership%20is%20a,give%20your%20relationship%20legal%20recognition.
If it was validly registered, that will revoke any previous Will.
There's a fast-track for deathbed ceremonies, which is what happened in
this case (see above). Sorry it wasn't clear enough. MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE >>> TYPED IT IN CAPITALS.
Maybe you should also have made it clear that a deathbed civil
partnership actually occurred and was registered rather than just a
'decision was made' to have one which is what you said.
If you don't give the relevant facts, you won't get a reliable answer.
If it was not, it doesn't. And in that case Jane will only be
entitled to what she was left. From what you say, that does not
apparently include either of his houses.
Under 'Cons' in relation to [validly registered] civil partnerships,
Pearce Legal Solicitors say:
"If one partner dies, the living partner will only inherit the
properties if it is left in their name."
https://pearcelegal.co.uk/blog/what-are-civil-partnerships
Maybe that's a 'random blog' you don't want to believe, but there it
is in black and white from what would appear to be a reputable source.
Sorry, that's a typical "random blogger" which has dumbed things down.
But it could still be correct. What argument do you have that it is
not, except that you don't want to believe it?
In any case, it's not from a random blogger somewhere on the internet
but on the website of an apparently qualified firm of solicitors who
claim to offer 'reliable legal support in times of need'.
In which two contradictory statements are made about the effect of civil partnerships, one that they do and one that they don't inherit property, and the rules for civil partnership are also quoted under the heading of living together without a formal arrangement. So it is a particularly bad example of the genre.
On 24/02/2024 18:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 15:55:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2024 10:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l3tr0sF831dU4@mid.individual.net>, at 09:25:50 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down >>>>>> advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>>>>> dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific >>>>>> scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends >>>>>> each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, >>>>>> John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to >>>>>> achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension) >>>>>> until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or >>>>>> an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three >>>>>> houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised >>>>>> with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less >>>>>> than a week later ******************************************* >>>> ********************
without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess >>>>>> my mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to >>>>>> that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of
which are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog): >>>>>> (a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two >>>>>> houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in >>>>>> his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate). >>>>>> (b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>>> (c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses >>>>>> in the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect). >>>>>> There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>>> the last 7yrs.
A civil partnership only exists once it has been registered. It's not >>>>> clear from what you say whether it was, and it may not actually have >>>>> been possible in the stated time frame.
"You and your partner will each need to give notice of your intention >>>>> to register a civil partnership to the local register office where you >>>>> live. You must do this in person.
"When you give notice, you will be asked to give details of the date >>>>> and place where the civil partnership is to be registered, so you
should contact the venue where you are going to register first.
"Once you have given notice of your intention to register a civil
partnership, details from the notice will be made available in a
register office for people to see. This will be in the area in which >>>>> both of you live and the area where you're going to register, if this >>>>> is different.
The details must be made available for people to see for 28 days
before you can register your civil partnership. This is to give an
opportunity for objections to be made.
After 28 days, you will be free to register your partnership, as long >>>>> as there are no objections and no legal reasons why you can't go ahead." >>>>>
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-ci >>>>> vil-partnership/registering-a-civil-partnership/#:~:text=A%20civil%20par >>>>> tnership%20is%20a,give%20your%20relationship%20legal%20recognition.
If it was validly registered, that will revoke any previous Will.
There's a fast-track for deathbed ceremonies, which is what happened in >>>> this case (see above). Sorry it wasn't clear enough. MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE >>>> TYPED IT IN CAPITALS.
Maybe you should also have made it clear that a deathbed civil
partnership actually occurred and was registered rather than just a
'decision was made' to have one which is what you said.
If you don't give the relevant facts, you won't get a reliable answer.
If it was not, it doesn't. And in that case Jane will only beSorry, that's a typical "random blogger" which has dumbed things down.
entitled to what she was left. From what you say, that does not
apparently include either of his houses.
Under 'Cons' in relation to [validly registered] civil partnerships, >>>>> Pearce Legal Solicitors say:
"If one partner dies, the living partner will only inherit the
properties if it is left in their name."
https://pearcelegal.co.uk/blog/what-are-civil-partnerships
Maybe that's a 'random blog' you don't want to believe, but there it >>>>> is in black and white from what would appear to be a reputable source. >>>>
But it could still be correct. What argument do you have that it is
not, except that you don't want to believe it?
In any case, it's not from a random blogger somewhere on the internet
but on the website of an apparently qualified firm of solicitors who
claim to offer 'reliable legal support in times of need'.
In which two contradictory statements are made about the effect of civil
partnerships, one that they do and one that they don't inherit property, and >> the rules for civil partnership are also quoted under the heading of living >> together without a formal arrangement. So it is a particularly bad example of
the genre.
I note you have still advanced no argument based on facts or the law why
the quoted statement is wrong.
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down
advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario. >> John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends
each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors,
John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to >>achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension)
until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or
an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less
than a week later without making a new will (the old one being >>automatically nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of
the assets into joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value >>(unlike the mess my mother left behind her, which took over two years
to even get to that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of which
are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two
houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in
his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in
the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries
(which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The answer, based on information you've provided elsewhere in the
thread and making reasonable assumptions that you'd have posted details
of any unusual situations likely to have an effect on things, (e.g.
domiciled status), is unequivocally option (a).
My direct personal experience / expertise and therefore confidence in
this answer is the fact that I've had the "privilege and pleasure" of >administering countless estates of family and friends.
The most apposite of which to the situation in which Jane now finds
herself was a mid seven-figure estate where the tax planning
had been performed by one of the Big 4 and where the value of the
estate would make it an automatic target for HMRC's specialist IHT >investigation team who would have loved to have been able to uncover a >mistake and levy penalties. (They didn't and they couldn't.)
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urcaqo$13n0q$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:53:46 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience >>>> or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but >>>> as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John >>>> consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace
pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the age >>>> of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised with a >>>> very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week
later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into
joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess my >>>> mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters >>>> of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being transferred >>>> to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her >>>> name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current account, >>>> for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional advice, >>>> but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left to
a spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be >>>otherwise?
Because some blogs are not quite so self-assured about it. Also, there's
no will, so the verb "left to" isn't quite right.
True, and I should not have jumped so hastily to the conclusion that
there were no other relatives.
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between
estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy
rules.
On 24/02/2024 10:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l3tr0sF831dU4@mid.individual.net>, at 09:25:50 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:********************
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal >>>>experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down >>>>advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>>>dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends >>>>each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, >>>>John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and >>>>private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view
to achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state >>>>pension) until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a >>>>drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three >>>>houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of
good causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised >>>>with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the >>>>decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less
than a week later
*******************************************
There's a fast-track for deathbed ceremonies, which is what happenedwithout making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the
mess my mother left behind her, which took over two years to even
get to that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for >>>>letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of
which are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being >>>>transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two >>>>houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in
his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate). >>>> (b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated
and parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which >>>>would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses
in the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional >>>>advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
A civil partnership only exists once it has been registered. It's
not clear from what you say whether it was, and it may not actually
have been possible in the stated time frame.
"You and your partner will each need to give notice of your
intention to register a civil partnership to the local register
office where you live. You must do this in person.
"When you give notice, you will be asked to give details of the date
and place where the civil partnership is to be registered, so you
should contact the venue where you are going to register first.
"Once you have given notice of your intention to register a civil >>>partnership, details from the notice will be made available in a
register office for people to see. This will be in the area in which
both of you live and the area where you're going to register, if this
is different.
The details must be made available for people to see for 28 days
before you can register your civil partnership. This is to give an >>>opportunity for objections to be made.
After 28 days, you will be free to register your partnership, as
long as there are no objections and no legal reasons why you can't
go ahead."
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-ci >>> vil-partnership/registering-a-civil-partnership/#:~:text=A%20civil%20par >>> tnership%20is%20a,give%20your%20relationship%20legal%20recognition.
If it was validly registered, that will revoke any previous Will.
in this case (see above). Sorry it wasn't clear enough. MAYBE I
SHOULD HAVE TYPED IT IN CAPITALS.
Maybe you should also have made it clear that a deathbed civil
partnership actually occurred and was registered rather than just a
'decision was made' to have one which is what you said.
If it was not, it doesn't. And in that case Jane will only beSorry, that's a typical "random blogger" which has dumbed things
entitled to what she was left. From what you say, that does not >>>apparently include either of his houses.
Under 'Cons' in relation to [validly registered] civil partnerships, >>>Pearce Legal Solicitors say:
"If one partner dies, the living partner will only inherit the >>>properties if it is left in their name."
https://pearcelegal.co.uk/blog/what-are-civil-partnerships
Maybe that's a 'random blog' you don't want to believe, but there it
is in black and white from what would appear to be a reputable
source.
down.
But it could still be correct. What argument do you have that it is
not, except that you don't want to believe it?
In any case, it's not from a random blogger somewhere on the internet
but on the website of an apparently qualified firm of solicitors who
claim to offer 'reliable legal support in times of need'.
If what they say is correct, Jane will not get either of his houses >>>unless he left them to her specifically, and the answer to your
question would appear to be (c).
On 24 Feb 2024 at 15:55:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2024 10:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l3tr0sF831dU4@mid.individual.net>, at 09:25:50 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down
advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>>>> dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific
scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends
each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors,
John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to >>>>> achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension) >>>>> until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or >>>>> an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less >>>>> than a week later ******************************************* >>> ********************
without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the mess >>>>> my mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to >>>>> that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of
which are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog): >>>>> (a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two
houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in
his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate). >>>>> (b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>> (c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses
in the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect). >>>>> There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>> the last 7yrs.
A civil partnership only exists once it has been registered. It's not >>>> clear from what you say whether it was, and it may not actually have
been possible in the stated time frame.
"You and your partner will each need to give notice of your intention
to register a civil partnership to the local register office where you >>>> live. You must do this in person.
"When you give notice, you will be asked to give details of the date
and place where the civil partnership is to be registered, so you
should contact the venue where you are going to register first.
"Once you have given notice of your intention to register a civil
partnership, details from the notice will be made available in a
register office for people to see. This will be in the area in which
both of you live and the area where you're going to register, if this
is different.
The details must be made available for people to see for 28 days
before you can register your civil partnership. This is to give an
opportunity for objections to be made.
After 28 days, you will be free to register your partnership, as long
as there are no objections and no legal reasons why you can't go ahead." >>>>
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-ci >>>> vil-partnership/registering-a-civil-partnership/#:~:text=A%20civil%20par >>>> tnership%20is%20a,give%20your%20relationship%20legal%20recognition.
If it was validly registered, that will revoke any previous Will.
There's a fast-track for deathbed ceremonies, which is what happened in
this case (see above). Sorry it wasn't clear enough. MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE >>> TYPED IT IN CAPITALS.
Maybe you should also have made it clear that a deathbed civil
partnership actually occurred and was registered rather than just a
'decision was made' to have one which is what you said.
If you don't give the relevant facts, you won't get a reliable answer.
If it was not, it doesn't. And in that case Jane will only be
entitled to what she was left. From what you say, that does not
apparently include either of his houses.
Under 'Cons' in relation to [validly registered] civil partnerships,
Pearce Legal Solicitors say:
"If one partner dies, the living partner will only inherit the
properties if it is left in their name."
https://pearcelegal.co.uk/blog/what-are-civil-partnerships
Maybe that's a 'random blog' you don't want to believe, but there it
is in black and white from what would appear to be a reputable source.
Sorry, that's a typical "random blogger" which has dumbed things down.
But it could still be correct. What argument do you have that it is
not, except that you don't want to believe it?
In any case, it's not from a random blogger somewhere on the internet
but on the website of an apparently qualified firm of solicitors who
claim to offer 'reliable legal support in times of need'.
In which two contradictory statements are made about the effect of civil >partnerships, one that they do and one that they don't inherit property, and >the rules for civil partnership are also quoted under the heading of living >together without a formal arrangement.
So it is a particularly bad example of
the genre.
If what they say is correct, Jane will not get either of his houses
unless he left them to her specifically, and the answer to your
question would appear to be (c).
On 24/02/2024 15:34, Roland Perry wrote:
The intestacy aspect is irrelevant, because that only kicks in as a >>project *after* you've agreed the amount of IHT with HMRC (and paid it!)
That's incorrect. The IHT depends on who the beneficiaries are.
On 24/02/2024 15:05, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, that's information to assist with the intestacy, not the IHT.
And would have unnecessary prompted people to post off on a tangent
about intestacy, when that's not what I'm trying to untangle.
Can you explain exactly what you are asking, please.
On 24/02/2024 10:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l3ts28F9085U1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:43:36 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 09:24:09 GMT, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:No other relatives at all.
On 24/02/2024 08:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal >>>>>>experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from >>>>>> random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>>>>>dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each >>>>>> living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John >>>>>> consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace >>>>>> pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady >>>>>> income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least >>>>>>the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three >>>>>> houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised >>>>>>with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was >>>>>> made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week >>>>>> later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the >>>>>>mess my
mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that >>>>>> stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters >>>>>> of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being >>>>>>transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her >>>>>> name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current >>>>>>account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her >>>>>>estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would >>>>>> probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the >>>>>> short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional >>>>>>advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>>> the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets
left to a
spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be >>>>>otherwise?
but the civil partnership nullified the will, and as there is no new
will, doesn't that mean John died intestate and the laws of intestacy
then apply?
Which means that since the estate is worth more than 276,000 (or >>>thereabout)
relatives other than the spouse may be beneficiaries. I know this >>>applies to
children, I didn't find out if it goes wider than this.
'Where there's a Will, there's a relative' goes the old saying.
And they do have an awkward habit of turning up out of the blue, or
being discovered by heir hunters and genealogists, even if you think
someone has no relatives at all.
It sounds like you regurgitating blogs, which is precisely what I
asked people *not* to do!
If you want to be cosily told just what you want to hear, then you
shouldn't be asking on a legal forum,
nor will what you hear be reliable.
In message <urd36j$18tr2$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:41 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:34, Roland Perry wrote:
The intestacy aspect is irrelevant, because that only kicks in as a
project *after* you've agreed the amount of IHT with HMRC (and paid it!)
That's incorrect. The IHT depends on who the beneficiaries are.
Others have equally confidently said it doesn't.
As far as I'm aware the only beneficiary-dependent aspect is amounts
left to charity, but that's very unlikely in the case of intestacy!
Where "random bloggers" are all over the place (if they even mention it
at all) is whether beneficiaries OF A WILL who are domiciled overseas complicate the situation. But as none of any of this applies in this
current exercise, perhaps we can avoid getting distracted.
In message <l3v43nF2goU5@mid.individual.net>, at 21:07:02 on Sat, 24 Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down
advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less
dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends
each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors,
John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to
achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension)
until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or
an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less
than a week later without making a new will (the old one being
automatically nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of
the assets into joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value
(unlike the mess my mother left behind her, which took over two years
to even get to that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of which
are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two
houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in
his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate). >>> (b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in
the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries
(which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The answer, based on information you've provided elsewhere in the
thread and making reasonable assumptions that you'd have posted details
of any unusual situations likely to have an effect on things, (e.g.
domiciled status), is unequivocally option (a).
My direct personal experience / expertise and therefore confidence in
this answer is the fact that I've had the "privilege and pleasure" of
administering countless estates of family and friends.
The most apposite of which to the situation in which Jane now finds
herself was a mid seven-figure estate where the tax planning
I'm unaware that John and Jane had done any formal tax planning (other
than perhaps John's will leaving sufficient to charities to attract a
small tax break - but he'd have left them that money regardless), not
least because that was probably on the list for "in a few years time".
The same is true in my situation where the only tax planning we did was decide to register our matrimonial home as joint tenants, not tenants in common (see below).
John and Jane didn't have a matrimonial home, because they lived
separately in their own wholly-owned properties (see the original
brief).
had been performed by one of the Big 4 and where the value of the
estate would make it an automatic target for HMRC's specialist IHT
investigation team who would have loved to have been able to uncover a
mistake and levy penalties. (They didn't and they couldn't.)
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago.
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why
have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half
share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint asset.
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urcaqo$13n0q$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:53:46 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down
but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each >>>>> living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, John >>>>> consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace >>>>> pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a steady >>>>> income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least the
age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was >>>>> made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week >>>>> later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the
mess my
mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that >>>>> stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters >>>>> of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her >>>>> name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current
account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her
estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would >>>>> probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the
short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>> the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left to >>>> a spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be
otherwise?
Because some blogs are not quite so self-assured about it. Also, there's >>> no will, so the verb "left to" isn't quite right.
True, and I should not have jumped so hastily to the conclusion that
there were no other relatives.
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between
estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish
to clarify.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 05:50:26 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l3v43nF2goU5@mid.individual.net>, at 21:07:02 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down
advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less
dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific >>>>scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends
each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors,
John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to
achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension)
until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or
an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good
causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less >>>> than a week later without making a new will (the old one being
automatically nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of
the assets into joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value
(unlike the mess my mother left behind her, which took over two years >>>> to even get to that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of which >>>> are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two
houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in
his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate). >>>> (b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>> (c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in >>>> the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect). >>>> There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries
(which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in
the last 7yrs.
The answer, based on information you've provided elsewhere in the
thread and making reasonable assumptions that you'd have posted details
of any unusual situations likely to have an effect on things, (e.g.
domiciled status), is unequivocally option (a).
My direct personal experience / expertise and therefore confidence in
this answer is the fact that I've had the "privilege and pleasure" of
administering countless estates of family and friends.
The most apposite of which to the situation in which Jane now finds
herself was a mid seven-figure estate where the tax planning
I'm unaware that John and Jane had done any formal tax planning (other
than perhaps John's will leaving sufficient to charities to attract a
small tax break - but he'd have left them that money regardless), not
least because that was probably on the list for "in a few years time".
The same is true in my situation where the only tax planning we did was
decide to register our matrimonial home as joint tenants, not tenants in
common (see below).
John and Jane didn't have a matrimonial home, because they lived
separately in their own wholly-owned properties (see the original
brief).
had been performed by one of the Big 4 and where the value of the
estate would make it an automatic target for HMRC's specialist IHT
investigation team who would have loved to have been able to uncover a
mistake and levy penalties. (They didn't and they couldn't.)
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago.
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why
have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half
share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint
asset.
I think you may be mistaken here. Even if the ownership passes automatically >by survivorship it is still part of the estate for tax purposes. Direct >experience, if it matters.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 06:19:29 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd36j$18tr2$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:41 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:34, Roland Perry wrote:
The intestacy aspect is irrelevant, because that only kicks in as aThat's incorrect. The IHT depends on who the beneficiaries are.
project *after* you've agreed the amount of IHT with HMRC (and paid it!) >>>
Others have equally confidently said it doesn't.
As far as I'm aware the only beneficiary-dependent aspect is amounts
left to charity, but that's very unlikely in the case of intestacy!
Am I allowed to say, of my legal knowledge rather than personal experience, >that there are special IHT rules for spouses? I think Simon Parker has >actually given you chapter and verse on this, but I ashamedly admit I didn't >look that up.
Where "random bloggers" are all over the place (if they even mention it
at all) is whether beneficiaries OF A WILL who are domiciled overseas
complicate the situation. But as none of any of this applies in this
current exercise, perhaps we can avoid getting distracted.
In message <l40hf9FleieU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:01:13 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 06:19:29 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd36j$18tr2$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:41 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:34, Roland Perry wrote:
The intestacy aspect is irrelevant, because that only kicks in as aThat's incorrect. The IHT depends on who the beneficiaries are.
project *after* you've agreed the amount of IHT with HMRC (and paid it!) >>>>
Others have equally confidently said it doesn't.
As far as I'm aware the only beneficiary-dependent aspect is amounts
left to charity, but that's very unlikely in the case of intestacy!
Am I allowed to say, of my legal knowledge rather than personal experience, >> that there are special IHT rules for spouses? I think Simon Parker has
actually given you chapter and verse on this, but I ashamedly admit I didn't >> look that up.
Yes, we know there are separate rules for spouses, but what are they
(and is there any small-print).
For example I've seen suggestions that when it comes to inheriting the
house, it has to me a matrimonial home and primary residence of the
spouse. Which in my case study, it isn't. The special rule (or rollover, which is where option (b) might come in, is I think to protect widows
from being evicted from "the family home", but perhaps it actually needs
*to be* the family home.
Where "random bloggers" are all over the place (if they even mention it
at all) is whether beneficiaries OF A WILL who are domiciled overseas
complicate the situation. But as none of any of this applies in this
current exercise, perhaps we can avoid getting distracted.
In message <l40hlsFlfcgU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:04:44 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 05:50:26 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l3v43nF2goU5@mid.individual.net>, at 21:07:02 on Sat, 24 Feb >>> 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down
advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>>>> dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific
scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends
each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors,
John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to >>>>> achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension) >>>>> until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or >>>>> an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three
houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised
with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less >>>>> than a week later without making a new will (the old one being
automatically nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of
the assets into joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value >>>>> (unlike the mess my mother left behind her, which took over two years >>>>> to even get to that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of which >>>>> are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two
houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in
his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate). >>>>> (b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>> (c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in >>>>> the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect). >>>>> There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries
(which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>> the last 7yrs.
The answer, based on information you've provided elsewhere in the
thread and making reasonable assumptions that you'd have posted details >>>> of any unusual situations likely to have an effect on things, (e.g.
domiciled status), is unequivocally option (a).
My direct personal experience / expertise and therefore confidence in
this answer is the fact that I've had the "privilege and pleasure" of
administering countless estates of family and friends.
The most apposite of which to the situation in which Jane now finds
herself was a mid seven-figure estate where the tax planning
I'm unaware that John and Jane had done any formal tax planning (other
than perhaps John's will leaving sufficient to charities to attract a
small tax break - but he'd have left them that money regardless), not
least because that was probably on the list for "in a few years time".
The same is true in my situation where the only tax planning we did was
decide to register our matrimonial home as joint tenants, not tenants in >>> common (see below).
John and Jane didn't have a matrimonial home, because they lived
separately in their own wholly-owned properties (see the original
brief).
had been performed by one of the Big 4 and where the value of the
estate would make it an automatic target for HMRC's specialist IHT
investigation team who would have loved to have been able to uncover a >>>> mistake and levy penalties. (They didn't and they couldn't.)
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago.
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half
share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint
asset.
I think you may be mistaken here. Even if the ownership passes automatically
by survivorship it is still part of the estate for tax purposes. Direct
experience, if it matters.
Mistaken about the half of the house when Joint Tenants? If it's part of
the estate, then that means having to get it valued. Was that something
you saw being done?
Would the same apply to half of any joint bank accounts?
On 25/02/2024 06:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb >>2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the
In message <urcaqo$13n0q$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:53:46 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal >>>>>>experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>>>>>dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the
specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends each >>>>>> living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, >>>>>>John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and >>>>>>private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view >>>>>>to achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state >>>>>>pension) until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a >>>>>>drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three >>>>>> houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised >>>>>>with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision was >>>>>> made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week >>>>>> later without making a new will (the old one being automatically
nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the >>>>>>mess my
mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to that >>>>>> stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for letters >>>>>> of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are
consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being >>>>>>transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses into her >>>>>> name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current >>>>>>account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her >>>>>>estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which would >>>>>> probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the >>>>>> short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional >>>>>>advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries (which >>>>>> is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>>> the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets left to >>>>> a spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be
otherwise?
Because some blogs are not quite so self-assured about it. Also, there's >>>> no will, so the verb "left to" isn't quite right.
True, and I should not have jumped so hastily to the conclusion that >>>there were no other relatives.
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between >>>estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy
rules.
IHT liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage
I wish to clarify.
Why not ring up and ask HMRC directly? They really ought to know and
will be able to give a categorical answer one way or the other and send
out a payment code reference if one should be required.
If HMRC do claim that IHT is due then on an estate of that size it is
well worth getting paid for professional advice from an expert in
probate and estate tax planning to minimise how much is paid.
John's consolidated pension plan might be a tricky one to untangle if
his now civil partner was unknown to the scheme before his death.
Advice on the internet may be worth less than you have paid for it.
My instinct is that provided that the deathbed civil
partnership/marriage was correctly executed and properly witnessed then
the IHT due on transfer of assets to a spouse is nil
and the various IHT allowances carry forward with the spouse. HMRC may >require proof.
I know several friends of my era who just lived together for decades
who got married during Covid precisely because they had figured out
that if either one of them died suddenly there would be a huge IHT bill
to pay!
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between
estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy
rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish
to clarify.
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago.
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why
have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half
share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint asset.
In message <urd33p$18tr2$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:48:10 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:05, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, that's information to assist with the intestacy, not the IHT.
And would have unnecessary prompted people to post off on a tangent >>>about intestacy, when that's not what I'm trying to untangle.
Can you explain exactly what you are asking, please.
I did that in the root message.
Perhaps repeating this one sentence would help:
"What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration?"
Trying a slightly different approach, I have an idea that the ownership
of property could follow a similar pattern to sorting out a divorce. And
each party would first be allocated assets which weren't jointly owned
(and then the residue split at the discretion of the family court).
That first pool might include personal items such as jewellery and
clothes they brought into the matrimonial home the day they got married, possibly also any bank accounts in their sole name. And (see other
postings) if tenants in common their percentage of the house - not necessarily always 50:50).
In message <l3ui98FbjhaU6@mid.individual.net>, at 16:02:48 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 10:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l3ts28F9085U1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:43:36 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 09:24:09 GMT, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:No other relatives at all.
On 24/02/2024 08:53, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from >>>>>>> random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less
dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends >>>>>>> each
living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, >>>>>>> John
consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and private/workplace >>>>>>> pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to achieving a
steady
income from it (to supplement the state pension) until at least
the age
of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three >>>>>>> houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised >>>>>>> with a
very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the decision >>>>>>> was
made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less than a week >>>>>>> later without making a new will (the old one being automatically >>>>>>> nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of the assets into >>>>>>> joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value (unlike the >>>>>>> mess my
mother left behind her, which took over two years to even get to >>>>>>> that
stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters
of administration? There are several candidates (all of which are >>>>>>> consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred
to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two houses
into her
name, and getting the bank to release the funds in his current
account,
for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her
estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would
probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in the >>>>>>> short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice,
but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect).
There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries
(which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts
made in
the last 7yrs.
The law is pretty straightforward: no IHT is payable on assets
left to a
spouse or civil partner. So (a). Why do you think it might be
otherwise?
but the civil partnership nullified the will, and as there is no new >>>>> will, doesn't that mean John died intestate and the laws of intestacy >>>>> then apply?
Which means that since the estate is worth more than 276,000 (or
thereabout)
relatives other than the spouse may be beneficiaries. I know this
applies to
children, I didn't find out if it goes wider than this.
'Where there's a Will, there's a relative' goes the old saying.
There is no will, so let's not go down that rathole.
And they do have an awkward habit of turning up out of the blue, or
being discovered by heir hunters and genealogists, even if you think
someone has no relatives at all.
To be fair, some of that might be relevant in the case of intestacy,
long lost children turning up, to claim their share under the rules.
In this particular instance, however, I'm confident John who led a
fairly simple life has no relatives at all, let alone ones who might
qualify.
It sounds like you regurgitating blogs, which is precisely what I
asked people *not* to do!
If you want to be cosily told just what you want to hear, then you
shouldn't be asking on a legal forum,
I have no preconception about "what I want to hear", other than
"something reliable". Jane, on the other hand, would obviously like
to hear that the answer is (a), but as I don't know yet, I can't
tell her if that's the case.
nor will what you hear be reliable.
I'm fully aware that what I hear may not be reliable, but that's
why I specifically asked for responses only from people who had
been down this path themselves before, rather than keyboard
warriors regurgitating random blogs.
In message <urd33p$18tr2$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:48:10 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:05, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, that's information to assist with the intestacy, not the IHT.
And would have unnecessary prompted people to post off on a tangent
about intestacy, when that's not what I'm trying to untangle.
Can you explain exactly what you are asking, please.
I did that in the root message.
Perhaps repeating this one sentence would help:
"What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration?"
Trying a slightly different approach, I have an idea that the ownership
of property could follow a similar pattern to sorting out a divorce. And
each party would first be allocated assets which weren't jointly owned
(and then the residue split at the discretion of the family court).
In message <l3uq83Fdg4fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:18:43 on Sat, 24
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
In which two contradictory statements are made about the effect of civil
partnerships, one that they do and one that they don't inherit
property, and
the rules for civil partnership are also quoted under the heading of
living together without a formal arrangement.
John and Jane weren't "living together", they had separate domiciles
(even if they did visit one another fairly frequently).
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between
estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy
rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT
liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish
to clarify.
No, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
On 25/02/2024 10:41, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 FebNo, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between
estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy
rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT
liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish
to clarify.
you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are >>available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
But provided that the beneficiaries are all in agreement it is possible
to use a Deed of Variation to give a proportion of an estate away to >charities that the deceased intended to support even if their previous
Will has been invalidated by marriage/civil partnership.
https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/inheritance-tax/inheritance-tax-for-ma >rried-couples-and-civil-partners-avZv40Q1k94y
If IHT is due then by giving away the right amount (ISTR >10%) you can >decrease the tax burden on the remainder by careful use of these rules.
It is something that a specialist estate planning tax advisor can do.
If he really only has his now civil partner as next of kin/dependent
person then it should be relatively straightforward.
The question here I think boils down to was the deathbed civil
partnership executed and witnessed correctly.
If it was then it should be relatively clear how the assets can be >distributed without IHT being liable. However, I'd expect HMRC to
insist on seeing some proof of that.
Which has some guidelines and a checklist which the OP might find
useful. They make the point that any major gifts made in the previous 7
years could attract IHT (or tax due on the death if you prefer).
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between
estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy
rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT
liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish
to clarify.
No, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if
you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are >available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if you >>prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are
available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
But provided that the beneficiaries are all in agreement it is possible
to use a Deed of Variation to give a proportion of an estate away to >charities that the deceased intended to support even if their previous
Will has been invalidated by marriage/civil partnership.
https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/inheritance-tax/inheritance-tax-for-ma >rried-couples-and-civil-partners-avZv40Q1k94y
If IHT is due then by giving away the right amount (ISTR >10%) you can >decrease the tax burden on the remainder by careful use of these rules.
It is something that a specialist estate planning tax advisor can do.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 10:17:39 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l40hlsFlfcgU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:04:44 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 05:50:26 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l3v43nF2goU5@mid.individual.net>, at 21:07:02 on Sat, 24 Feb >>>> 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down >>>>>> advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>>>>> dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific >>>>>> scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends
each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town.
About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, >>>>>> John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to >>>>>> achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension) >>>>>> until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or >>>>>> an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three >>>>>> houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised >>>>>> with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the
decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less >>>>>> than a week later without making a new will (the old one being
automatically nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of >>>>>> the assets into joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value >>>>>> (unlike the mess my mother left behind her, which took over two years >>>>>> to even get to that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of which >>>>>> are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog):
(a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two >>>>>> houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in >>>>>> his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate). >>>>>> (b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>>> (c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which
would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in >>>>>> the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional
advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect). >>>>>> There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries
(which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>>> the last 7yrs.
The answer, based on information you've provided elsewhere in the
thread and making reasonable assumptions that you'd have posted details >>>>> of any unusual situations likely to have an effect on things, (e.g.
domiciled status), is unequivocally option (a).
My direct personal experience / expertise and therefore confidence in >>>>> this answer is the fact that I've had the "privilege and pleasure" of >>>>> administering countless estates of family and friends.
The most apposite of which to the situation in which Jane now finds
herself was a mid seven-figure estate where the tax planning
I'm unaware that John and Jane had done any formal tax planning (other >>>> than perhaps John's will leaving sufficient to charities to attract a
small tax break - but he'd have left them that money regardless), not
least because that was probably on the list for "in a few years time". >>>>
The same is true in my situation where the only tax planning we did was >>>> decide to register our matrimonial home as joint tenants, not tenants in >>>> common (see below).
John and Jane didn't have a matrimonial home, because they lived
separately in their own wholly-owned properties (see the original
brief).
had been performed by one of the Big 4 and where the value of the
estate would make it an automatic target for HMRC's specialist IHT
investigation team who would have loved to have been able to uncover a >>>>> mistake and levy penalties. (They didn't and they couldn't.)
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>> asset.
I think you may be mistaken here. Even if the ownership passes >>>automatically
by survivorship it is still part of the estate for tax purposes. Direct
experience, if it matters.
Mistaken about the half of the house when Joint Tenants? If it's part of
the estate, then that means having to get it valued. Was that something
you saw being done?
Something I did. But informally, under HMRC rules for small estates, because >it was below the IHT threshold by a wide margin.
Would the same apply to half of any joint bank accounts?
I believe so.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd33p$18tr2$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:48:10 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:05, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, that's information to assist with the intestacy, not the IHT. >>>>And would have unnecessary prompted people to post off on a tangent >>>>about intestacy, when that's not what I'm trying to untangle.
Can you explain exactly what you are asking, please.
I did that in the root message.
Perhaps repeating this one sentence would help:
"What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration?"
Trying a slightly different approach, I have an idea that the ownership
of property could follow a similar pattern to sorting out a divorce. And
each party would first be allocated assets which weren't jointly owned
(and then the residue split at the discretion of the family court).
I take it that by "each party" you mean John and Jane when they formed
the civil partnership (FCP). No, that is not what happens. When people
marry or FCP they retain all their own possessions.
It is only if they divorce or end the civil partnership that a court
can decide to reallocate the assets between the parties as part of a >financial remedy order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (mirrored
in the Civil Partnership Act 2004).
That first pool might include personal items such as jewellery and
clothes they brought into the matrimonial home the day they got married,
possibly also any bank accounts in their sole name. And (see other
postings) if tenants in common their percentage of the house - not
necessarily always 50:50).
On 25 Feb 2024 at 10:15:10 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l40hf9FleieU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:01:13 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 06:19:29 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd36j$18tr2$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:41 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:34, Roland Perry wrote:
The intestacy aspect is irrelevant, because that only kicks in as a >>>>>> project *after* you've agreed the amount of IHT with HMRC (and paid it!) >>>>>That's incorrect. The IHT depends on who the beneficiaries are.
Others have equally confidently said it doesn't.
As far as I'm aware the only beneficiary-dependent aspect is amounts
left to charity, but that's very unlikely in the case of intestacy!
Am I allowed to say, of my legal knowledge rather than personal experience, >>> that there are special IHT rules for spouses? I think Simon Parker has
actually given you chapter and verse on this, but I ashamedly admit I didn't
look that up.
Yes, we know there are separate rules for spouses, but what are they
(and is there any small-print).
For example I've seen suggestions that when it comes to inheriting the
house, it has to me a matrimonial home and primary residence of the
spouse. Which in my case study, it isn't. The special rule (or rollover,
which is where option (b) might come in, is I think to protect widows
from being evicted from "the family home", but perhaps it actually needs
*to be* the family home.
Read Simon Parker's reference. The main home business is related to capital >gains tax, a totally different matter, but obviously relevant if the >beneficiary wants to sell any of the properties she has acquired. FTAOD, I >have no idea if the deceased's main home is protected from CGT if the estate >sells it.
Where "random bloggers" are all over the place (if they even mention it >>>> at all) is whether beneficiaries OF A WILL who are domiciled overseas
complicate the situation. But as none of any of this applies in this
current exercise, perhaps we can avoid getting distracted.
In message <l40jsbFlq6tU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:42:19 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 10:15:10 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l40hf9FleieU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:01:13 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 06:19:29 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <urd36j$18tr2$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:41 on Sat, 24 Feb >>>>> 2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:34, Roland Perry wrote:
The intestacy aspect is irrelevant, because that only kicks in as a >>>>>>> project *after* you've agreed the amount of IHT with HMRC (and paid it!)
That's incorrect. The IHT depends on who the beneficiaries are.
Others have equally confidently said it doesn't.
As far as I'm aware the only beneficiary-dependent aspect is amounts >>>>> left to charity, but that's very unlikely in the case of intestacy!
Am I allowed to say, of my legal knowledge rather than personal experience,
that there are special IHT rules for spouses? I think Simon Parker has >>>> actually given you chapter and verse on this, but I ashamedly admit I didn't
look that up.
Yes, we know there are separate rules for spouses, but what are they
(and is there any small-print).
For example I've seen suggestions that when it comes to inheriting the
house, it has to me a matrimonial home and primary residence of the
spouse. Which in my case study, it isn't. The special rule (or rollover, >>> which is where option (b) might come in, is I think to protect widows
from being evicted from "the family home", but perhaps it actually needs >>> *to be* the family home.
Read Simon Parker's reference. The main home business is related to capital >> gains tax, a totally different matter, but obviously relevant if the
beneficiary wants to sell any of the properties she has acquired. FTAOD, I >> have no idea if the deceased's main home is protected from CGT if the estate >> sells it.
Sounds like another rabbit-hole to me. But to indulge you a little, it
would seem to me equitable (but tax law isn't always) that CGT would
only be payable on the difference between the value for probate and the
price the estate gets for it when eventually sold.
A question I have got two sets of solicitors to fail to answer is
whether the estate has the same annual CGT exemptions as a person.
Where "random bloggers" are all over the place (if they even mention it >>>>> at all) is whether beneficiaries OF A WILL who are domiciled overseas >>>>> complicate the situation. But as none of any of this applies in this >>>>> current exercise, perhaps we can avoid getting distracted.
In message <urfg7g$1sgk0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:44:15 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if you
prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are
available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
But provided that the beneficiaries are all in agreement it is possible
to use a Deed of Variation to give a proportion of an estate away to
charities that the deceased intended to support even if their previous
Will has been invalidated by marriage/civil partnership.
https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/inheritance-tax/inheritance-tax-for-ma
rried-couples-and-civil-partners-avZv40Q1k94y
If IHT is due then by giving away the right amount (ISTR >10%) you can
decrease the tax burden on the remainder by careful use of these rules.
It is something that a specialist estate planning tax advisor can do.
But numerous people have insisted there's no IHT liability at all, so
why jump through hoops to claim relief on a bill of zero?
Can you explain what happened when you helped organise a deed of
variation in similar circumstances?
In message <l40k3lFlr6qU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:46:13 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 10:17:39 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l40hlsFlfcgU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:04:44 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 05:50:26 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <l3v43nF2goU5@mid.individual.net>, at 21:07:02 on Sat, 24 Feb >>>>> 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down >>>>>>> advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>>>>>> dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific >>>>>>> scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends >>>>>>> each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town. >>>>>>> About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, >>>>>>> John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to >>>>>>> achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension) >>>>>>> until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or >>>>>>> an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three >>>>>>> houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised >>>>>>> with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the >>>>>>> decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less >>>>>>> than a week later without making a new will (the old one being
automatically nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of >>>>>>> the assets into joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value >>>>>>> (unlike the mess my mother left behind her, which took over two years >>>>>>> to even get to that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of which >>>>>>> are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog): >>>>>>> (a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two >>>>>>> houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in >>>>>>> his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate. >>>>>>> (c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which >>>>>>> would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in >>>>>>> the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional >>>>>>> advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect). >>>>>>> There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries
(which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>>>> the last 7yrs.
The answer, based on information you've provided elsewhere in the
thread and making reasonable assumptions that you'd have posted details >>>>>> of any unusual situations likely to have an effect on things, (e.g. >>>>>> domiciled status), is unequivocally option (a).
My direct personal experience / expertise and therefore confidence in >>>>>> this answer is the fact that I've had the "privilege and pleasure" of >>>>>> administering countless estates of family and friends.
The most apposite of which to the situation in which Jane now finds >>>>>> herself was a mid seven-figure estate where the tax planning
I'm unaware that John and Jane had done any formal tax planning (other >>>>> than perhaps John's will leaving sufficient to charities to attract a >>>>> small tax break - but he'd have left them that money regardless), not >>>>> least because that was probably on the list for "in a few years time". >>>>>
The same is true in my situation where the only tax planning we did was >>>>> decide to register our matrimonial home as joint tenants, not tenants in >>>>> common (see below).
John and Jane didn't have a matrimonial home, because they lived
separately in their own wholly-owned properties (see the original
brief).
had been performed by one of the Big 4 and where the value of the
estate would make it an automatic target for HMRC's specialist IHT >>>>>> investigation team who would have loved to have been able to uncover a >>>>>> mistake and levy penalties. (They didn't and they couldn't.)
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>>>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>>> asset.
I think you may be mistaken here. Even if the ownership passes
automatically
by survivorship it is still part of the estate for tax purposes. Direct >>>> experience, if it matters.
Mistaken about the half of the house when Joint Tenants? If it's part of >>> the estate, then that means having to get it valued. Was that something
you saw being done?
Something I did. But informally, under HMRC rules for small estates, because >> it was below the IHT threshold by a wide margin.
This is not a small estate, it's really quite big. Did you forget I
mentioned two houses, each well above the IHT limit individually.
Would the same apply to half of any joint bank accounts?
I believe so.
See above
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago.
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half
share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint
asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
In message <urf5hd$1q1u0$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:51 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between >>>>estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy >>>>rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT
liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish
to clarify.
No, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if
you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are >>available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
What reliefs would you expect might be available on an intestate estate
(clearly there won't be any charity donations) and I've explained the property situation at least twice now
In message <urf56a$1q1u0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:35:56 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd33p$18tr2$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:48:10 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:05, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, that's information to assist with the intestacy, not the IHT. >>>>>And would have unnecessary prompted people to post off on a tangent >>>>>about intestacy, when that's not what I'm trying to untangle.
Can you explain exactly what you are asking, please.
I did that in the root message.
Perhaps repeating this one sentence would help:
"What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration?"
Trying a slightly different approach, I have an idea that the ownership
of property could follow a similar pattern to sorting out a divorce. And >>> each party would first be allocated assets which weren't jointly owned
(and then the residue split at the discretion of the family court).
I take it that by "each party" you mean John and Jane when they formed
the civil partnership (FCP). No, that is not what happens. When people >>marry or FCP they retain all their own possessions.
Random bloggers disagree. They assert that only a subset remain the
exclusive property of either happy couple, and that many are deemed to
be gifted/merged-into the household as joint property.
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago.
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half
share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint
asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
A question I have got two sets of solicitors to fail to answer is
whether the estate has the same annual CGT exemptions as a person.
It is irrelevant except insofar as it goes to show estates and persons can be >treated differently for tax purposes, but estates do not have a tax free >personal allowance for income tax purposes such as is available to natural >persons.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 15:48:06 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urfg7g$1sgk0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:44:15 on Sun, 25 FebLooking ahead to the second death?
2024, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if you
prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are
available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
But provided that the beneficiaries are all in agreement it is possible
to use a Deed of Variation to give a proportion of an estate away to
charities that the deceased intended to support even if their previous
Will has been invalidated by marriage/civil partnership.
https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/inheritance-tax/inheritance-tax-for-ma >>> rried-couples-and-civil-partners-avZv40Q1k94y
If IHT is due then by giving away the right amount (ISTR >10%) you can
decrease the tax burden on the remainder by careful use of these rules.
It is something that a specialist estate planning tax advisor can do.
But numerous people have insisted there's no IHT liability at all, so
why jump through hoops to claim relief on a bill of zero?
And, of course, in general estates may not be left solely to the
spouse.
Can you explain what happened when you helped organise a deed of
variation in similar circumstances?
On 25 Feb 2024 at 16:23:05 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l40k3lFlr6qU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:46:13 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 10:17:39 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l40hlsFlfcgU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:04:44 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 05:50:26 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
In message <l3v43nF2goU5@mid.individual.net>, at 21:07:02 on Sat, 24 Feb >>>>>> 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 07:33, Roland Perry wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal
experience or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down >>>>>>>> advice from random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less >>>>>>>> dumbed-down but as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific >>>>>>>> scenario.
John and Jane, both 70yrs old, were lifelong now-retired friends >>>>>>>> each living in their own mortgage-free houses in the same town. >>>>>>>> About two years ago, with the assistance from financial advisors, >>>>>>>> John consolidated a confetti of savings/investments and
private/workplace pension schemes into a single plan, with a view to >>>>>>>> achieving a steady income from it (to supplement the state pension) >>>>>>>> until at least the age of 90. I don't know if it was a drawn-down or >>>>>>>> an annuity.
He also had a buy-to-let property with a sitting tenant. All three >>>>>>>> houses are individually well above the IHT threshold.
He had a will distributing the proceeds amongst a collection of good >>>>>>>> causes and friends/acquaintances.
Unfortunately he was recently taken suddenly ill and hospitalised >>>>>>>> with a very poor prognosis. For reasons which aren't clear, the >>>>>>>> decision was made to have a death-bed civil partnership. He died less >>>>>>>> than a week later without making a new will (the old one being >>>>>>>> automatically nullified), and before the opportunity to put any of >>>>>>>> the assets into joint names. The assets are reasonably easy to value >>>>>>>> (unlike the mess my mother left behind her, which took over two years >>>>>>>> to even get to that stage).
What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for >>>>>>>> letters of administration? There are several candidates (all of which >>>>>>>> are consistent with veracity of one or other dumbed-down blog): >>>>>>>> (a) No IHT liability at all with all the assets simply being
transferred to Jane (which would also mean transferring John's two >>>>>>>> houses into her name, and getting the bank to release the funds in >>>>>>>> his current account, for which they would undoubtedly require >>>>>>>>probate).
(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and >>>>>>>> parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate.
(c) A large sum of IHT calculated and needing to be paid (which >>>>>>>> would probably mean re-mortgaging at least one of the three houses in >>>>>>>> the short term) before probate is granted.
(d) Something else (Jane will of course be getting professional >>>>>>>> advice, but would welcome some advance indication of what to expect). >>>>>>>> There are no complications like trusts or ex-pat beneficiaries >>>>>>>> (which
is the point gov.uk runs out of steam), or undocumented gifts made in >>>>>>>> the last 7yrs.
The answer, based on information you've provided elsewhere in the >>>>>>> thread and making reasonable assumptions that you'd have posted details >>>>>>> of any unusual situations likely to have an effect on things, (e.g. >>>>>>> domiciled status), is unequivocally option (a).
My direct personal experience / expertise and therefore confidence in >>>>>>> this answer is the fact that I've had the "privilege and pleasure" of >>>>>>> administering countless estates of family and friends.
The most apposite of which to the situation in which Jane now finds >>>>>>> herself was a mid seven-figure estate where the tax planning
I'm unaware that John and Jane had done any formal tax planning (other >>>>>> than perhaps John's will leaving sufficient to charities to attract a >>>>>> small tax break - but he'd have left them that money regardless), not >>>>>> least because that was probably on the list for "in a few years time". >>>>>>
The same is true in my situation where the only tax planning we did was >>>>>> decide to register our matrimonial home as joint tenants, not tenants in >>>>>> common (see below).
John and Jane didn't have a matrimonial home, because they lived
separately in their own wholly-owned properties (see the original
brief).
had been performed by one of the Big 4 and where the value of the >>>>>>> estate would make it an automatic target for HMRC's specialist IHT >>>>>>> investigation team who would have loved to have been able to uncover a >>>>>>> mistake and levy penalties. (They didn't and they couldn't.)
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that >>>>>> hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>>>>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything' >>>>>> whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>>>> asset.
I think you may be mistaken here. Even if the ownership passes
automatically
by survivorship it is still part of the estate for tax purposes. Direct >>>>> experience, if it matters.
Mistaken about the half of the house when Joint Tenants? If it's part of >>>> the estate, then that means having to get it valued. Was that something >>>> you saw being done?
Something I did. But informally, under HMRC rules for small estates, because
it was below the IHT threshold by a wide margin.
This is not a small estate, it's really quite big. Did you forget I
mentioned two houses, each well above the IHT limit individually.
You were talking about valuing a joint property which does not arise in the >case you were talking about anyway.
I don't suppose the survivor in your case
has to value the houses for IHT, because there isn't any. I don't know if it >is advisable to value them for CGT purposes.
Would the same apply to half of any joint bank accounts?
I believe so.
See above
In message <l40jsbFlq6tU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:42:19 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Read Simon Parker's reference. The main home business is related to
capital gains tax, a totally different matter, but obviously relevant if the >> beneficiary wants to sell any of the properties she has acquired.
FTAOD, I
have no idea if the deceased's main home is protected from CGT if the
estate sells it.
Sounds like another rabbit-hole to me. But to indulge you a little, it
would seem to me equitable (but tax law isn't always) that CGT would
only be payable on the difference between the value for probate and the
price the estate gets for it when eventually sold.
A question I have got two sets of solicitors to fail to answer is
whether the estate has the same annual CGT exemptions as a person.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5hd$1q1u0$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:51 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between >>>>>estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy >>>>>rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT >>>> liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish >>>> to clarify.
No, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if
you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are >>>available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
What reliefs would you expect might be available on an intestate estate
Relief (aka exemption) on gifts to a spouse.
(clearly there won't be any charity donations) and I've explained the
property situation at least twice now
I know. What point are you making? When I said "the first stage is to >determine the distribution (disposition if you prefer) of the assets",
I meant that is the first stage in all cases. Here we know what the
specific case is.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 16:23:46 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>> asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
One minute you are angrily saying we should stick to your case, next going off >at a tangent about joint property.
However, that is a question I would have
been interested in had my house been worth more. For instance, does property >automatically inherited as a joint tenant count towards the intestate estate >limit beyond which children get a share?
On 25/02/2024 16:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l40jsbFlq6tU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:42:19 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Read Simon Parker's reference. The main home business is related to
capital gains tax, a totally different matter, but obviously relevant if the
beneficiary wants to sell any of the properties she has acquired.
FTAOD, I
have no idea if the deceased's main home is protected from CGT if the
estate sells it.
Sounds like another rabbit-hole to me. But to indulge you a little, it
would seem to me equitable (but tax law isn't always) that CGT would
only be payable on the difference between the value for probate and the
price the estate gets for it when eventually sold.
Which is actually how it is.
But the personal representatives should not be selling the assets of the estate unless necessary to meet its liabilities or other
responsibilities. As far as possible, it should be passing on the
assets as such to the intended beneficiaries for them to deal with as
they wish. That's their responsibility, not the estate's.
CGT, if applicable, will be levied on any sales by the beneficiaries of
what they inherit, who will then be responsible for paying it and have
their own personal allowances. The estate will not be liable as it will
not have made any capital gain.
A question I have got two sets of solicitors to fail to answer is
whether the estate has the same annual CGT exemptions as a person.
CGT exemptions or tax free allowances generally apply to trusts as they
do to individuals, but an estate is not considered to be a trust for
such purposes as it is intended to be a temporary, short term
arrangement. In any case, it should not generally be realising any
capital gains for the reasons explained above, especially in the case
you've mentioned where everything goes to one person and there is no
need to sell anything before it does.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf56a$1q1u0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:35:56 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd33p$18tr2$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:48:10 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:05, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, that's information to assist with the intestacy, not the IHT. >>>>>>And would have unnecessary prompted people to post off on a tangent >>>>>>about intestacy, when that's not what I'm trying to untangle.
Can you explain exactly what you are asking, please.
I did that in the root message.
Perhaps repeating this one sentence would help:
"What is the likely IHT situation for Jane, who is applying for
letters of administration?"
Trying a slightly different approach, I have an idea that the ownership >>>> of property could follow a similar pattern to sorting out a divorce. And >>>> each party would first be allocated assets which weren't jointly owned >>>> (and then the residue split at the discretion of the family court).
I take it that by "each party" you mean John and Jane when they formed >>>the civil partnership (FCP). No, that is not what happens. When people >>>marry or FCP they retain all their own possessions.
Random bloggers disagree. They assert that only a subset remain the
exclusive property of either happy couple, and that many are deemed to
be gifted/merged-into the household as joint property.
Who are they,
and what sources do they give for this assertion?
Do they say this merging event happens immediately on marriage, or only
on divorce?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>> asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
It's of no relevance to your case, but JOOI: succession, insolvency,
divorce, means-tested benefits, confiscation under the Proceeds of
Crime Act, and probably lots of other things too.
In message <urft9b$1vh5o$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:27:09 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>>>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>>> asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
It's of no relevance to your case, but JOOI: succession, insolvency,
divorce, means-tested benefits, confiscation under the Proceeds of
Crime Act, and probably lots of other things too.
The vast majority of tenants in common will be split 50:50, I wonder
happens when one of the couple gets in a pickle and "loses" their half.
Does other become homeless?
ps I'm not aware that the value of a house counts as 'capital' when
assessing means tested benefits.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:21:09 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urft9b$1vh5o$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:27:09 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that >>>>>> hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>>>>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything' >>>>>> whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>>>> asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
It's of no relevance to your case, but JOOI: succession, insolvency,
divorce, means-tested benefits, confiscation under the Proceeds of
Crime Act, and probably lots of other things too.
The vast majority of tenants in common will be split 50:50, I wonder
happens when one of the couple gets in a pickle and "loses" their half.
Does other become homeless?
ps I'm not aware that the value of a house counts as 'capital' when
assessing means tested benefits.
It does when the owner has to leave it to go into care!
In message <l41acaFp589U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:06:18 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 16:23:46 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>>>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>>> asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
One minute you are angrily saying we should stick to your case, next going off
at a tangent about joint property.
It's not a tangent at all, this issue requires explaining because "Joint Tenants" is 'sold' to house buyers as an IHT avoidance scheme, which
implies Tenants in Common *does involve a potential IHT bill.
However, that is a question I would have
been interested in had my house been worth more. For instance, does property >> automatically inherited as a joint tenant count towards the intestate estate >> limit beyond which children get a share?
My understanding is that joint assets don't towards the intestacy pot;
but hearing from someone who knows to answer to what must be a FAQ would
tick another box.
In message <urft9b$1vh5o$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:27:09 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that
hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years
ago.
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint
Tenants". Why
have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's
half
share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything'
whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a
joint
asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
It's of no relevance to your case, but JOOI: succession, insolvency,
divorce, means-tested benefits, confiscation under the Proceeds of
Crime Act, and probably lots of other things too.
The vast majority of tenants in common will be split 50:50, I wonder
happens when one of the couple gets in a pickle and "loses" their half.
Does other become homeless?
ps I'm not aware that the value of a house counts as 'capital' when
assessing means tested benefits.
In message <urd36j$18tr2$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:41 on Sat, 24 Feb
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 24/02/2024 15:34, Roland Perry wrote:
The intestacy aspect is irrelevant, because that only kicks in as a >>>project *after* you've agreed the amount of IHT with HMRC (and paid it!)
That's incorrect. The IHT depends on who the beneficiaries are.
Others have equally confidently said it doesn't.
As far as I'm aware the only beneficiary-dependent aspect is amounts
left to charity, but that's very unlikely in the case of intestacy!
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 07:33:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I would appreciate responses from people with direct personal experience
or expertise, and not simply regurgitating dumbed-down advice from
random bloggers or gov.uk; the latter is typically less dumbed-down but
as far as I can tell doesn't address the specific scenario.
Assuming the estate is worth more than the IHT threshold (otherwise you >probably wouldn't be asking the question),
then it would make far more sense to obtain professional advice, paid
for if necessary, rather than asking for other people's anecdata which
may or may not be sufficiently similar to be useful.
Or, just phone HMRC and ask them.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:06:41 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l41acaFp589U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:06:18 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 16:23:46 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that >>>>>> hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why >>>>>> have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything' >>>>>> whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>>>> asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
One minute you are angrily saying we should stick to your case, next >>>going off
at a tangent about joint property.
It's not a tangent at all, this issue requires explaining because "Joint
Tenants" is 'sold' to house buyers as an IHT avoidance scheme, which
implies Tenants in Common *does involve a potential IHT bill.
It's a tangent because there isn't any joint property in the case you raised. >Or do tangents *you* raise have a special status!!
If joint tenancy is sold as avoiding IHT then it is being missold!
It has two important effects. One is that children, or step children or
other near relatives can't get their acquisitive little hands on the
widow's house. And in the case of intestacy, as *I* found, if the main
asset passes automatically and the rest of the estate is relatively
modest then you don't need letters of administration to manage the
intestacy.
These are definite advantages. I don't
know if it can also be paperwork saving when there is also a will.
In case you are going to say this is irrelevant to your OP then let me remind >you that *you* raised the topic of joint tenancy.
However, that is a question I would have
been interested in had my house been worth more. For instance, does property
automatically inherited as a joint tenant count towards the intestate estate
limit beyond which children get a share?
My understanding is that joint assets don't towards the intestacy pot;
but hearing from someone who knows to answer to what must be a FAQ would
tick another box.
On 25/02/2024 16:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l40jsbFlq6tU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:42:19 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Read Simon Parker's reference. The main home business is related to >>>capital gains tax, a totally different matter, but obviously relevant
if the beneficiary wants to sell any of the properties she has
acquired. FTAOD, I have no idea if the deceased's main home is >>>protected from CGT if the estate sells it.
Sounds like another rabbit-hole to me. But to indulge you a little,
it would seem to me equitable (but tax law isn't always) that CGT
would only be payable on the difference between the value for probate
and the price the estate gets for it when eventually sold.
Which is actually how it is.
But the personal representatives should not be selling the assets of
the estate unless necessary to meet its liabilities or other >responsibilities.
As far as possible, it should be passing on the assets as such to the >intended beneficiaries for them to deal with as they wish. That's
their responsibility, not the estate's.
CGT, if applicable, will be levied on any sales by the beneficiaries of
what they inherit, who will then be responsible for paying it and have
their own personal allowances. The estate will not be liable as it
will not have made any capital gain.
A question I have got two sets of solicitors to fail to answer is
whether the estate has the same annual CGT exemptions as a person.
CGT exemptions or tax free allowances generally apply to trusts as they
do to individuals, but an estate is not considered to be a trust for
such purposes as it is intended to be a temporary, short term
arrangement. In any case, it should not generally be realising any
capital gains for the reasons explained above,
especially in the case you've mentioned where everything goes to one
person and there is no need to sell anything before it does.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 19:26:55 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:21:09 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urft9b$1vh5o$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:27:09 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb >>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that >>>>>>> hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why
have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>>>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything' >>>>>>> whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>>>>> asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
It's of no relevance to your case, but JOOI: succession, insolvency,
divorce, means-tested benefits, confiscation under the Proceeds of
Crime Act, and probably lots of other things too.
The vast majority of tenants in common will be split 50:50, I wonder
happens when one of the couple gets in a pickle and "loses" their half.
Does other become homeless?
ps I'm not aware that the value of a house counts as 'capital' when
assessing means tested benefits.
It does when the owner has to leave it to go into care!
and the house is not occupied by another person with needs and rights that make it (temporarily) unavailable to be used to fund care.
In message <urfs68$1v4og$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:27 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5hd$1q1u0$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:51 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb >>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between >>>>>>estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy >>>>>>rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT >>>>> liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish >>>>> to clarify.
No, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if >>>>you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are >>>>available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
What reliefs would you expect might be available on an intestate estate
Relief (aka exemption) on gifts to a spouse.
That's a topic which doesn't crop up very often.
(clearly there won't be any charity donations) and I've explained the
property situation at least twice now
I know. What point are you making? When I said "the first stage is to >>determine the distribution (disposition if you prefer) of the assets",
I meant that is the first stage in all cases. Here we know what the >>specific case is.
I don't think discussing reliefs is very useful *if*, as many people are claiming, there will be no IHT to pay anyway.
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03 on
Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
But it might not necessarily be a spouse or a civil
partner - someone who is unmarried and unpartnered could die
intestate, in
which case their estate will go to the next closest relative(s), who will
have to pay IHT. So, even in the case of intestacy, you do need to
know the
identity of the beneficar[y|ies] before you can ascertain whether IHT
will
be payable.
Again, no relatives. And of course even *if* one were to appear in two
years time via an heir-hunter, that's too late for the current exercise.
In message <l41d08Fp3cnU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:51:04 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 25/02/2024 16:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l40jsbFlq6tU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:42:19 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Read Simon Parker's reference. The main home business is related to
capital gains tax, a totally different matter, but obviously
relevant if the beneficiary wants to sell any of the properties she
has acquired. FTAOD, I have no idea if the deceased's main home is >>>> protected from CGT if the estate sells it.
Sounds like another rabbit-hole to me. But to indulge you a little,
it would seem to me equitable (but tax law isn't always) that CGT
would only be payable on the difference between the value for
probate and the price the estate gets for it when eventually sold.
Which is actually how it is.
But the personal representatives should not be selling the assets of
the estate unless necessary to meet its liabilities or other
responsibilities.
Agreed
As far as possible, it should be passing on the assets as such to the
intended beneficiaries for them to deal with as they wish. That's
their responsibility, not the estate's.
CGT, if applicable, will be levied on any sales by the beneficiaries
of what they inherit, who will then be responsible for paying it and
have their own personal allowances. The estate will not be liable as
it will not have made any capital gain.
If the estate has a house worth £500k for probate, and it needs to be
sold to raise *cash* to satisfy some of the bequests, and it sells a
couple of years down the line for £600k, why has the *estate* not made a £100k capital gain?
A question I have got two sets of solicitors to fail to answer is
whether the estate has the same annual CGT exemptions as a person.
CGT exemptions or tax free allowances generally apply to trusts as
they do to individuals, but an estate is not considered to be a trust
for such purposes as it is intended to be a temporary, short term
arrangement. In any case, it should not generally be realising any
capital gains for the reasons explained above,
Unless it needs to raise cash to pay any IHT due, or make bequests in cash.
especially in the case you've mentioned where everything goes to one
person and there is no need to sell anything before it does.
Apart from "necessary to meet its liabilities or other
responsibilities". For example raising a few thousand to
pay a financial advisor, fix the roof if a leak is causing
an asset to deteriorate, employ a gardeners so when eventually
sold it's not a house in the middle of a jungle, paying heating
bills so there's no burst pipes in winter [etc]
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urfs68$1v4og$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:27 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5hd$1q1u0$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:51 on Sun, 25 FebRelief (aka exemption) on gifts to a spouse.
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb >>>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between >>>>>>>estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy >>>>>>>rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT >>>>>> liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish >>>>>> to clarify.
No, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if >>>>>you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are >>>>>available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
What reliefs would you expect might be available on an intestate estate >>>
That's a topic which doesn't crop up very often.
Eh? Of all IHT reliefs the spousal exemption is by far the most
frequently claimed.
(clearly there won't be any charity donations) and I've explained the
property situation at least twice now
I know. What point are you making? When I said "the first stage is to >>>determine the distribution (disposition if you prefer) of the assets",
I meant that is the first stage in all cases. Here we know what the >>>specific case is.
I don't think discussing reliefs is very useful *if*, as many people are
claiming, there will be no IHT to pay anyway.
The reason there will be no IHT to pay is because of the relief for
gifts to the spouse.
In message <urhgsb$2e30i$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:07:41 on Mon, 26 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urfs68$1v4og$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:27 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5hd$1q1u0$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:51 on Sun, 25 Feb >>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:Relief (aka exemption) on gifts to a spouse.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb >>>>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between >>>>>>>> estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy >>>>>>>> rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT >>>>>>> liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish >>>>>>> to clarify.
No, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if >>>>>> you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are >>>>>> available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
What reliefs would you expect might be available on an intestate estate >>>>
That's a topic which doesn't crop up very often.
Eh? Of all IHT reliefs the spousal exemption is by far the most
frequently claimed.
Did you mean "gift exemption".
And if as many vociferously claim there's no IHT anyway what's the point
of messing with exemptions?
(clearly there won't be any charity donations) and I've explained the >>>>> property situation at least twice now
I know. What point are you making? When I said "the first stage is to
determine the distribution (disposition if you prefer) of the assets", >>>> I meant that is the first stage in all cases. Here we know what the
specific case is.
I don't think discussing reliefs is very useful *if*, as many people are >>> claiming, there will be no IHT to pay anyway.
The reason there will be no IHT to pay is because of the relief for
gifts to the spouse.
No, the vociferous claim there's no IHT regardless of exemptions.
In message <l41ig6FqcrqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:24:54 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:06:41 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l41acaFp589U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:06:18 on Sun, 25
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 16:23:46 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <urf5l0$1q1u0$3@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:46 on Sun, 25 Feb >>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Thanks for your answer, but I'm left with a puzzle. Let's say that >>>>>>> hypothetically the buy-to-let house was a joint venture from years ago. >>>>>>>
We know that it could be as "Tenants in Common", or "Joint Tenants". Why
have the two different schemes if in the case of the former John's half >>>>>>> share passes IHT free to Jane simply because 'she gets everything' >>>>>>> whereas in the latter it passes IHT free to Jane because it was a joint >>>>>>> asset.
Because the type of tenancy used affects other things besides IHT.
Such as (rabbit hole alert...) ?
One minute you are angrily saying we should stick to your case, next
going off
at a tangent about joint property.
It's not a tangent at all, this issue requires explaining because "Joint >>> Tenants" is 'sold' to house buyers as an IHT avoidance scheme, which
implies Tenants in Common *does involve a potential IHT bill.
It's a tangent because there isn't any joint property in the case you raised.
Or do tangents *you* raise have a special status!!
So-called tangents I raise are to get people thinking.
If joint tenancy is sold as avoiding IHT then it is being missold!
It's been the main selling point for at least the last four properties
I've owned.
It has two important effects. One is that children, or step children or
other near relatives can't get their acquisitive little hands on the
widow's house. And in the case of intestacy, as *I* found, if the main
asset passes automatically and the rest of the estate is relatively
modest then you don't need letters of administration to manage the
intestacy.
So who gets to self-appoint themselves as administrator?
These are definite advantages. I don't
know if it can also be paperwork saving when there is also a will.
In case you are going to say this is irrelevant to your OP then let me remind
you that *you* raised the topic of joint tenancy.
To get people thinking.
For example I know surviving partners who claim that even if the estate *isn't* modest they are the "obvious" person to be administrator so
what's the point of applying for letters of administration. And then if
all the estate is coming to them, why do they need probate?
Yes, I know, the bank probably won't hand over the £50k in the
sole-named current account without it, however "obvious" it might be the right-thing-to-do.
However, that is a question I would have
been interested in had my house been worth more. For instance, does property
automatically inherited as a joint tenant count towards the intestate estate
limit beyond which children get a share?
My understanding is that joint assets don't towards the intestacy pot;
but hearing from someone who knows to answer to what must be a FAQ would >>> tick another box.
On 26 Feb 2024 at 02:54:06 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
For example I know surviving partners who claim that even if the estate
*isn't* modest they are the "obvious" person to be administrator so
what's the point of applying for letters of administration. And then if
all the estate is coming to them, why do they need probate?
Yes, I know, the bank probably won't hand over the £50k in the
sole-named current account without it, however "obvious" it might be the
right-thing-to-do.
I have direct experience of a bank handing over considerably more than half that in precisely those circumstances.
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03 on
Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
then the only beneficiaries who are exempt from IHT are a spouse/civil >>partner or a charity. That's irrespective of whether there's a will or
not.
Given that's it's an intestacy, and John had no children or other
relatives, the only beneficiary is the partner.
In message <4rantilhuljhfa4kqh5k1b4l3m5m110mg3@4ax.com>, at 21:07:12 on
Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
then it would make far more sense to obtain professional advice, paid
for if necessary, rather than asking for other people's anecdata which
may or may not be sufficiently similar to be useful.
The idea is to get some input from people who have trodden the same
path before (which is, after all, the *whole point* of ulm), so they
know what sort of questions to ask the professional advisor, after
gathering some of the more relevant data - rather than turning up
with a haystack which might cost thousands** of pounds, and take
weeks, for the professional to wade through.
** Typical rate is 250/hr.
Or, just phone HMRC and ask them.
"Apart from phoning HMRC being a nightmare at the best of times, I
would expect them to say "we can't guess based on this brief
conversation about what is clearly a complex situation, fill in the
IHT forms, then in a couple of months we'll let you know".
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 02:27:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03 on >>Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
then the only beneficiaries who are exempt from IHT are a spouse/civil >>>partner or a charity. That's irrespective of whether there's a will or >>>not.
Given that's it's an intestacy, and John had no children or other >>relatives, the only beneficiary is the partner.
In which case, it's extremely unlikely that there will be any IHT liability.
And it's even more unlikely that there is anyone here with any experience of >a situation so unusual as the one you are describing. Because this would not >be in the slightest bit difficult to answer, even without personal >experience, if it were not for the deathbed civil partnership.
And the number of people here who have personal experience of that
scenario is, I expect, precisely zero.
I'm unaware that John and Jane had done any formal tax planning
(other than perhaps John's will leaving sufficient to charities to
attract a small tax break - but he'd have left them that money >>regardless), not least because that was probably on the list for "in
a few years time".
As has been said elsewhere, but worth repeating: Jane is free to
execute a "Deed of Variance" to ensure John's wishes relating to
charitable donations are respected even though they were not formalised
in a legally binding will.
And, yes, I am 100% certain this is correct because I've done it.
The same is true in my situation where the only tax planning we did
was decide to register our matrimonial home as joint tenants, not
tenants in common (see below).
I urge everyone with assets of approximately 2m or over to take advice
from a tax specialist as soon as practicable.
As alluded to in a previous post, HMRC have a specialist team within
the IHT department that scrutinise the submissions at or above this
level as it is highly "rewarding" for them to do so.
For similar reasons, I do not recommend DIYing probate at these values.
It simply isn't worth it and the estate should be more than able to
stand the cost for obtaining professional (i.e. paid for) advice and >services.
John and Jane didn't have a matrimonial home, because they lived >>separately in their own wholly-owned properties (see the original
brief).
With respect, I recommend taking a step back. You appear to be viewing >everything through the prism of IHT and elsewhere in the thread are >considering things that do not matter.
It doesn't matter whether or not there was a "matrimonial home".
Everything John had now passes to Jane. As she was his civil partner
at the time of his death, there is no IHT to pay, but calculations will
still need to be done and to be submitted to HMRC.
But, to repeat, there will be no IHT to pay (owing to the spouse exemption).
On 26 Feb 2024 at 10:34:15 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urhgsb$2e30i$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:07:41 on Mon, 26 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urfs68$1v4og$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:27 on Sun, 25 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5hd$1q1u0$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:51 on Sun, 25 Feb >>>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:Relief (aka exemption) on gifts to a spouse.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb >>>>>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between >>>>>>>>> estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy >>>>>>>>> rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT
liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish
to clarify.
No, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if >>>>>>> you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are >>>>>>> available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
What reliefs would you expect might be available on an intestate estate >>>>>
That's a topic which doesn't crop up very often.
Eh? Of all IHT reliefs the spousal exemption is by far the most
frequently claimed.
Did you mean "gift exemption".
And if as many vociferously claim there's no IHT anyway what's the point
of messing with exemptions?
You are suffering a logic problem: "there's no IHT" precisely *because of* a >spousal *exemption*!!
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 02:27:26 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4rantilhuljhfa4kqh5k1b4l3m5m110mg3@4ax.com>, at 21:07:12 on >>Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
then it would make far more sense to obtain professional advice, paid
for if necessary, rather than asking for other people's anecdata which >>>may or may not be sufficiently similar to be useful.
The idea is to get some input from people who have trodden the same
path before (which is, after all, the *whole point* of ulm), so they
know what sort of questions to ask the professional advisor, after >>gathering some of the more relevant data - rather than turning up
with a haystack which might cost thousands** of pounds, and take
weeks, for the professional to wade through.
** Typical rate is 250/hr.
Peanuts compared to the value of an estate which comfortably exceeds the IHT >threshold.
Or, just phone HMRC and ask them.
"Apart from phoning HMRC being a nightmare at the best of times, I
would expect them to say "we can't guess based on this brief
conversation about what is clearly a complex situation, fill in the
IHT forms, then in a couple of months we'll let you know".
But you won't know that until you actually try phoning them, will you.
And if they do tell you it's too complicated to answer over the phone,
that's when you look at getting professional advice.
In message <l29ptitc7gnr110vd8r4fkvfo6ijr6ceb1@4ax.com>, at 14:54:27 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 02:27:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03 on >>>Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
then the only beneficiaries who are exempt from IHT are a spouse/civil >>>>partner or a charity. That's irrespective of whether there's a will or >>>>not.
Given that's it's an intestacy, and John had no children or other >>>relatives, the only beneficiary is the partner.
In which case, it's extremely unlikely that there will be any IHT liability.
Even for property not in joint names?
And it's even more unlikely that there is anyone here with any experience of >>a situation so unusual as the one you are describing. Because this would not >>be in the slightest bit difficult to answer, even without personal >>experience, if it were not for the deathbed civil partnership.
Why does the deathbed make it worse? They could have done the >partnership/marriage years ago, but then done nothing about
putting property into joint names, or writing a new will.
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03
on Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>remarked:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 06:19:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
I know you've asked for comments to be restricted to those who have
gone through this. But bear in mind that a) some facts about IHT are >>>simple and readily amenable to discovery without the need to have >>>undergone them personally, and b) one person's experience is only
their own experience, and may not necessarily apply to someone else
in even a slightly different position. So, rather than seeking
personal anecdata, I would suggest that you would be better off
seeking the advice of those with some level of professional knowledge in the area.
"The idea is to get some input from people who have trodden the
same
path before (which is, after all, the *whole point* of ulm), so they
know what sort of questions to ask the professional advisor, after
gathering some of the more relevant data - rather than turning up
with a haystack which might cost thousands** of pounds, and take
weeks, for the professional to wade through.
** Typical rate is 250/hr"
If you're looking for things for Jane / those assisting her to do to
reduce the quantity of expensive advice required, I recommend the
following:
As soon as practicable, obtain 3 valuations at the date of John's death
for all three properties (nine valuations in total).
Inform the valuers that it is for probate and they'll ensure their
valuations are suitable for which they'll typically charge a fee.
Contact financial institutions (banks, building societies, and
insurance companies (I'd normally include shareholding organisations
here, but you said there aren't any so it isn't necessary) and inform
them of the death (no probate yet, so use the death certificate and
proof of the civil partnership) and ask for a statement of account /
details of the policy in the case of insurance.
(They'll usually stop unpaid cheques, standing orders and direct debits
once informed so ask for a copy of the SO and DD and put in place
alternative arrangements to pay necessary bills and expenses.)
In addition to the balance for each account, Jane will need to ask for
the amount of interest earned but not yet credited to the accounts up
to the date of John's death, the amount of interest earned to the date
of death for the tax year in which John died that has been credited to
the accounts, and whether it was paid net or gross of tax
Whilst visiting the banks and building societies, Jane should open a
new account for the administration of the estate into which proceeds
can be paid and from which expenses can be paid and liabilities
discharged.
Take meter readings for John's house and the shared BTL property and
make a list of John's other debts. (Gas, electric, broadband, TV >subscription services, etc.)
Given the timing of his death, did John submit his Tax Return? If not, >there's another thing to sort whilst looking at the debts.
After the grant of letters of administration, follow the statutory
procedure of placing an advert in the London Gazette and a local
newspaper circulated where John lived advertising the death and
inviting anyone with a claim against the estate or an interest in it to >inform Jane with a time of not less than 2 months after the placing of
the ad.
As John had a BTL property, an ad should also be placed in a local
newspaper circulated in that area if it is different from John's main >address. Ditto for any newspapers in the locality of any businesses
John may have owned.
Whilst waiting for the grant of letters of administration, Jane can
start making an inventory of the estate listing the items in the estate
and assigning a valuation for them. Individual items valued at 500 or
over should be listed separately whilst individual items under 500 can
be listed together. (e.g.. 5 dress watches, approximate value 100.
Rolex Submariner 7,000, etc.)
The value assigned to items must be fair to both the beneficiaries and
HMRC so it is unlikely to be the highest valuation nor the lowest. :-)
For artwork, remember to use the valuation of the item, not its
insurance value!
That should give Jane plenty to do and means that when she does need to
go and see solicitors, she can give them a spreadsheet from which to
work and supporting paperwork
for the spreadsheet all nicely organised which will make things cheaper
(but certainly not cheap). :-)
In message <l43q3hF2goU8@mid.individual.net>, at 15:46:55 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03
on Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 06:19:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
I know you've asked for comments to be restricted to those who have >>>>gone through this. But bear in mind that a) some facts about IHT
are simple and readily amenable to discovery without the need to
have undergone them personally, and b) one person's experience is
only their own experience, and may not necessarily apply to
someone else in even a slightly different position. So, rather than >>>>seeking personal anecdata, I would suggest that you would be better >>>>off seeking the advice of those with some level of professional knowledge in the area.
"The idea is to get some input from people who have trodden the >>>same
path before (which is, after all, the *whole point* of ulm), so they >>> know what sort of questions to ask the professional advisor, after
gathering some of the more relevant data - rather than turning up
with a haystack which might cost thousands** of pounds, and take
weeks, for the professional to wade through.
** Typical rate is 250/hr"
If you're looking for things for Jane / those assisting her to do to
reduce the quantity of expensive advice required, I recommend the >>following:
As soon as practicable, obtain 3 valuations at the date of John's
death for all three properties (nine valuations in total).
Three each? One valuation is in the diary for later this week.
Inform the valuers that it is for probate and they'll ensure their >>valuations are suitable for which they'll typically charge a fee.
And they aren't charging a fee.
Contact financial institutions (banks, building societies, and
insurance companies (I'd normally include shareholding organisations
here, but you said there aren't any so it isn't necessary) and inform
them of the death (no probate yet, so use the death certificate and
proof of the civil partnership) and ask for a statement of account / >>details of the policy in the case of insurance.
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things
have been treading water since then and have only gained urgency
because of a suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six
months there will be "penalties".
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four years
to get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV was
especially knuckle-dragging.
(They'll usually stop unpaid cheques, standing orders and direct
debits once informed so ask for a copy of the SO and DD and put in
place alternative arrangements to pay necessary bills and expenses.)
In addition to the balance for each account, Jane will need to ask for
the amount of interest earned but not yet credited to the accounts up
to the date of John's death, the amount of interest earned to the date
of death for the tax year in which John died that has been credited to
the accounts, and whether it was paid net or gross of tax
Whilst visiting the banks and building societies, Jane should open a
new account for the administration of the estate into which proceeds
can be paid and from which expenses can be paid and liabilities
discharged.
See "dislike of bureaucracy", I suspect that as everyone says she'll
get all the funds anyway, that might be viewed as an unnecessary >complication. Although I agree it should be done. I know it was during
Covid but setting up an executor's account for my mothers estate was
like pulling teeth.
Take meter readings for John's house and the shared BTL property
and make a list of John's other debts. (Gas, electric, broadband, TV >>subscription services, etc.)
A bit late for that, he died five months ago.
Given the timing of his death, did John submit his Tax Return? If
not, there's another thing to sort whilst looking at the debts.
I think that is in hand, but hampered because most of his records are
on a PC that we haven't yet been able to hack into.
After the grant of letters of administration, follow the statutory >>procedure of placing an advert in the London Gazette and a local
newspaper circulated where John lived advertising the death and
inviting anyone with a claim against the estate or an interest in it
to inform Jane with a time of not less than 2 months after the placing
of the ad.
Thanks for the reminder. There's another 400 we'll never see again.
As John had a BTL property, an ad should also be placed in a local >>newspaper circulated in that area if it is different from John's main >>address. Ditto for any newspapers in the locality of any businesses
John may have owned.
Whilst waiting for the grant of letters of administration, Jane can
start making an inventory of the estate listing the items in the
estate and assigning a valuation for them. Individual items valued at
500 or over should be listed separately whilst individual items under
500 can be listed together. (e.g.. 5 dress watches, approximate
value 100. Rolex Submariner 7,000, etc.)
Amateur valuation, or using a professional? Glass's Guide for the car, >perhaps.
The value assigned to items must be fair to both the beneficiaries and
HMRC so it is unlikely to be the highest valuation nor the lowest. :-)
For artwork, remember to use the valuation of the item, not its
insurance value!
That should give Jane plenty to do and means that when she does need
to go and see solicitors, she can give them a spreadsheet from which
to work and supporting paperwork
From the un-hacked PC??
for the spreadsheet all nicely organised which will make things
cheaper (but certainly not cheap). :-)
Perhaps you'd say why you're bothering solicitors with hypothetical
questions of no relevance to your situation, and then getting cross
with their answers?
In message <1j9ptid5c6i644oeom5eau0pjnskp428fq@4ax.com>, at 14:57:54 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Peanuts compared to the value of an estate which comfortably exceeds the IHT >>threshold.
I agree, but maybe Jane is suffering cashflow issues, and in any event
is un-used to paying professionals four-figure sums.
Or, just phone HMRC and ask them.
"Apart from phoning HMRC being a nightmare at the best of times, I
would expect them to say "we can't guess based on this brief
conversation about what is clearly a complex situation, fill in the
IHT forms, then in a couple of months we'll let you know".
But you won't know that until you actually try phoning them, will you.
I'm not Jane.
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03
on Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>remarked:
But it might not necessarily be a spouse or a civil partner -
someone who is unmarried and unpartnered could die intestate, in
which case their estate will go to the next closest relative(s), who
will have to pay IHT. So, even in the case of intestacy, you do need
to know the identity of the beneficar[y|ies] before you can
ascertain whether IHT will be payable.
Again, no relatives. And of course even *if* one were to appear in
two years time via an heir-hunter, that's too late for the current >>exercise.
What makes you think there's a time limit?
Beneficiaries are entitled to what they're entitled to, and it's the
personal representatives' responsibility to identify and locate them.
If they don't they may well be liable themselves.
It's not for potential beneficiaries to be forced to monitor everyone
who has died and rush around claiming.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:24:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1j9ptid5c6i644oeom5eau0pjnskp428fq@4ax.com>, at 14:57:54 on >>Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Peanuts compared to the value of an estate which comfortably exceeds the IHT >>>threshold.
I agree, but maybe Jane is suffering cashflow issues, and in any event
is un-used to paying professionals four-figure sums.
I would have thought that professionals working in this field would be >willing to accept a deal whereby they get paid out of the estate once
probate has been granted, rather than up-front. I may be wrong, of course, >but if it was me I would at least try to find out.
Or, just phone HMRC and ask them.
"Apart from phoning HMRC being a nightmare at the best of times, I
would expect them to say "we can't guess based on this brief
conversation about what is clearly a complex situation, fill in the >>>> IHT forms, then in a couple of months we'll let you know".
But you won't know that until you actually try phoning them, will you.
I'm not Jane.
I'm sure someone could phone on her behalf, at least to make the initial >enquiry. I'm sure there are lots of cases where that needs to be done, for >example when the surviving partner has dementia, or doesn't speak English.
So I would expect that HMRC's IHT advisors are used to it, although of
course they will want to be sure that the person calling them has some >authority to do so. But, either way, the only way to find out is to try.
In message <l29ptitc7gnr110vd8r4fkvfo6ijr6ceb1@4ax.com>, at 14:54:27 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 02:27:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Given that's it's an intestacy, and John had no children or other
relatives, the only beneficiary is the partner.
In which case, it's extremely unlikely that there will be any IHT
liability.
Even for property not in joint names?
In message <v0gpti97sd8n6vpj9ou5fhq2p3ssdotsol@4ax.com>, at 16:51:03 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I'm sure someone could phone on her behalf, at least to make the initial >>enquiry. I'm sure there are lots of cases where that needs to be done, for >>example when the surviving partner has dementia, or doesn't speak English. >>So I would expect that HMRC's IHT advisors are used to it, although of >>course they will want to be sure that the person calling them has some >>authority to do so. But, either way, the only way to find out is to try.
Why, if there's never going to be any IHT to pay (which many people
insist is the case).
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, no relatives. And of course even *if* one were to appear in two
years time via an heir-hunter, that's too late for the current exercise.
See previous advice on placing ads in relevant papers although,
pedantically, as Jane is both administrator and beneficiary, she may
decide not to bother. (Personally, I would given the value of the
estate, but it is her choice.)
On 26/02/2024 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l29ptitc7gnr110vd8r4fkvfo6ijr6ceb1@4ax.com>, at 14:54:27
on Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>remarked:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 02:27:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Given that's it's an intestacy, and John had no children or other
relatives, the only beneficiary is the partner.
In which case, it's extremely unlikely that there will be any IHT >>>liability.
Even for property not in joint names?
That was the point of having the deathbed civil partnership.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:03:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <v0gpti97sd8n6vpj9ou5fhq2p3ssdotsol@4ax.com>, at 16:51:03 on >>Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I'm sure someone could phone on her behalf, at least to make the initial >>>enquiry. I'm sure there are lots of cases where that needs to be done, for >>>example when the surviving partner has dementia, or doesn't speak English. >>>So I would expect that HMRC's IHT advisors are used to it, although of >>>course they will want to be sure that the person calling them has some >>>authority to do so. But, either way, the only way to find out is to try.
Why, if there's never going to be any IHT to pay (which many people
insist is the case).
If it was me, and I wasn't sure enough to trust my own reading of HRMC's IHT >manual, I'd phone them as well as asking the question here.
Much though I respect the expertise of some contributors to this
group, I don't think I'd be entirely comfortable trusting them alone in >matters where significant sums of money are in question.
Particularly given that HMRC makes their IHT helpline number easy to
find, which suggests that they want people to use it, rather than
hiding it away in a part of the website behind a sign marked "Beware of
the leopard".
On 26/02/2024 15:46, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, no relatives. And of course even *if* one were to appear in
two years time via an heir-hunter, that's too late for the current >>>exercise.
See previous advice on placing ads in relevant papers although, >>pedantically, as Jane is both administrator and beneficiary, she may
decide not to bother. (Personally, I would given the value of the
estate, but it is her choice.)
What is the point of that when she inherits the lot by law?
In message <4bjpti5op5b9ld4tdn8pldci9993kt5tfu@4ax.com>, at 17:48:26 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
If it was me, and I wasn't sure enough to trust my own reading of HRMC's IHT >>manual, I'd phone them as well as asking the question here.
I'm not Jane.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:14:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4bjpti5op5b9ld4tdn8pldci9993kt5tfu@4ax.com>, at 17:48:26 on >>Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
If it was me, and I wasn't sure enough to trust my own reading of HRMC's IHT >>>manual, I'd phone them as well as asking the question here.
I'm not Jane.
No, but you asked for advice for Jane. And my advice to Jane would be: phone >HMRC. Even if just for the peace of mind, since I'm now pretty much of the >opinion that, in the circumstances you describe, there is no IHT liability
at all. But she might feel a bit more comfortable hearing that from the >horse's mouth rather than strangers on the Internet.
For example I know surviving partners who claim that even if the estate >*isn't* modest they are the "obvious" person to be administrator so
what's the point of applying for letters of administration.
And then if all the estate is coming to them, why do they need probate?
Transferring a house is a simple and quick procedure. It is not the
personal representatives' responsibility to sell it or run it for a few
years but transfer it as soon as possible as it is.
In your case, as soon as Jane has Letters of Administration, which is
the first time the estate can pay for such things anyway, the house can
be transferred into her name and she becomes responsible for its
maintenance. That should be no more than a few weeks after the death.
In message <l4312uF2970U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:39:59 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03
on Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
But it might not necessarily be a spouse or a civil partner -
someone who is unmarried and unpartnered could die intestate, in
which case their estate will go to the next closest relative(s), who
will have to pay IHT. So, even in the case of intestacy, you do
need to know the identity of the beneficar[y|ies] before you can
ascertain whether IHT will be payable.
Again, no relatives. And of course even *if* one were to appear in
two years time via an heir-hunter, that's too late for the current
exercise.
What makes you think there's a time limit?
Only the fact that the estate could be all distributed by then.
Beneficiaries are entitled to what they're entitled to, and it's the
personal representatives' responsibility to identify and locate them.
By commissioning heir hunters?
If they don't they may well be liable themselves.
It's not for potential beneficiaries to be forced to monitor everyone
who has died and rush around claiming.
In the matter of my mother's estate, one of the charities she left money
to has done precisely that. There was no need, because they are on my
"to-do" list, but they seemed a bit miffed at not having been contacted
yet.
In message <l4432fF7511U4@mid.individual.net>, at 18:20:00 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 15:46, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, no relatives. And of course even *if* one were to appear in
two years time via an heir-hunter, that's too late for the current
exercise.
See previous advice on placing ads in relevant papers although,
pedantically, as Jane is both administrator and beneficiary, she may
decide not to bother. (Personally, I would given the value of the
estate, but it is her choice.)
What is the point of that when she inherits the lot by law?
The adverts are also a defence against surprise creditors.
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things have
been treading water since then and have only gained urgency because of a suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six months there will
be "penalties".
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four years to
get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV was especially knuckle-dragging.
(They'll usually stop unpaid cheques, standing orders and direct
debits once informed so ask for a copy of the SO and DD and put in
place alternative arrangements to pay necessary bills and expenses.)
In addition to the balance for each account, Jane will need to ask for
the amount of interest earned but not yet credited to the accounts up
to the date of John's death, the amount of interest earned to the date
of death for the tax year in which John died that has been credited to
the accounts, and whether it was paid net or gross of tax
Whilst visiting the banks and building societies, Jane should open a
new account for the administration of the estate into which proceeds
can be paid and from which expenses can be paid and liabilities
discharged.
See "dislike of bureaucracy", I suspect that as everyone says she'll get
all the funds anyway, that might be viewed as an unnecessary
complication. Although I agree it should be done. I know it was during
Covid but setting up an executor's account for my mothers estate was
like pulling teeth.
Take meter readings for John's house and the shared BTL property and
make a list of John's other debts. (Gas, electric, broadband, TV
subscription services, etc.)
A bit late for that, he died five months ago.
Given the timing of his death, did John submit his Tax Return? If
not, there's another thing to sort whilst looking at the debts.
I think that is in hand, but hampered because most of his records are on
a PC that we haven't yet been able to hack into.
After the grant of letters of administration, follow the statutory
procedure of placing an advert in the London Gazette and a local
newspaper circulated where John lived advertising the death and
inviting anyone with a claim against the estate or an interest in it
to inform Jane with a time of not less than 2 months after the placing
of the ad.
Thanks for the reminder. There's another £400 we'll never see again.
In the matter of my mother's estate, one of the charities she left
money to has done precisely that. There was no need, because they are
on my "to-do" list, but they seemed a bit miffed at not having been >>contacted yet.
After four years, I'm not surprised. That is totally excessive. They
were entitled to receive what your mother had left them promptly, not
just when you thought about getting round to giving it to them.
And you'll probably be liable to pay them interest at, I think, 6% a
year when you do get round to it.
On 26/02/2024 18:25, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4432fF7511U4@mid.individual.net>, at 18:20:00 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 15:46, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, no relatives. And of course even *if* one were to appear in >>>>>two years time via an heir-hunter, that's too late for the current >>>>>exercise.
See previous advice on placing ads in relevant papers although, >>>>pedantically, as Jane is both administrator and beneficiary, she may >>>>decide not to bother. (Personally, I would given the value of the >>>>estate, but it is her choice.)
What is the point of that when she inherits the lot by law?
The adverts are also a defence against surprise creditors.
They are, but I think any creditors would have been in contact by now.
Most don't leave it at least 5 months before chasing any money they're
owed.
On 26/02/2024 16:19, Roland Perry wrote:
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things
have been treading water since then and have only gained urgency
because of a suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six
months there will be "penalties".
Quite so. You have to get on with it.
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four years
to get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV was
especially knuckle-dragging.
Most estates should be, and are, settled within a year of the death. In
the absence of any dispute or challenge, there's little reason why they >shouldn't.
Take meter readings for John's house and the shared BTL property and >>>make a list of John's other debts. (Gas, electric, broadband, TV >>>subscription services, etc.)
A bit late for that, he died five months ago.
Given the timing of his death, did John submit his Tax Return? If
not, there's another thing to sort whilst looking at the debts.
I think that is in hand, but hampered because most of his records
are on a PC that we haven't yet been able to hack into.
So, given that that situation could persist for ever, what do you
propose to do about that? You have to do something, and you need to do
it soon.
After the grant of letters of administration, follow the statutory >>>procedure of placing an advert in the London Gazette and a local >>>newspaper circulated where John lived advertising the death and
inviting anyone with a claim against the estate or an interest in it
to inform Jane with a time of not less than 2 months after the
placing of the ad.
Thanks for the reminder. There's another 400 we'll never see again.
And totally unnecessary as she is entitled to the lot.
In message <samptillhseaft3f2bc06002d210jjrkn0@4ax.com>, at 18:35:47 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:14:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4bjpti5op5b9ld4tdn8pldci9993kt5tfu@4ax.com>, at 17:48:26 on >>>Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
If it was me, and I wasn't sure enough to trust my own reading of HRMC's IHT
manual, I'd phone them as well as asking the question here.
I'm not Jane.
No, but you asked for advice for Jane. And my advice to Jane would be: phone >>HMRC. Even if just for the peace of mind, since I'm now pretty much of the >>opinion that, in the circumstances you describe, there is no IHT liability >>at all. But she might feel a bit more comfortable hearing that from the >>horse's mouth rather than strangers on the Internet.
Do you self-identify as a horse's mouth or a stranger on the Internet?
In message <l4312uF2970U1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:39:59 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03
on Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
But it might not necessarily be a spouse or a civil partner -
someone who is unmarried and unpartnered could die intestate, in
which case their estate will go to the next closest relative(s), who
will have to pay IHT. So, even in the case of intestacy, you do need
to know the identity of the beneficar[y|ies] before you can
ascertain whether IHT will be payable.
Again, no relatives. And of course even *if* one were to appear in
two years time via an heir-hunter, that's too late for the current
exercise.
What makes you think there's a time limit?
Only the fact that the estate could be all distributed by then.
Beneficiaries are entitled to what they're entitled to, and it's the
personal representatives' responsibility to identify and locate them.
By commissioning heir hunters?
If they don't they may well be liable themselves.
It's not for potential beneficiaries to be forced to monitor everyone
who has died and rush around claiming.
In the matter of my mother's estate, one of the charities she left money
to has done precisely that. There was no need, because they are on my
"to-do" list, but they seemed a bit miffed at not having been contacted
yet.
In message <l29ptitc7gnr110vd8r4fkvfo6ijr6ceb1@4ax.com>, at 14:54:27 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 02:27:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03 on
Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
then the only beneficiaries who are exempt from IHT are a spouse/civil >>>> partner or a charity. That's irrespective of whether there's a will or >>>> not.
Given that's it's an intestacy, and John had no children or other
relatives, the only beneficiary is the partner.
In which case, it's extremely unlikely that there will be any IHT liability.
Even for property not in joint names?
And it's even more unlikely that there is anyone here with any experience of >> a situation so unusual as the one you are describing. Because this would not >> be in the slightest bit difficult to answer, even without personal
experience, if it were not for the deathbed civil partnership.
Why does the deathbed make it worse? They could have done the partnership/marriage years ago, but then done nothing about
putting property into joint names, or writing a new will.
And the number of people here who have personal experience of that
scenario is, I expect, precisely zero.
You never know, some people here claim experience of multiple scenarios.
In message <l445chF7511U8@mid.individual.net>, at 18:59:30 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
In the matter of my mother's estate, one of the charities she left
money to has done precisely that. There was no need, because they
are on my "to-do" list, but they seemed a bit miffed at not having
been contacted yet.
After four years, I'm not surprised. That is totally excessive. They
were entitled to receive what your mother had left them promptly, not
just when you thought about getting round to giving it to them.
I did everything I could to DIY persuade the various financial
institutions to value for probate. But many simply didn't respond,
"Because of Covid" becoming increasingly lame.
So I commissioned some specialist solicitors to do it for me, and two
years later they still hadn't finished the job. So I fired them and got
a second set of specialist solicitors to take over. There was a
considerable delay in the first set handing over the paperwork to the
second.
And you'll probably be liable to pay them interest at, I think, 6% a
year when you do get round to it.
Cite.
Are you confusing it with the interest payable on the [zero as it
happens] IHT?
In message <l444gcF7511U7@mid.individual.net>, at 18:44:28 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 16:19, Roland Perry wrote:
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things
have been treading water since then and have only gained urgency
because of a suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six
months there will be "penalties".
Quite so. You have to get on with it.
I'm not Jane (how many times do I have to say that?)
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four years
to get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV was
especially knuckle-dragging.
Most estates should be, and are, settled within a year of the death.
In the absence of any dispute or challenge, there's little reason why
they shouldn't.
"Because of Covid", followed by what I'd characterise as tantamount to professional negligence.
Given the timing of his death, did John submit his Tax Return? If
not, there's another thing to sort whilst looking at the debts.
I think that is in hand, but hampered because most of his records
are on a PC that we haven't yet been able to hack into.
So, given that that situation could persist for ever, what do you
propose to do about that? You have to do something, and you need to
do it soon.
<YAWN> **I'M** **NOT** **JANE**
After the grant of letters of administration, follow the statutory
procedure of placing an advert in the London Gazette and a local
newspaper circulated where John lived advertising the death and
inviting anyone with a claim against the estate or an interest in it
to inform Jane with a time of not less than 2 months after the
placing of the ad.
Thanks for the reminder. There's another £400 we'll never see again.
And totally unnecessary as she is entitled to the lot.
In your opinion.
In message <l445sjF7511U9@mid.individual.net>, at 19:08:03 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 18:25, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4432fF7511U4@mid.individual.net>, at 18:20:00 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 15:46, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
Again, no relatives. And of course even *if* one were to appear in >>>>>> two years time via an heir-hunter, that's too late for the
current exercise.
See previous advice on placing ads in relevant papers although,
pedantically, as Jane is both administrator and beneficiary, she
may decide not to bother. (Personally, I would given the value of
the estate, but it is her choice.)
What is the point of that when she inherits the lot by law?
The adverts are also a defence against surprise creditors.
They are, but I think any creditors would have been in contact by now.
Most don't leave it at least 5 months before chasing any money they're
owed.
Yet another set of solicitors completely botched my mother's tax return
for the year before she died, incurring HMRC penalties. And then had the
gall to demand their full fee (from the estate).
My opening gambit was "so sue me". They didn't respond. But until
perhaps 7yrs have passed, I suspect they could still turn up and
demand their pound of flesh.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 15:38:44 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l29ptitc7gnr110vd8r4fkvfo6ijr6ceb1@4ax.com>, at 14:54:27 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 02:27:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03 on >>>> Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
then the only beneficiaries who are exempt from IHT are a spouse/civil >>>>> partner or a charity. That's irrespective of whether there's a will or >>>>> not.
Given that's it's an intestacy, and John had no children or other
relatives, the only beneficiary is the partner.
In which case, it's extremely unlikely that there will be any IHT liability.
Even for property not in joint names?
Yes. There is no IHT liability on any transfer of value between spouses or civil partners. There are a few exclusions, and one partial exclusion, but none of them apply to the scenario you are describing.
And it's even more unlikely that there is anyone here with any experience of
a situation so unusual as the one you are describing. Because this would not
be in the slightest bit difficult to answer, even without personal
experience, if it were not for the deathbed civil partnership.
Why does the deathbed make it worse? They could have done the
partnership/marriage years ago, but then done nothing about
putting property into joint names, or writing a new will.
It doesn't make it worse. It potentially makes it simpler. Most of the various exclusions from the spouse or civil partner exemption are related to cases where there is a will, and it appears to HMRC that the will is expressly designed to avoid tax where it would otherwise be liable (eg, on a bequest to someone who would not benefit from the spousal exclusion by somehow funnelling that through someone who does benefit from it). But without a will, there can be no such chicanery. An intestate estate will go precisely where the rules say it will go; there is no opportunity for the testator to include disguised bequests and hence no prospect of any of them avoiding tax (if it is due). With intestacy, it's much more simple: a spouse or civil partner domiciled in the UK has full exemption, and any other beneficiary has exemption up to the relevant threshold.
(For completeness, I should add that there are some exclusions which might apply in the case of intestacy, such as where there are existing trust funds or where there is a qualified or reversionary interest in the transferred property. But you've already said that none of that applies, so we can exclude them from the discussion here).
The reason for my hesitancy is simply that it ocurred to me that HMRC might consider a deathbed marriage or civil partnership to be a form of avoidance in and of itself, given that it will usually result in someone gaining the exemption who, had the testator died prior to the marriage/CP, not being eligible for it. After all, the date of a gift made recently before death is taken into consideration when calculating IHT liability, so why shouldn't
the date of marriage/CP also be taken into account?
However, I can't find any reference to that in HMRC's IHT Manual, so I'm inclined to think that there is no such rule. All it says is that a marriage or civil partnership must be valid under UK law. There is no reference to
the timing of the marriage/CP vis-a-vis the death. In which case, the exemption is absolute unless one of the more arcane considerations of qualified or reversionary interests comes into play. But that is a situation where you really would need professional advice, not anecdata.
Mark
In message <l4328aF2970U2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:55 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Transferring a house is a simple and quick procedure. It is not the
personal representatives' responsibility to sell it or run it for a
few years but transfer it as soon as possible as it is.
In your case, as soon as Jane has Letters of Administration, which is
the first time the estate can pay for such things anyway, the house
can be transferred into her name and she becomes responsible for its
maintenance. That should be no more than a few weeks after the death.
Around four months from application, reportedly. And not everyone
applies for LoA immediately after the death.
In this case death was end of September and four months from now is June.
In message <l438s1F3ojtU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:49 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 26 Feb 2024 at 10:34:15 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urhgsb$2e30i$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:07:41 on Mon, 26 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urfs68$1v4og$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:27 on Sun, 25 Feb >>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5hd$1q1u0$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:51 on Sun, 25 Feb >>>>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:Relief (aka exemption) on gifts to a spouse.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb >>>>>>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between >>>>>>>>>> estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy >>>>>>>>>> rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT
liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish
to clarify.
No, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if >>>>>>>> you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are >>>>>>>> available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
What reliefs would you expect might be available on an intestate estate >>>>>>
That's a topic which doesn't crop up very often.
Eh? Of all IHT reliefs the spousal exemption is by far the most
frequently claimed.
Did you mean "gift exemption".
And if as many vociferously claim there's no IHT anyway what's the point >>> of messing with exemptions?
You are suffering a logic problem: "there's no IHT" precisely *because of* a
spousal *exemption*!!
But if 100% exemption, why do people go off on a tangent about various reliefs (which can't possibly reduce the IHT from zero to less than
zero).
In message <l43q3hF2goU8@mid.individual.net>, at 15:46:55 on Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03
on Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 06:19:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
I know you've asked for comments to be restricted to those who have
gone through this. But bear in mind that a) some facts about IHT are
simple and readily amenable to discovery without the need to have
undergone them personally, and b) one person's experience is only
their own experience, and may not necessarily apply to someone else
in even a slightly different position. So, rather than seeking
personal anecdata, I would suggest that you would be better off
seeking the advice of those with some level of professional knowledge in >>>> the area.
"The idea is to get some input from people who have trodden the
same
path before (which is, after all, the *whole point* of ulm), so they >>> know what sort of questions to ask the professional advisor, after
gathering some of the more relevant data - rather than turning up
with a haystack which might cost thousands** of pounds, and take
weeks, for the professional to wade through.
** Typical rate is £250/hr"
If you're looking for things for Jane / those assisting her to do to
reduce the quantity of expensive advice required, I recommend the
following:
As soon as practicable, obtain 3 valuations at the date of John's death
for all three properties (nine valuations in total).
Three each? One valuation is in the diary for later this week.
Inform the valuers that it is for probate and they'll ensure their
valuations are suitable for which they'll typically charge a fee.
And they aren't charging a fee.
Contact financial institutions (banks, building societies, and
insurance companies (I'd normally include shareholding organisations
here, but you said there aren't any so it isn't necessary) and inform
them of the death (no probate yet, so use the death certificate and
proof of the civil partnership) and ask for a statement of account /
details of the policy in the case of insurance.
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things have
been treading water since then and have only gained urgency because of a suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six months there will
be "penalties".
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four years to
get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV was especially knuckle-dragging.
(They'll usually stop unpaid cheques, standing orders and direct debits
once informed so ask for a copy of the SO and DD and put in place
alternative arrangements to pay necessary bills and expenses.)
In addition to the balance for each account, Jane will need to ask for
the amount of interest earned but not yet credited to the accounts up
to the date of John's death, the amount of interest earned to the date
of death for the tax year in which John died that has been credited to
the accounts, and whether it was paid net or gross of tax
Whilst visiting the banks and building societies, Jane should open a
new account for the administration of the estate into which proceeds
can be paid and from which expenses can be paid and liabilities
discharged.
See "dislike of bureaucracy", I suspect that as everyone says she'll get
all the funds anyway, that might be viewed as an unnecessary
complication. Although I agree it should be done. I know it was during
Covid but setting up an executor's account for my mothers estate was
like pulling teeth.
--
On 26/02/2024 16:19, Roland Perry wrote:
After the grant of letters of administration, follow the statutory
procedure of placing an advert in the London Gazette and a local
newspaper circulated where John lived advertising the death and
inviting anyone with a claim against the estate or an interest in it
to inform Jane with a time of not less than 2 months after the placing
of the ad.
Thanks for the reminder. There's another £400 we'll never see again.
And totally unnecessary as she is entitled to the lot.
In message <l438s1F3ojtU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:52:49 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 26 Feb 2024 at 10:34:15 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urhgsb$2e30i$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:07:41 on Mon, 26 Feb
2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urfs68$1v4og$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:27 on Sun, 25 Feb >>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urf5hd$1q1u0$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:51 on Sun, 25 Feb >>>>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:Relief (aka exemption) on gifts to a spouse.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urd8g5$1a1c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:07 on Sat, 24 Feb >>>>>>>>> 2024, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> remarked:
The important point is that IHTA 1984 doesn't distinguish between >>>>>>>>>> estates distributed by will and those distributed by the intestacy >>>>>>>>>> rules.
That may well be the case, but distribution only starts *after* the IHT
liability has bee calculated and paid, and it's that first stage I wish
to clarify.
No, the first stage is to determine the distribution (disposition if >>>>>>>> you prefer) of the assets, because that determines what reliefs are >>>>>>>> available. Only then can the IHT be calculated.
What reliefs would you expect might be available on an intestate estate >>>>>>
That's a topic which doesn't crop up very often.
Eh? Of all IHT reliefs the spousal exemption is by far the most
frequently claimed.
Did you mean "gift exemption".
And if as many vociferously claim there's no IHT anyway what's the point >>> of messing with exemptions?
You are suffering a logic problem: "there's no IHT" precisely *because of* a
spousal *exemption*!!
But if 100% exemption, why do people go off on a tangent about various reliefs (which can't possibly reduce the IHT from zero to less than
zero).
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:03:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <v0gpti97sd8n6vpj9ou5fhq2p3ssdotsol@4ax.com>, at 16:51:03 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I'm sure someone could phone on her behalf, at least to make the initial >>> enquiry. I'm sure there are lots of cases where that needs to be done, for >>> example when the surviving partner has dementia, or doesn't speak English. >>> So I would expect that HMRC's IHT advisors are used to it, although of
course they will want to be sure that the person calling them has some
authority to do so. But, either way, the only way to find out is to try.
Why, if there's never going to be any IHT to pay (which many people
insist is the case).
If it was me, and I wasn't sure enough to trust my own reading of HRMC's IHT manual, I'd phone them as well as asking the question here. Much though I respect the expertise of some contributors to this group, I don't think I'd be entirely comfortable trusting them alone in matters where significant
sums of money are in question. Particularly given that HMRC makes their IHT helpline number easy to find, which suggests that they want people to use
it, rather than hiding it away in a part of the website behind a sign marked "Beware of the leopard".
Mark
In message <samptillhseaft3f2bc06002d210jjrkn0@4ax.com>, at 18:35:47 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:14:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4bjpti5op5b9ld4tdn8pldci9993kt5tfu@4ax.com>, at 17:48:26 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
If it was me, and I wasn't sure enough to trust my own reading of HRMC's IHT
manual, I'd phone them as well as asking the question here.
I'm not Jane.
No, but you asked for advice for Jane. And my advice to Jane would be: phone >> HMRC. Even if just for the peace of mind, since I'm now pretty much of the >> opinion that, in the circumstances you describe, there is no IHT liability >> at all. But she might feel a bit more comfortable hearing that from the
horse's mouth rather than strangers on the Internet.
Do you self-identify as a horse's mouth or a stranger on the Internet?
On 26 Feb 2024 at 16:19:31 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l43q3hF2goU8@mid.individual.net>, at 15:46:55 on Mon, 26 Feb
2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03
on Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 06:19:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
I know you've asked for comments to be restricted to those who have
gone through this. But bear in mind that a) some facts about IHT are >>>>> simple and readily amenable to discovery without the need to have
undergone them personally, and b) one person's experience is only
their own experience, and may not necessarily apply to someone else >>>>> in even a slightly different position. So, rather than seeking
personal anecdata, I would suggest that you would be better off
seeking the advice of those with some level of professional knowledge in >>>>> the area.
"The idea is to get some input from people who have trodden the
same
path before (which is, after all, the *whole point* of ulm), so they >>>> know what sort of questions to ask the professional advisor, after >>>> gathering some of the more relevant data - rather than turning up >>>> with a haystack which might cost thousands** of pounds, and take
weeks, for the professional to wade through.
** Typical rate is 250/hr"
If you're looking for things for Jane / those assisting her to do to
reduce the quantity of expensive advice required, I recommend the
following:
As soon as practicable, obtain 3 valuations at the date of John's death
for all three properties (nine valuations in total).
Three each? One valuation is in the diary for later this week.
Inform the valuers that it is for probate and they'll ensure their
valuations are suitable for which they'll typically charge a fee.
And they aren't charging a fee.
They may not charge a fee if they hope to be selling the house, but Jane needs >a formal valuation for probate and IHT purposes,
which will a) be potentially different from a sale aspiration, and b)
will certainly be charged for if in a form suitable for HMRC.
Contact financial institutions (banks, building societies, and
insurance companies (I'd normally include shareholding organisations
here, but you said there aren't any so it isn't necessary) and inform
them of the death (no probate yet, so use the death certificate and
proof of the civil partnership) and ask for a statement of account /
details of the policy in the case of insurance.
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things have
been treading water since then and have only gained urgency because of a
suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six months there will
be "penalties".
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four years to
get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV was especially
knuckle-dragging.
(They'll usually stop unpaid cheques, standing orders and direct debits
once informed so ask for a copy of the SO and DD and put in place
alternative arrangements to pay necessary bills and expenses.)
In addition to the balance for each account, Jane will need to ask for
the amount of interest earned but not yet credited to the accounts up
to the date of John's death, the amount of interest earned to the date
of death for the tax year in which John died that has been credited to
the accounts, and whether it was paid net or gross of tax
Whilst visiting the banks and building societies, Jane should open a
new account for the administration of the estate into which proceeds
can be paid and from which expenses can be paid and liabilities
discharged.
See "dislike of bureaucracy", I suspect that as everyone says she'll get
all the funds anyway, that might be viewed as an unnecessary
complication. Although I agree it should be done. I know it was during
Covid but setting up an executor's account for my mothers estate was
like pulling teeth.
If she wants the double IHT exemption on her death to apply, which she might >if she intends leaving her money to relatives or charities,
then she needs to formally establish the value of the estate to HMRC
even though there is no IHT to pay. Her beneficiaries cannot claim the >exemption if she does not do this. I think so, anyway.
snip bits I am not commenting on.
On 26 Feb 2024 at 18:46:30 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <samptillhseaft3f2bc06002d210jjrkn0@4ax.com>, at 18:35:47 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:14:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <4bjpti5op5b9ld4tdn8pldci9993kt5tfu@4ax.com>, at 17:48:26 on >>>> Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
If it was me, and I wasn't sure enough to trust my own reading of >>>>>HRMC's IHT
manual, I'd phone them as well as asking the question here.
I'm not Jane.
No, but you asked for advice for Jane. And my advice to Jane would be: phone
HMRC. Even if just for the peace of mind, since I'm now pretty much of the >>> opinion that, in the circumstances you describe, there is no IHT liability >>> at all. But she might feel a bit more comfortable hearing that from the
horse's mouth rather than strangers on the Internet.
Do you self-identify as a horse's mouth or a stranger on the Internet?
By definition, only HMRC qualifies as that particular horse's mouth!
In message <l44knrFacs8U1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:21:31 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 26 Feb 2024 at 18:46:30 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <samptillhseaft3f2bc06002d210jjrkn0@4ax.com>, at 18:35:47 on
Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:14:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <4bjpti5op5b9ld4tdn8pldci9993kt5tfu@4ax.com>, at 17:48:26 on >>>>> Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
If it was me, and I wasn't sure enough to trust my own reading of
HRMC's IHT
manual, I'd phone them as well as asking the question here.
I'm not Jane.
No, but you asked for advice for Jane. And my advice to Jane would be: phone
HMRC. Even if just for the peace of mind, since I'm now pretty much of the >>>> opinion that, in the circumstances you describe, there is no IHT liability >>>> at all. But she might feel a bit more comfortable hearing that from the >>>> horse's mouth rather than strangers on the Internet.
Do you self-identify as a horse's mouth or a stranger on the Internet?
By definition, only HMRC qualifies as that particular horse's mouth!
HMRC in person, presumably, not dumbed-down advice such as is
commonplace on gov.uk
In message <l44jpmFa7jiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:05:26 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 26 Feb 2024 at 16:19:31 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l43q3hF2goU8@mid.individual.net>, at 15:46:55 on Mon, 26 Feb >>> 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03 >>>>> on Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>> remarked:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 06:19:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I know you've asked for comments to be restricted to those who have >>>>>> gone through this. But bear in mind that a) some facts about IHT are >>>>>> simple and readily amenable to discovery without the need to have >>>>>> undergone them personally, and b) one person's experience is only >>>>>> their own experience, and may not necessarily apply to someone else >>>>>> in even a slightly different position. So, rather than seeking
personal anecdata, I would suggest that you would be better off
seeking the advice of those with some level of professional knowledge in >>>>>> the area.
"The idea is to get some input from people who have trodden the >>>>> same
path before (which is, after all, the *whole point* of ulm), so they >>>>> know what sort of questions to ask the professional advisor, after >>>>> gathering some of the more relevant data - rather than turning up >>>>> with a haystack which might cost thousands** of pounds, and take >>>>> weeks, for the professional to wade through.
** Typical rate is £250/hr"
If you're looking for things for Jane / those assisting her to do to
reduce the quantity of expensive advice required, I recommend the
following:
As soon as practicable, obtain 3 valuations at the date of John's death >>>> for all three properties (nine valuations in total).
Three each? One valuation is in the diary for later this week.
Inform the valuers that it is for probate and they'll ensure their
valuations are suitable for which they'll typically charge a fee.
And they aren't charging a fee.
They may not charge a fee if they hope to be selling the house, but Jane needs
a formal valuation for probate and IHT purposes,
From one valuer or three (total nine valuations)?
which will a) be potentially different from a sale aspiration, and b)
will certainly be charged for if in a form suitable for HMRC.
Contact financial institutions (banks, building societies, and
insurance companies (I'd normally include shareholding organisations
here, but you said there aren't any so it isn't necessary) and inform
them of the death (no probate yet, so use the death certificate and
proof of the civil partnership) and ask for a statement of account /
details of the policy in the case of insurance.
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things have >>> been treading water since then and have only gained urgency because of a >>> suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six months there will
be "penalties".
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four years to >>> get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV was especially
knuckle-dragging.
(They'll usually stop unpaid cheques, standing orders and direct debits >>>> once informed so ask for a copy of the SO and DD and put in place
alternative arrangements to pay necessary bills and expenses.)
In addition to the balance for each account, Jane will need to ask for >>>> the amount of interest earned but not yet credited to the accounts up
to the date of John's death, the amount of interest earned to the date >>>> of death for the tax year in which John died that has been credited to >>>> the accounts, and whether it was paid net or gross of tax
Whilst visiting the banks and building societies, Jane should open a
new account for the administration of the estate into which proceeds
can be paid and from which expenses can be paid and liabilities
discharged.
See "dislike of bureaucracy", I suspect that as everyone says she'll get >>> all the funds anyway, that might be viewed as an unnecessary
complication. Although I agree it should be done. I know it was during
Covid but setting up an executor's account for my mothers estate was
like pulling teeth.
If she wants the double IHT exemption on her death to apply, which she might >> if she intends leaving her money to relatives or charities,
Do they have different rules to leaving money to friends/neighbours?
then she needs to formally establish the value of the estate to HMRC
even though there is no IHT to pay. Her beneficiaries cannot claim the
exemption if she does not do this. I think so, anyway.
snip bits I am not commenting on.
In message <l44jpmFa7jiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:05:26 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 26 Feb 2024 at 16:19:31 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l43q3hF2goU8@mid.individual.net>, at 15:46:55 on Mon, 26 Feb >>> 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03 >>>>> on Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>> remarked:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 06:19:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I know you've asked for comments to be restricted to those who have >>>>>> gone through this. But bear in mind that a) some facts about IHT are >>>>>> simple and readily amenable to discovery without the need to have >>>>>> undergone them personally, and b) one person's experience is only >>>>>> their own experience, and may not necessarily apply to someone else >>>>>> in even a slightly different position. So, rather than seeking
personal anecdata, I would suggest that you would be better off
seeking the advice of those with some level of professional knowledge in >>>>>> the area.
"The idea is to get some input from people who have trodden the
same
path before (which is, after all, the *whole point* of ulm), so they >>>>> know what sort of questions to ask the professional advisor, after
gathering some of the more relevant data - rather than turning up
with a haystack which might cost thousands** of pounds, and take
weeks, for the professional to wade through.
** Typical rate is £250/hr"
If you're looking for things for Jane / those assisting her to do to
reduce the quantity of expensive advice required, I recommend the
following:
As soon as practicable, obtain 3 valuations at the date of John's death >>>> for all three properties (nine valuations in total).
Three each? One valuation is in the diary for later this week.
Inform the valuers that it is for probate and they'll ensure their
valuations are suitable for which they'll typically charge a fee.
And they aren't charging a fee.
They may not charge a fee if they hope to be selling the house, but Jane needs
a formal valuation for probate and IHT purposes,
From one valuer or three (total nine valuations)?
which will a) be potentially different from a sale aspiration, and b)
will certainly be charged for if in a form suitable for HMRC.
Contact financial institutions (banks, building societies, and
insurance companies (I'd normally include shareholding organisations
here, but you said there aren't any so it isn't necessary) and inform
them of the death (no probate yet, so use the death certificate and
proof of the civil partnership) and ask for a statement of account /
details of the policy in the case of insurance.
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things have >>> been treading water since then and have only gained urgency because of a >>> suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six months there will
be "penalties".
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four years to >>> get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV was especially
knuckle-dragging.
(They'll usually stop unpaid cheques, standing orders and direct debits >>>> once informed so ask for a copy of the SO and DD and put in place
alternative arrangements to pay necessary bills and expenses.)
In addition to the balance for each account, Jane will need to ask for >>>> the amount of interest earned but not yet credited to the accounts up
to the date of John's death, the amount of interest earned to the date >>>> of death for the tax year in which John died that has been credited to >>>> the accounts, and whether it was paid net or gross of tax
Whilst visiting the banks and building societies, Jane should open a
new account for the administration of the estate into which proceeds
can be paid and from which expenses can be paid and liabilities
discharged.
See "dislike of bureaucracy", I suspect that as everyone says she'll get >>> all the funds anyway, that might be viewed as an unnecessary
complication. Although I agree it should be done. I know it was during
Covid but setting up an executor's account for my mothers estate was
like pulling teeth.
If she wants the double IHT exemption on her death to apply, which she might >> if she intends leaving her money to relatives or charities,
Do they have different rules to leaving money to friends/neighbours?
then she needs to formally establish the value of the estate to HMRC
even though there is no IHT to pay. Her beneficiaries cannot claim the
exemption if she does not do this. I think so, anyway.
snip bits I am not commenting on.
On 26 Feb 2024 at 23:27:11 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l44knrFacs8U1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:21:31 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 26 Feb 2024 at 18:46:30 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <samptillhseaft3f2bc06002d210jjrkn0@4ax.com>, at 18:35:47 on >>>> Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:14:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
In message <4bjpti5op5b9ld4tdn8pldci9993kt5tfu@4ax.com>, at 17:48:26 on >>>>>> Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
If it was me, and I wasn't sure enough to trust my own reading of >>>>>>> HRMC's IHT
manual, I'd phone them as well as asking the question here.
I'm not Jane.
No, but you asked for advice for Jane. And my advice to Jane would >>>>>be: phone
HMRC. Even if just for the peace of mind, since I'm now pretty much of the
opinion that, in the circumstances you describe, there is no IHT liability
at all. But she might feel a bit more comfortable hearing that from the >>>>> horse's mouth rather than strangers on the Internet.
Do you self-identify as a horse's mouth or a stranger on the Internet?
By definition, only HMRC qualifies as that particular horse's mouth!
HMRC in person, presumably, not dumbed-down advice such as is
commonplace on gov.uk
HMRC do have forms and notes for filling them in on gov.uk, which can be >sufficient; but yes, if anything is unclear
you need to discuss with the
relevant mouth, and associated auditory organs, on the phone to HMRC.
On 26/02/2024 20:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l445chF7511U8@mid.individual.net>, at 18:59:30 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
In the matter of my mother's estate, one of the charities she left >>>>money to has done precisely that. There was no need, because they
are on my "to-do" list, but they seemed a bit miffed at not having >>>>been contacted yet.
After four years, I'm not surprised. That is totally excessive.
They were entitled to receive what your mother had left them
promptly, not just when you thought about getting round to giving it
I did everything I could to DIY persuade the various financial >>institutions to value for probate. But many simply didn't respond,
"Because of Covid" becoming increasingly lame.
So I commissioned some specialist solicitors to do it for me, and
two years later they still hadn't finished the job. So I fired them
and got a second set of specialist solicitors to take over. There was
a considerable delay in the first set handing over the paperwork to
the second.
And you'll probably be liable to pay them interest at, I think, 6% a >>>year when you do get round to it.Cite.
https://www.footanstey.com/our-insights/articles-news/a-guide-to-pecunia >ry-legacies-and-statutory-interest/
Are you confusing it with the interest payable on the [zero as it
happens] IHT?
No.
On 26/02/2024 20:52, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l444gcF7511U7@mid.individual.net>, at 18:44:28 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 16:19, Roland Perry wrote:I'm not Jane (how many times do I have to say that?)
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things >>>>have been treading water since then and have only gained urgency >>>>because of a suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six >>>>months there will be "penalties".
Quite so. You have to get on with it.
You are synonymous with her as far as this conversation goes. Please
put your pedantry aside for one moment.
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four
years to get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV
was especially knuckle-dragging.
Most estates should be, and are, settled within a year of the death.
In the absence of any dispute or challenge, there's little reason why >>>they shouldn't.
"Because of Covid", followed by what I'd characterise as tantamount
to professional negligence.
Given the timing of his death, did John submit his Tax Return? If >>>>>not, there's another thing to sort whilst looking at the debts.
I think that is in hand, but hampered because most of his records
are on a PC that we haven't yet been able to hack into.
So, given that that situation could persist for ever, what do you >>>propose to do about that? You have to do something, and you need to
do it soon.
<YAWN> **I'M** **NOT** **JANE**
The same applies nevertheless.
In your opinion.After the grant of letters of administration, follow the statutory >>>>>procedure of placing an advert in the London Gazette and a local >>>>>newspaper circulated where John lived advertising the death and >>>>>inviting anyone with a claim against the estate or an interest in
it to inform Jane with a time of not less than 2 months after the
Thanks for the reminder. There's another 400 we'll never see
again.
And totally unnecessary as she is entitled to the lot.
Yes indeed. And it might
even be correct despite your evident confirmation bias.
In message <l437qjF3jtiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:34:59 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
For example I know surviving partners who claim that even if the estate
*isn't* modest they are the "obvious" person to be administrator so
what's the point of applying for letters of administration. And then if
all the estate is coming to them, why do they need probate?
Yes, I know, the bank probably won't hand over the £50k in the
sole-named current account without it, however "obvious" it might be the >>> right-thing-to-do.
I have direct experience of a bank handing over considerably more than half >> that in precisely those circumstances.
How do they know the payee isn't a scammer?
My experience of administering my mother's estate is the vast majority
of financial institutions have a hard ceiling of £5k.
On 26/02/2024 19:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4328aF2970U2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:55 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Transferring a house is a simple and quick procedure. It is not the >>>personal representatives' responsibility to sell it or run it for aAround four months from application, reportedly. And not everyone
few years but transfer it as soon as possible as it is.
In your case, as soon as Jane has Letters of Administration, which
is the first time the estate can pay for such things anyway, the
house can be transferred into her name and she becomes responsible
for its maintenance. That should be no more than a few weeks after
applies for LoA immediately after the death.
In this case death was end of September and four months from now is
June.
It seems you
have a rather relaxed approach to sorting out estates that may cost
them eventually in interest charges.
"If the case is straightforward, it typically takes around 30 days to
obtain a grant of letters of administration."
https://www.intestacyrules.co.uk/what-is-a-letter-of-administration-in-the-uk/
"According to the latest data published by the Land Registry (as of
March 2023), the transfer of ownership timescales, including the
registration of property transfers, updating charges against property, >changing names on property, and transfer of ownership after death are
split as follows: 28.8% within 1 day, 8.8% within 1 week, 30.6% within
1 month ... . While all applications are now processed automatically
within minutes ..."
https://www.guillaumes.com/news/how-long-does-land-registry-take-to-tran >sfer-ownership%3F#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20latest%20data,%25%20wit >hin%201%20day%2C%208.8%25
On 26 Feb 2024 at 23:23:02 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l44jpmFa7jiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:05:26 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 26 Feb 2024 at 16:19:31 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l43q3hF2goU8@mid.individual.net>, at 15:46:55 on Mon, 26 Feb >>>> 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03 >>>>>> on Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>> remarked:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 06:19:29 +0000, Roland Perry >>>>>>><roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I know you've asked for comments to be restricted to those who have >>>>>>> gone through this. But bear in mind that a) some facts about IHT are >>>>>>> simple and readily amenable to discovery without the need to have >>>>>>> undergone them personally, and b) one person's experience is only >>>>>>> their own experience, and may not necessarily apply to someone else >>>>>>> in even a slightly different position. So, rather than seeking
personal anecdata, I would suggest that you would be better off >>>>>>> seeking the advice of those with some level of professional knowledge in
the area.
"The idea is to get some input from people who have trodden the >>>>>> same
path before (which is, after all, the *whole point* of ulm), so they
know what sort of questions to ask the professional advisor, after >>>>>> gathering some of the more relevant data - rather than turning up >>>>>> with a haystack which might cost thousands** of pounds, and take >>>>>> weeks, for the professional to wade through.
** Typical rate is 250/hr"
If you're looking for things for Jane / those assisting her to do to >>>>> reduce the quantity of expensive advice required, I recommend the
following:
As soon as practicable, obtain 3 valuations at the date of John's death >>>>> for all three properties (nine valuations in total).
Three each? One valuation is in the diary for later this week.
Inform the valuers that it is for probate and they'll ensure their
valuations are suitable for which they'll typically charge a fee.
And they aren't charging a fee.
They may not charge a fee if they hope to be selling the house, but
Jane needs
a formal valuation for probate and IHT purposes,
From one valuer or three (total nine valuations)?
which will a) be potentially different from a sale aspiration, and b)
will certainly be charged for if in a form suitable for HMRC.
Contact financial institutions (banks, building societies, and
insurance companies (I'd normally include shareholding organisations >>>>> here, but you said there aren't any so it isn't necessary) and inform >>>>> them of the death (no probate yet, so use the death certificate and
proof of the civil partnership) and ask for a statement of account / >>>>> details of the policy in the case of insurance.
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things have >>>> been treading water since then and have only gained urgency because of a >>>> suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six months there will >>>> be "penalties".
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four years to >>>> get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV was especially >>>> knuckle-dragging.
(They'll usually stop unpaid cheques, standing orders and direct debits >>>>> once informed so ask for a copy of the SO and DD and put in place
alternative arrangements to pay necessary bills and expenses.)
In addition to the balance for each account, Jane will need to ask for >>>>> the amount of interest earned but not yet credited to the accounts up >>>>> to the date of John's death, the amount of interest earned to the date >>>>> of death for the tax year in which John died that has been credited to >>>>> the accounts, and whether it was paid net or gross of tax
Whilst visiting the banks and building societies, Jane should open a >>>>> new account for the administration of the estate into which proceeds >>>>> can be paid and from which expenses can be paid and liabilities
discharged.
See "dislike of bureaucracy", I suspect that as everyone says she'll get >>>> all the funds anyway, that might be viewed as an unnecessary
complication. Although I agree it should be done. I know it was during >>>> Covid but setting up an executor's account for my mothers estate was
like pulling teeth.
If she wants the double IHT exemption on her death to apply, which she might
if she intends leaving her money to relatives or charities,
Do they have different rules to leaving money to friends/neighbours?
Of course not, (well they do if you have any dependents, FS rather broad VO >dependents), I just forgot a "for instance" at the end.
If she is happy to let her whole estate go to the exchequer then I
suppose she needn't bother. But large estates *have* to be reported in
detail to HMRC, regardless of her wishes. I don't know the definition
of large in this context, but someone on the thread said three million >pounds.
then she needs to formally establish the value of the estate to HMRC
even though there is no IHT to pay. Her beneficiaries cannot claim the
exemption if she does not do this. I think so, anyway.
snip bits I am not commenting on.
I have direct experience of a bank handing over considerably more than half >>> that in precisely those circumstances.
How do they know the payee isn't a scammer?
My experience of administering my mother's estate is the vast majority
of financial institutions have a hard ceiling of 5k.
Perhaps because as a customer of theirs a) they know my identity, and b) they >know I'm good for reimbursement if I turn out not to be entitled to it. >Nonetheless, they handed it over in fact, direct to my account with them. >Owing to the money laundering regs, I couldn't even have closed my account the >week after without them knowing where it went!
In message <l44gipF9e6gU2@mid.individual.net>, at 22:10:34 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 20:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l445chF7511U8@mid.individual.net>, at 18:59:30 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
In the matter of my mother's estate, one of the charities she left >>>>> money to has done precisely that. There was no need, because they
are on my "to-do" list, but they seemed a bit miffed at not having >>>>> been contacted yet.
After four years, I'm not surprised. That is totally excessive.
They were entitled to receive what your mother had left them
promptly, not just when you thought about getting round to giving it
And you'll probably be liable to pay them interest at, I think, 6% aCite.
year when you do get round to it.
https://www.footanstey.com/our-insights/articles-news/a-guide-to-pecunia
ry-legacies-and-statutory-interest/
Oh look! A random blogger. >
Are you confusing it with the interest payable on the [zero as it
happens] IHT?
No.
Difficulties include the average interest rate there being 2%, and no
mention at all about legacies like "10% of the residue to the local
cats' home".
Double fail, it seems.
In message <l44iglF9e6gU6@mid.individual.net>, at 22:43:34 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 19:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4328aF2970U2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:55 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Transferring a house is a simple and quick procedure. It is not theAround four months from application, reportedly. And not everyone
personal representatives' responsibility to sell it or run it for a
few years but transfer it as soon as possible as it is.
In your case, as soon as Jane has Letters of Administration, which
is the first time the estate can pay for such things anyway, the
house can be transferred into her name and she becomes responsible
for its maintenance. That should be no more than a few weeks after
applies for LoA immediately after the death.
In this case death was end of September and four months from now is
June.
It seems you
*** ** * * * * ** *****
* * * ** ** ** * * * *
* * * * ** * * * * * * * JANE
* ****** * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * ** * * *
*** * * * * * * ** *
have a rather relaxed approach to sorting out estates that may cost
them eventually in interest charges.
"If the case is straightforward, it typically takes around 30 days to
obtain a grant of letters of administration."
https://www.intestacyrules.co.uk/what-is-a-letter-of-administration-in-the-uk/
Oh LOOK!!! another random blogger. The 4 months quote was from the
probate office yesterday.
"According to the latest data published by the Land Registry (as of
March 2023), the transfer of ownership timescales, including the
registration of property transfers, updating charges against property,
changing names on property, and transfer of ownership after death are
split as follows: 28.8% within 1 day, 8.8% within 1 week, 30.6% within
1 month ... . While all applications are now processed automatically
within minutes ..."
NONE OF WHICH are approving Letters of Administration for an intestate estate.
https://www.guillaumes.com/news/how-long-does-land-registry-take-to-tran
sfer-ownership%3F#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20latest%20data,%25%20wit
hin%201%20day%2C%208.8%25
In message <l44guaF9e6gU3@mid.individual.net>, at 22:16:43 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 20:52, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l444gcF7511U7@mid.individual.net>, at 18:44:28 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 16:19, Roland Perry wrote:
Given the timing of his death, did John submit his Tax Return? If >>>>>> not, there's another thing to sort whilst looking at the debts.
I think that is in hand, but hampered because most of his records
are on a PC that we haven't yet been able to hack into.
So, given that that situation could persist for ever, what do you
propose to do about that? You have to do something, and you need to
do it soon.
<YAWN> **I'M** **NOT** **JANE**
The same applies nevertheless.
You have no idea about Jane's circumstances, so you should really not be judgmental.
In your opinion.After the grant of letters of administration, follow the statutory >>>>>> procedure of placing an advert in the London Gazette and a local
newspaper circulated where John lived advertising the death and
inviting anyone with a claim against the estate or an interest in
it to inform Jane with a time of not less than 2 months after the
Thanks for the reminder. There's another £400 we'll never see again. >>>>And totally unnecessary as she is entitled to the lot.
Yes indeed. And it might
Your track record suggests otherwise.
even be correct despite your evident confirmation bias.
Your needle is stuck, yet again.
On 26/02/2024 14:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 02:27:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <c0anti1np0a6k38cplq271ma6l2adbv2h2@4ax.com>, at 21:02:03 on
Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
then the only beneficiaries who are exempt from IHT are a spouse/civil >>>> partner or a charity. That's irrespective of whether there's a will or >>>> not.
Given that's it's an intestacy, and John had no children or other
relatives, the only beneficiary is the partner.
In which case, it's extremely unlikely that there will be any IHT liability. >> And it's even more unlikely that there is anyone here with any experience of >> a situation so unusual as the one you are describing. Because this would not >> be in the slightest bit difficult to answer, even without personal
experience, if it were not for the deathbed civil partnership. And the
number of people here who have personal experience of that scenario is, I
expect, precisely zero.
I have experience of handling a low seven figure estate (so similar in
value to Jane's) for a couple that had their own properties and married
[1] in expectation of the imminent death of "John" (following a terminal cancer diagnosis). The main difference is that the "John" in my version executed a new will following the deathbed marriage leaving everything
to his "Jane" so there was absolutely no possibility of surprise
relatives appearing or any ambiguity regarding what was going to whom.
(Said will was two pages and left everything to Jane.)
I will leave you and others to decide whether that counts as "personal experience of that scenario" and therefore whether your expectations
were correct or incorrect.
I will also take this opportunity to address the claim elsewhere in the thread that the proximity of the civil partnership to the death can be challenged, either by a family member or HMRC.
In the case of HMRC, Sir Ken Dodd famously married his long-term
partner, Anne Jones, just two days before his death with the express aim
of saving her from what would have been a not inconsiderable IHT
liability. There was precisely nothing HMRC could do about this, nor
did they attempt to do so.
As for family members challenging the marriage / civil partnership the
case of Wharton v Bancroft [2011] EWHC 3250 settled that one unequivocally.
Regards
S.P.
[1] For the avoidance of doubt, it matters not whether what takes place
is a marriage or a civil partnership. Both require the issue of a
"Registrar General's Licence" and each as is equally binding legally as
the other.
The information I gleaned when administering my late wife's estate was that in >the case of intestacy and an estate in excess of 272,000 GBP (or some figure >close to that) the children of the deceased where entitled to a share in the >estate. This obviously does not apply in the case Roland presents as the >deceased had no children, but if true in a similar case might it mean that IHT >had to be paid on the children's share if said share actually exceeded the >threshold? I am presuming the share going to the spouse would not be taken >into account as exempt.
In the case of HMRC, Sir Ken Dodd famously married his long-term
partner, Anne Jones, just two days before his death with the express aim
of saving her from what would have been a not inconsiderable IHT
liability. There was precisely nothing HMRC could do about this, nor
did they attempt to do so.
As for family members challenging the marriage / civil partnership the
case of Wharton v Bancroft [2011] EWHC 3250 settled that one unequivocally.
On 26 Feb 2024 22:43:51 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The information I gleaned when administering my late wife's estate was that in
the case of intestacy and an estate in excess of 272,000 GBP (or some figure >> close to that) the children of the deceased where entitled to a share in the >> estate. This obviously does not apply in the case Roland presents as the
deceased had no children, but if true in a similar case might it mean that IHT
had to be paid on the children's share if said share actually exceeded the >> threshold? I am presuming the share going to the spouse would not be taken >> into account as exempt.
Yes. Children aren't exempt from IHT, so if they inherit - whether via a
will or intestacy - they will be liable for IHT - if their total share of
the estate exceeds the threshold. The total share for those subject to IHT
is calculated after the value left to the exempt person is deducted. So if someone has an estate worth a million, and leaves half to their wife and the rest split between their children, then the children's IHT liability will be based on a value of £500,000.
Mark
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
In the case of HMRC, Sir Ken Dodd famously married his long-term
partner, Anne Jones, just two days before his death with the express aim
of saving her from what would have been a not inconsiderable IHT
liability. There was precisely nothing HMRC could do about this, nor
did they attempt to do so.
As for family members challenging the marriage / civil partnership the
case of Wharton v Bancroft [2011] EWHC 3250 settled that one unequivocally. >>
I don't think so; that case turned on testamentary capacity, not capacity to marry.
In fact the legal test for capacity to marry is not very clear, though it seems to be generally accepted that the bar is much lower than that for testamentary capacity. Courts have generally considered that capacity to marry
only requires an understanding that marriage may have financial consequences, not an understanding of what the consequences are. One case (Re DMM in the EWCOP) held that an individual must be able
to understand that a marriage revokes an existing will, though that hasn't yet
been
confirmed by any higher court.
It would be useful thing to have clarified, though it doesn't seem to be a bone of contention in Roland's case.
On 26/02/2024 16:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <VIv9nbWToL3lFAVJ@perry.uk>, at 16:19:31 on Mon, 26 Feb
2024, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <l43q3hF2goU8@mid.individual.net>, at 15:46:55 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
[...]
It wasn't shared, it was in his sole name.Take meter readings for John's house and the shared BTL property
My apologies for mis-remembering and thank you for correcting me.
and make a list of John's other debts. (Gas, electric, broadband,
TV subscription services, etc.)
And find some funds to continue the subscriptions (especially >>insurances).
Assuming John was a sole landlord, not only is the property itself part
of the estate but so is the tenancy.
As the personal representative,
Jane is entitled to collect rent, and any arrears, (per Raymond v Fitch >[1835] 2 CM & R 588) once she has a grant of Letters of Administration
(per the Administration of Estates Act 1925 sections 9 and 21).
I would suggest that the rental income from a property valued in excess
of the IHT threshold may go some way towards alleviating any temporary
cash flow issues Jane may be experiencing and that her first priority
should be obtaining a grant of letters of administration as a matter of >urgency.
AIUI the estate can only access funds to do that once letters of >>adninistration have been issued. We don't know how long that takes. I
was hoping for some guidance this week.
It takes as long as it takes and you'll get different answers from
different sources. If one is using a specialist, it is possible to
"game the system" by knowing which District Probate Registry (DPR)
has the quickest turn-around time and using a firm of solicitors close
to that office to make the application (which is the kind of knowledge >specialists have).
As Jane isn't using specialists, she'll have to use the nearest DPR
which will, as above, take as long as it takes.
Only because others keep raising tangential issues.John and Jane didn't have a matrimonial home, because they lived >>>>separately in their own wholly-owned properties (see the original
With respect, I recommend taking a step back. You appear to be
viewing everything through the prism of IHT and elsewhere in the
thread are considering things that do not matter.
I stand by my previous comments that were well-intended and were a
friendly recommendation rather than a criticism.
It doesn't matter whether or not there was a "matrimonial home". >>>Everything John had now passes to Jane. As she was his civil partner
at the time of his death, there is no IHT to pay, but calculations
will still need to be done and to be submitted to HMRC.
But, to repeat, there will be no IHT to pay (owing to the spouse >>>exemption).
No IHT to pay this week, but what about option (b)?
Jane's personal representatives will need to pay any IHT due following
her death per the rules in force at the time.
I defer to the words of Benjamin Franklin on the two things that can be
said to be certain in this world. :-)
On 26 Feb 2024 22:43:51 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The information I gleaned when administering my late wife's estate was that in
the case of intestacy and an estate in excess of 272,000 GBP (or some figure >> close to that) the children of the deceased where entitled to a share in the >> estate. This obviously does not apply in the case Roland presents as the
deceased had no children, but if true in a similar case might it mean that IHT
had to be paid on the children's share if said share actually exceeded the >> threshold? I am presuming the share going to the spouse would not be taken >> into account as exempt.
Yes. Children aren't exempt from IHT, so if they inherit - whether via a
will or intestacy - they will be liable for IHT - if their total share of
the estate exceeds the threshold. The total share for those subject to IHT
is calculated after the value left to the exempt person is deducted. So if someone has an estate worth a million, and leaves half to their wife and the rest split between their children, then the children's IHT liability will be based on a value of £500,000.
On 27 Feb 2024 at 12:08:26 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
In the case of HMRC, Sir Ken Dodd famously married his long-term
partner, Anne Jones, just two days before his death with the express aim >>> of saving her from what would have been a not inconsiderable IHT
liability. There was precisely nothing HMRC could do about this, nor
did they attempt to do so.
As for family members challenging the marriage / civil partnership the
case of Wharton v Bancroft [2011] EWHC 3250 settled that one unequivocally. >>>
I don't think so; that case turned on testamentary capacity, not capacity to >> marry.
In fact the legal test for capacity to marry is not very clear, though it
seems to be generally accepted that the bar is much lower than that for
testamentary capacity. Courts have generally considered that capacity to marry
only requires an understanding that marriage may have financial consequences,
not an understanding of what the consequences are. One case (Re DMM in the >> EWCOP) held that an individual must be able
to understand that a marriage revokes an existing will, though that hasn't yet
been
confirmed by any higher court.
It would be useful thing to have clarified, though it doesn't seem to be a >> bone of contention in Roland's case.
We don't know the precise terms of the deceased's previous will in Roland's case. Is it possible that if one of the more rapacious charities was originally to have a large bequest they might challenge the marriage.
That would be extraordinarily distasteful but some charities have form for that
sort of thing.
My personal recommendation for charity bequests is that they
should firstly be fixed rather than a proportion of the residual estate and secondly small enough not to tempt a charity to go to court.
On 26/02/2024 16:19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l43q3hF2goU8@mid.individual.net>, at 15:46:55 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 02:27, Roland Perry wrote:
Three each? One valuation is in the diary for later this week."The idea is to get some input from people who have trodden
the same
path before (which is, after all, the *whole point* of ulm),
so they
know what sort of questions to ask the professional advisor, after >>>> gathering some of the more relevant data - rather than turning up >>>> with a haystack which might cost thousands** of pounds, and take
weeks, for the professional to wade through.
** Typical rate is 250/hr"
If you're looking for things for Jane / those assisting her to do to >>>reduce the quantity of expensive advice required, I recommend the >>>following:
As soon as practicable, obtain 3 valuations at the date of John's
death for all three properties (nine valuations in total).
Yes. Three valuations for each of John's properties. I miss-spoke in
my earlier comment. He had two properties, so that is six valuations
in total. (Jane's property will not need valuing for the purposes of
the IHT submission to HMRC.)
Inform the valuers that it is for probate and they'll ensure their >>>valuations are suitable for which they'll typically charge a fee.And they aren't charging a fee.
I would recommend that the valuations are obtained from a Chartered
Surveyor rather than an estate agent. I would be most surprised if a >Chartered Surveyor would perform this service without charge.
Jane is looking to demonstrate that she obtained the "Realistic Open
Market Value" when considering the property. The valuation is likely
to be examined by the District Valuer Services at HMRC and three
independent valuations will make it much more difficult for them to
challenge the valuation or accuse Jane of being 'negligent' in her
valuation.
The expense of the valuations is to purchase peace of mind.
(And in case Jane is not aware, HMRC can investigate up to 20 years
after the IHT submission is made.)
Contact financial institutions (banks, building societies, andI expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things
insurance companies (I'd normally include shareholding organisations >>>here, but you said there aren't any so it isn't necessary) and inform >>>them of the death (no probate yet, so use the death certificate and
proof of the civil partnership) and ask for a statement of account / >>>details of the policy in the case of insurance.
have been treading water since then and have only gained urgency
because of a suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six
months there will be "penalties".
Then let's address that issue with reference to the relevant
legislation (the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA84)) to put Jane's mind
at rest.
IHT must be paid by the end of the sixth month following John's death
or the estate is liable for interest on the overdue IHT.
Similarly, Jane must submit the IHT form within 12 months of John's
death. If she misses this deadline there are penalties that may be
levied. The initial penalty for late delivery is 100 (IHTA84
s.245(2)(a)) with a further penalty of 100 if the return is submitted >between 6 and 12 months late, (i.e. 18-24 months after John's death)
(IHTA84 s.(3) and (4)). If the return is delivered later than this, a >additional penalty up to a maximum of 3,000 can be imposed (so 3,200
in total) (IHTA84 s.245(4A).
However, Jane has a "Get out of Jail Free" card.
Section 245(5) of the Inheritance Act 1984 limits the penalty(ies)
imposed to the maximum tax due. No tax due = no penalties. :-)
However, there's a potential wrinkle in that HMRC can levy the
penalties for late submission and only later remove them once it has
been proved to their satisfaction that the IHT liability is zero.
You've mentioned Jane's "dislike of bureaucracy" so if it is likely
that Jane isn't going to "deal well" with notices of penalties from
HMRC, even if it is likely that they will later be cancelled, then she
may have a problem and I recommend contacting HMRC as a matter of urgency.
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four years
to get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV was
especially knuckle-dragging.
I know. We've discussed this previously privately and my thoughts on
what I think you should do haven't changed. :-)
(They'll usually stop unpaid cheques, standing orders and directSee "dislike of bureaucracy", I suspect that as everyone says she'll
debits once informed so ask for a copy of the SO and DD and put in
place alternative arrangements to pay necessary bills and expenses.)
In addition to the balance for each account, Jane will need to ask
for the amount of interest earned but not yet credited to the
accounts up to the date of John's death, the amount of interest
earned to the date of death for the tax year in which John died that
has been credited to the accounts, and whether it was paid net or gross of tax
Whilst visiting the banks and building societies, Jane should open a
new account for the administration of the estate into which proceeds
can be paid and from which expenses can be paid and liabilities >>>discharged.
get all the funds anyway, that might be viewed as an unnecessary >>complication. Although I agree it should be done. I know it was during >>Covid but setting up an executor's account for my mothers estate was
like pulling teeth.
COVID and "working from home" seems to cover a multitude of sins in the
minds of some, unfortunately.
Take meter readings for John's house and the shared BTL property and >>>make a list of John's other debts. (Gas, electric, broadband, TV >>>subscription services, etc.)A bit late for that, he died five months ago.
Oops. Clearly, I was not aware of that.
Given the timing of his death, did John submit his Tax Return? If
not, there's another thing to sort whilst looking at the debts.
I think that is in hand, but hampered because most of his records
are on a PC that we haven't yet been able to hack into.
Assuming it is a Windows PC, my e-mail address is valid, as you know.
I'm not sure how close geographically you are to Jane, but accessing
the PC for a reasonably competent person with the right tools should
take less than 10 minutes and I'd be more than happy to provide / point
you in the direction of said tools and guide you / someone else through
using them. (It requires accessing the UEFI / BIOS to change the boot >sequence and the creation and insertion of a USB stick hence the
requirement for reasonable competency.)
I did precisely this for a widow of my acquaintance within the last
couple of months. (Husband had everything on his laptop, wife hated >computers. Husband died. Widow had no way of accessing the device.
And it was a fully patched device too so the usual "Accessibility
Option" hack didn't work.)
Alternatively, Jane may wish to avail of the services of a specialist
local to her that can perform this service, likely for a fixed-fee on a >while-you-wait basis.
After the grant of letters of administration, follow the statutory >>>procedure of placing an advert in the London Gazette and a local >>>newspaper circulated where John lived advertising the death and
inviting anyone with a claim against the estate or an interest in it
to inform Jane with a time of not less than 2 months after the
placing of the ad.
Thanks for the reminder. There's another 400 we'll never see again.
What price peace of mind?
As John had a BTL property, an ad should also be placed in a local >>>newspaper circulated in that area if it is different from John's main >>>address. Ditto for any newspapers in the locality of any businesses
John may have owned.
Whilst waiting for the grant of letters of administration, Jane can >>>start making an inventory of the estate listing the items in the
estate and assigning a valuation for them. Individual items valued
at 500 or over should be listed separately whilst individual items >>>under 500 can be listed together. (e.g.. 5 dress watches,
approximate value 100. Rolex Submariner 7,000, etc.)
Amateur valuation, or using a professional? Glass's Guide for the
car, perhaps.
You knew I was going to say, "It depends.", didn't you? :-)
If the car is a specialist car like a Ferrari or similar of any age, or >something high value like a Mercedes G63, or purchased within the last
12 months, I'd recommend getting it valued professionally.
OTOH, if it is a 10-year old BMW 3-series, print outs showing what
three similar cars, (make, model, age, mileage, condition), sold for on
eBay / AutoTrader should be sufficient.
Ditto for jewellery, furniture, artwork and collectibles. There's no
"one size fits all" and it depends on what John had and the likely
values thereof. To repeat what I said previously, insurance valuations
are usually based on "new for old" or replacement cost. Jane is not
looking for the insured value, but the reasonable open market value.
If there's anything even remotely "specialist", it is worth getting a >professional valuation for, (yes, you've guessed it), peace of mind.
The value assigned to items must be fair to both the beneficiaries
and HMRC so it is unlikely to be the highest valuation nor the
lowest. :-)
For artwork, remember to use the valuation of the item, not its >>>insurance value!
That should give Jane plenty to do and means that when she does need
to go and see solicitors, she can give them a spreadsheet from which
to work and supporting paperwork
From the un-hacked PC??
for the spreadsheet all nicely organised which will make things
cheaper (but certainly not cheap). :-)
I would suggest that accessing the PC is amongst the least of Jane's
worries.
In message <l44knrFacs8U1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:21:31 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
By definition, only HMRC qualifies as that particular horse's mouth!
HMRC in person, presumably, not dumbed-down advice such as is
commonplace on gov.uk
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
On 27/02/2024 12:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 26 Feb 2024 22:43:51 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The information I gleaned when administering my late wife's estate was that in
the case of intestacy and an estate in excess of 272,000 GBP (or some figure
close to that) the children of the deceased where entitled to a share in the
estate. This obviously does not apply in the case Roland presents as the >>> deceased had no children, but if true in a similar case might it mean that IHT
had to be paid on the children's share if said share actually exceeded the >>> threshold? I am presuming the share going to the spouse would not be taken >>> into account as exempt.
Yes. Children aren't exempt from IHT, so if they inherit - whether via a
will or intestacy - they will be liable for IHT - if their total share of
the estate exceeds the threshold. The total share for those subject to IHT >> is calculated after the value left to the exempt person is deducted. So if >> someone has an estate worth a million, and leaves half to their wife and the >> rest split between their children, then the children's IHT liability will be >> based on a value of 500,000.
It is actually the estate that has liability for IHT not the
beneficiaries. At least, not directly. And only indirectly if they are >residue beneficiaries.
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33 on
Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a
long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
In message <l437qjF3jtiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:34:59 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
For example I know surviving partners who claim that even if the estate
*isn't* modest they are the "obvious" person to be administrator so
what's the point of applying for letters of administration. And then if
all the estate is coming to them, why do they need probate?
Yes, I know, the bank probably won't hand over the £50k in the
sole-named current account without it, however "obvious" it might be the >>> right-thing-to-do.
I have direct experience of a bank handing over considerably more than
half
that in precisely those circumstances.
How do they know the payee isn't a scammer?
My experience of administering my mother's estate is the vast majority
of financial institutions have a hard ceiling of £5k.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33 on
Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a
long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3, she won't do number 4, and her dislike of bureaucracy means she's not inclined towards number 1.
And if she had someone who could fill the role of number 2, then you
wouldn't need to be asking here.
Now, based on the various responses you have had (including those from both people with experience of dealing with large estates and people with a certain amount of professional knowledge), then you can probably distill her options down to just two:
1. There's no IHT to pay, so just get on with it and fill in the forms,
making absolutely certain that there are no errors at all, because
HMRC will be looking for them and even one could be costly.
2. Get help.
If I was in her position I think I'd still be leaning towards option 2. Not least because of the excellent argument made by Simon Parker in Message-ID: <l43pbdF1sgU22@mid.individual.net>, where he points out that HMRC will be
all over this like a rash. I'd trust myself to fill in the forms for an estate that's below the threshold (which I expect I will, one day, when my mother dies), but if I did, perchance, happen to be an administrator for an estate that's well above the limit then I would consider it money well spent to get someone else to do the work and minimise my own exposure to risk.
Mark
On 27/02/2024 12:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
snip
My personal recommendation for charity bequests is that they
should firstly be fixed rather than a proportion of the residual estate and >> secondly small enough not to tempt a charity to go to court.
Is that because you regard charities as less entitled to their legal
rights than others and somehow second-class?
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33 on >>Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a
long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3,
she won't do number 4,
and her dislike of bureaucracy means she's not inclined towards number 1.
And if she had someone who could fill the role of number 2, then you
wouldn't need to be asking here.
Now, based on the various responses you have had (including those from both >people with experience of dealing with large estates and people with a >certain amount of professional knowledge), then you can probably distill her >options down to just two:
1. There's no IHT to pay, so just get on with it and fill in the forms,
making absolutely certain that there are no errors at all,
because HMRC will be looking for them and even one could be costly.
2. Get help.
If I was in her position I think I'd still be leaning towards option 2.
On 27/02/2024 17:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33
on
Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a
long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3, she won't do
number 4,
and her dislike of bureaucracy means she's not inclined towards number 1.
And if she had someone who could fill the role of number 2, then you
wouldn't need to be asking here.
Now, based on the various responses you have had (including those
from both
people with experience of dealing with large estates and people with a
certain amount of professional knowledge), then you can probably distill her >> options down to just two:
1. There's no IHT to pay, so just get on with it and fill in the
forms,
making absolutely certain that there are no errors at all, because
HMRC will be looking for them and even one could be costly.
2. Get help.
If I was in her position I think I'd still be leaning towards option
2. Not
least because of the excellent argument made by Simon Parker in Message-ID: >> <l43pbdF1sgU22@mid.individual.net>, where he points out that HMRC will be
all over this like a rash. I'd trust myself to fill in the forms for an
estate that's below the threshold (which I expect I will, one day, when my >> mother dies), but if I did, perchance, happen to be an administrator for an >> estate that's well above the limit then I would consider it money well spent >> to get someone else to do the work and minimise my own exposure to risk.
Mark
HMRC are in fact casting a close eye on estates over 2m.... see >https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/inheritance-tax-crackdown-on-thous >ands-as-hmrc-launches-substantial-investigation-do-you-owe-money/ar-BB1h
OFKA
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/private-client-law-blog/ >hmrc-steps-up-its-investigations-on-inheritance-tax
in particular, the quote:
Estates with a total asset value of over 2m have been identified as
those which will attract more scrutiny from a dedicated investigations
team at HMRC. The tax authorities are under a lot of pressure at the
moment to tackle tax avoidance, but in many cases, it is likely that
families have not knowingly misled HMRC or withheld information. When
dealing with the administration of an estate and the mammoth task of >fact-finding in order to complete the IHT papers, it is easy to slip
up, or at least struggle to report values with complete confidence.
In message <u36stilhljo8gp009p9mu83du2j9n2b6ln@4ax.com>, at 17:35:24 on
Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33 on >>>Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a >>>long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3,
Not out of current income. Should I advise her to sell some assets of
hers?
she won't do number 4,
No, for perhaps the 4th time, I suspect it's futile.
and her dislike of bureaucracy means she's not inclined towards number 1.
It's more a case of picking a random blogger whose advice is only really
for small estates with wills.
And if she had someone who could fill the role of number 2, then you >>wouldn't need to be asking here.
Not necessarily, there are other friends, but they might be intimidated
too.
Now, based on the various responses you have had (including those from both >>people with experience of dealing with large estates and people with a >>certain amount of professional knowledge), then you can probably distill her >>options down to just two:
1. There's no IHT to pay, so just get on with it and fill in the forms,
If this is the case (and that's !!! ALL I WAS ASKING !!!)
making absolutely certain that there are no errors at all,
That's difficult at the best of times.
because HMRC will be looking for them and even one could be costly.
However, some of the "tangents" will help to indicate where the banana
skins might be. For example getting three chartered surveyors rather
than one estate agent.
2. Get help.
If I was in her position I think I'd still be leaning towards option 2.
And how does one tell if even a trustworthy friend knows the law inside
out.
On 26/02/2024 16:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l437qjF3jtiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:34:59 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
For example I know surviving partners who claim that even if the >>>>estate
*isn't* modest they are the "obvious" person to be administrator so
what's the point of applying for letters of administration. And then if >>>> all the estate is coming to them, why do they need probate?
Yes, I know, the bank probably won't hand over the 50k in the
sole-named current account without it, however "obvious" it might be the >>>> right-thing-to-do.
I have direct experience of a bank handing over considerably more
than half that in precisely those circumstances.
How do they know the payee isn't a scammer?
They don't.
They are taking a calculated risk in letting the money go without
seeing a full grant of probate. But it is very common now. They do
insist on a death certificate and list A/B ID (but that is easy enough
to forge if you are so inclined).
It might be interesting to do a straw poll of the various major banks
and building society limits for a "small" estate today. My 25k number
is a little out of date since I haven't done one for a few years now.
I checked Santander and their limit is by sheer coincidence 50k all up:
https://www.santander.co.uk/assets/s3fs-public/2018-10/Bereavement%20guide.pdf
See page 3. "Find out whether probate is needed."
They are certainly amongst the most lenient that I know of...
My experience of administering my mother's estate is the vast
majority of financial institutions have a hard ceiling of 5k.
It hasn't been that low for decades unless you have run into a
particularly awkward jobsworth manager at a hide bound bank. The lowest
limit for paying out on presentation of a death certificate that I
found was 10k and that was nearly 10 years ago. It went up to 25k
whilst I was administering the estate.
In message <urlbme$3c00c$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:41 on Tue, 27 Feb
2024, SH <i.love@spam.com> remarked:
On 27/02/2024 17:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33
on
Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a
long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3, she won't do
number 4,
and her dislike of bureaucracy means she's not inclined towards number 1. >>> And if she had someone who could fill the role of number 2, then you
wouldn't need to be asking here.
Now, based on the various responses you have had (including those
from both
people with experience of dealing with large estates and people with a
certain amount of professional knowledge), then you can probably distill her
options down to just two:
1. There's no IHT to pay, so just get on with it and fill in the
forms,
making absolutely certain that there are no errors at all, because
HMRC will be looking for them and even one could be costly.
2. Get help.
If I was in her position I think I'd still be leaning towards option
2. Not
least because of the excellent argument made by Simon Parker in Message-ID: >>> <l43pbdF1sgU22@mid.individual.net>, where he points out that HMRC will be >>> all over this like a rash. I'd trust myself to fill in the forms for an
estate that's below the threshold (which I expect I will, one day, when my >>> mother dies), but if I did, perchance, happen to be an administrator for an >>> estate that's well above the limit then I would consider it money well spent
to get someone else to do the work and minimise my own exposure to risk. >>> Mark
HMRC are in fact casting a close eye on estates over £2m.... see
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/inheritance-tax-crackdown-on-thous
ands-as-hmrc-launches-substantial-investigation-do-you-owe-money/ar-BB1h
OFKA
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/private-client-law-blog/
hmrc-steps-up-its-investigations-on-inheritance-tax
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out.
In message <urlbme$3c00c$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:41 on Tue, 27 Feb
2024, SH <i.love@spam.com> remarked:
HMRC are in fact casting a close eye on estates over 2m.... see >>https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/inheritance-tax-crackdown-on-thous >>ands-as-hmrc-launches-substantial-investigation-do-you-owe-money/ar-BB1h >>OFKA
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/private-client-law-blog/ >>hmrc-steps-up-its-investigations-on-inheritance-tax
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33 on
Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a
long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3, she won't do number 4, and her dislike of bureaucracy means she's not inclined towards number 1.
And if she had someone who could fill the role of number 2, then you
wouldn't need to be asking here.
Now, based on the various responses you have had (including those from both people with experience of dealing with large estates and people with a certain amount of professional knowledge), then you can probably distill her options down to just two:
1. There's no IHT to pay, so just get on with it and fill in the forms,
making absolutely certain that there are no errors at all, because
HMRC will be looking for them and even one could be costly.
2. Get help.
If I was in her position I think I'd still be leaning towards option 2. Not least because of the excellent argument made by Simon Parker in Message-ID: <l43pbdF1sgU22@mid.individual.net>, where he points out that HMRC will be
all over this like a rash. I'd trust myself to fill in the forms for an estate that's below the threshold (which I expect I will, one day, when my mother dies), but if I did, perchance, happen to be an administrator for an estate that's well above the limit then I would consider it money well spent to get someone else to do the work and minimise my own exposure to risk.
In message <urkq73$384f6$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:05:22 on Tue, 27 Feb
2024, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 16:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l437qjF3jtiU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:34:59 on Mon, 26
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
For example I know surviving partners who claim that even if the
estate
*isn't* modest they are the "obvious" person to be administrator so
what's the point of applying for letters of administration. And
then if
all the estate is coming to them, why do they need probate?
Yes, I know, the bank probably won't hand over the £50k in the
sole-named current account without it, however "obvious" it might
be the
right-thing-to-do.
I have direct experience of a bank handing over considerably more
than half that in precisely those circumstances.
How do they know the payee isn't a scammer?
They don't.
Actually, I've remembered the only people to release funds were the
Premium Bands people, and that may have been a result of my name being
in the will as both executor and major beneficiary. None of the others
were inclined to take a punt.
They are taking a calculated risk in letting the money go without
seeing a full grant of probate. But it is very common now. They do
insist on a death certificate and list A/B ID (but that is easy enough
to forge if you are so inclined).
It might be interesting to do a straw poll of the various major banks
and building society limits for a "small" estate today. My £25k number
is a little out of date since I haven't done one for a few years now.
I checked Santander and their limit is by sheer coincidence £50k all up:
One swallow doesn't make a summer.
https://www.santander.co.uk/assets/s3fs-public/2018-10/Bereavement%20guide.pdf
See page 3. "Find out whether probate is needed."
They are certainly amongst the most lenient that I know of...
My experience of administering my mother's estate is the vast
majority of financial institutions have a hard ceiling of £5k.
It hasn't been that low for decades unless you have run into a
particularly awkward jobsworth manager at a hide bound bank. The
lowest limit for paying out on presentation of a death certificate
that I found was £10k and that was nearly 10 years ago. It went up to
£25k whilst I was administering the estate.
I can only relate what I encountered four years ago. Only one was
actually a bank, rather than a building society, investment company,
direct shareholding etc.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:06:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urlbme$3c00c$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:41 on Tue, 27 Feb
2024, SH <i.love@spam.com> remarked:
HMRC are in fact casting a close eye on estates over £2m.... see
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/inheritance-tax-crackdown-on-thous >>> ands-as-hmrc-launches-substantial-investigation-do-you-owe-money/ar-BB1h >>> OFKA
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/private-client-law-blog/ >>> hmrc-steps-up-its-investigations-on-inheritance-tax
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out.
Neither of those are random bloggers.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:05:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <u36stilhljo8gp009p9mu83du2j9n2b6ln@4ax.com>, at 17:35:24 on
Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33 on >>>> Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a
long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3,
Not out of current income. Should I advise her to sell some assets of
hers?
That wouldn't be my immediate choice. The best option would be to use a firm which will agree to work now, and take payment later from the estate once probate has been granted. Or, she could take out a loan, and then pay it
back once probate has been granted.
On 27 Feb 2024 at 13:10:11 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 27/02/2024 12:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
snip
My personal recommendation for charity bequests is that they
should firstly be fixed rather than a proportion of the residual estate and >>> secondly small enough not to tempt a charity to go to court.
Is that because you regard charities as less entitled to their legal
rights than others and somehow second-class?
Yes. And unscrupuous and acquisitive ones, run chiefly for the benefit of their officers, at that. YMMV.
My experience of administering my mother's estate is the vast >>>>majority of financial institutions have a hard ceiling of 5k.
It hasn't been that low for decades unless you have run into a >>>particularly awkward jobsworth manager at a hide bound bank. The
lowest limit for paying out on presentation of a death certificate
that I found was 10k and that was nearly 10 years ago. It went up to >>>25k whilst I was administering the estate.
I can only relate what I encountered four years ago. Only one was >>actually a bank, rather than a building society, investment company,
direct shareholding etc.
It only applies to liquid assets.
One aspect that caught me out was that maturing bonds during the
probate period can rearrange funds between supposedly frozen accounts.
Banks are pretty random about refusing any and all transactions once
notified (eg NatWest) and accepting payments (eg Santander) but
refusing all payments out and DDs.
On 27/02/2024 17:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33
on
Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a
long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
A couple of hours on the phone perhaps
but they will be able to say one way or the other whether or not they
think she needs an IHT payment reference number given her
circumstances. She could also ask a suitably qualified solicitor the
very same question and probably should do so.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3, she won't do
number 4,
and her dislike of bureaucracy means she's not inclined towards number 1.
And if she had someone who could fill the role of number 2, then you
wouldn't need to be asking here.
The original statement of the problem strongly suggests that only
option 3 stands any reasonable chance of success here. I have known
people who I thought should have been able to handle probate
application get stuck and just file it all at the back of a cabinet
until something else catastrophic happened requiring very expensive use
of solicitors to unpick the resulting mess.
I paid a professional to do the legal bits that I knew I couldn't
sensibly handle but arranged with them that I would do all the leg work
of organising the information for them and collecting in the funds
after probate was granted (for a largish estate with some IHT due -
though not as large as the one that the OP is talking about).
Trying to do it all on the cheap using advice obtained for free on the >internet is courting disaster!
Now, based on the various responses you have had (including those from both >> people with experience of dealing with large estates and people with a
certain amount of professional knowledge), then you can probably distill her >> options down to just two:
1. There's no IHT to pay, so just get on with it and fill in the
forms,
making absolutely certain that there are no errors at all, because
HMRC will be looking for them and even one could be costly.
2. Get help.
If I was in her position I think I'd still be leaning towards option
2. Not
least because of the excellent argument made by Simon Parker in Message-ID: >> <l43pbdF1sgU22@mid.individual.net>, where he points out that HMRC will be
all over this like a rash. I'd trust myself to fill in the forms for an
estate that's below the threshold (which I expect I will, one day, when my >> mother dies), but if I did, perchance, happen to be an administrator for an >> estate that's well above the limit then I would consider it money well spent >> to get someone else to do the work and minimise my own exposure to risk.
Not everyone sees it that way.
If it is the sole beneficiary making these decisions and taking the
risks then that is their choice but they run the risk of any trivial
error coming back to bite them. A lay executor handling a multi million
pound estate without proper high quality advice is a disaster waiting
to happen.
The other problem is that otherwise very competent individuals
capabilities to do this fairly complex probate work can be seriously >compromised by a bereavement of a loved one. HMRC will go over any
estate >2M with a fine tooth comb so it might also be worth Jane
getting tax planning advice, LPoA and a new Will at the same time.
It is penny wise pound foolish not to use professional advice from a >solicitor with expertise in this specific area of law.
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out.
I don't think you really have a right to rule out other posters posting >things, even though you find them unhelpful. I am at least mildly interested >in that snippet of (inconclusive) information, for instance.
On 27/02/2024 12:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2024 at 11:41:16 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
I will also take this opportunity to address the claim elsewhere in the
thread that the proximity of the civil partnership to the death can be
challenged, either by a family member or HMRC.
In the case of HMRC, Sir Ken Dodd famously married his long-term
partner, Anne Jones, just two days before his death with the express aim >>> of saving her from what would have been a not inconsiderable IHT
liability. There was precisely nothing HMRC could do about this, nor
did they attempt to do so.
Had Sir Ken chosen at very short notice to marry a fan from Bolton
whom he had
never met before, could HMRC have challenged the validity of the
marriage? If
it had been a fan from Sri Lanka the immigration police (whatever
Americanism
they are using nowadays) could certainly have done so.
I find the easiest response to such imponderables to be to request
details of the legislation under which you believe HMRC might be able to challenge the validity of the marriage.
In message <urlk2o$3dtvo$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:26:46 on Tue, 27 Feb
2024, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
On 27/02/2024 17:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33 on >>>> Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
but they will be able to say one way or the other whether or not they
think she needs an IHT payment reference number given her
circumstances. She could also ask a suitably qualified solicitor the
very same question and probably should do so.
I've tried *allegedly* suitably qualified solicitors, but like suitably qualified car drivers it appears that far too many of them are complete
and utter idiots.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3, she won't do
number 4, and her dislike of bureaucracy means she's not inclined towards >>> number 1.
And if she had someone who could fill the role of number 2, then you
wouldn't need to be asking here.
Trying to do it all on the cheap using advice obtained for free on the
internet is courting disaster!
Luckily, that's not on the list.
It is penny wise pound foolish not to use professional advice from a
solicitor with expertise in this specific area of law.
Using what for money?
OTOH, if it is a 10-year old BMW 3-series, print outs showing what
three similar cars, (make, model, age, mileage, condition), sold for
on eBay / AutoTrader should be sufficient.
Specifically, most such adverts are over-optimistic in their
valuations,
That's why I said adverts showing what the vehicle sold for, not the
price at which it was advertised.
and don't take mileage (or even cosmetic condition) sufficiently into >>account.
Depending on the age and value of the vehicle, they're not likely to
make much different.
FSH, OTOH... :-) Remember to look at private sales only too. Vehicles
sold by dealers sell for more because of the protections this affords.
Also AutoTrader doesn't publish what cars were actually sold for.
AutoTrader offer a free valuation service based on what similar
vehicles have sold for on the site. You need an account so Jane will
need to create one if she doesn't already have one.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:05:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <u36stilhljo8gp009p9mu83du2j9n2b6ln@4ax.com>, at 17:35:24 on >>Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33 on >>>>Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a >>>>long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3,
Not out of current income. Should I advise her to sell some assets of
hers?
That wouldn't be my immediate choice. The best option would be to use a firm >which will agree to work now, and take payment later from the estate once >probate has been granted. Or, she could take out a loan, and then pay it
back once probate has been granted. But the first stage in that, either way, >would be to gat in touch with a firm which will offer a free initial >consultation and get an idea of the likely costs.
she won't do number 4,
No, for perhaps the 4th time, I suspect it's futile.
But you, as you keep telling us, are not Jane. So your suspicions are >irrelevant.
and her dislike of bureaucracy means she's not inclined towards number 1.
It's more a case of picking a random blogger whose advice is only really >>for small estates with wills.
That's another reason why the other options would be better.
And if she had someone who could fill the role of number 2, then you >>>wouldn't need to be asking here.
Not necessarily, there are other friends, but they might be intimidated >>too.
Indeed.
Now, based on the various responses you have had (including those from both >>>people with experience of dealing with large estates and people with a >>>certain amount of professional knowledge), then you can probably distill her >>>options down to just two:
1. There's no IHT to pay, so just get on with it and fill in the forms,
If this is the case (and that's !!! ALL I WAS ASKING !!!)
making absolutely certain that there are no errors at all,
That's difficult at the best of times.
Precisely.
because HMRC will be looking for them and even one could be costly.
However, some of the "tangents" will help to indicate where the banana >>skins might be. For example getting three chartered surveyors rather
than one estate agent.
2. Get help.
If I was in her position I think I'd still be leaning towards option 2.
And how does one tell if even a trustworthy friend knows the law inside >>out.
That's why, if it was me, I'd get my accountants to do it.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:06:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urlbme$3c00c$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:41 on Tue, 27 Feb
2024, SH <i.love@spam.com> remarked:
HMRC are in fact casting a close eye on estates over 2m.... see >>>https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/inheritance-tax-crackdown-on-thous >>>ands-as-hmrc-launches-substantial-investigation-do-you-owe-money/ar-BB1h >>>OFKA
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/private-client-law-blog/ >>>hmrc-steps-up-its-investigations-on-inheritance-tax
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out.
Neither of those are random bloggers.
On 28/02/2024 08:23, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 07:39, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 12:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
Had Sir Ken chosen at very short notice to marry a fan from Bolton
whom he had
never met before, could HMRC have challenged the validity of the
marriage? If
it had been a fan from Sri Lanka the immigration police (whatever
Americanism
they are using nowadays) could certainly have done so.
I find the easiest response to such imponderables to be to request
details of the legislation under which you believe HMRC might be able
to challenge the validity of the marriage.
If I thought I was being swindled out of what I was entitled to, I
might be looking at the validity of the hasty ceremony, seeing if I
could glean anything from any signatures (a bit like Guy Fawkes's
after torture), and considering, bearing in mind that one party was on
his deathbed and therefore not very well at all, words such as:
"that either party to the marriage did not validly consent to it,
whether in consequence of duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind or
otherwise"
and
"that at the time of the marriage either party, though capable of
giving a valid consent, was suffering (whether continuously or
intermittently) from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental
Health Act 1983 of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfitted
for marriage"
in the Matrimonial Causes Act.
Oh Norman, you do make me laugh sometimes.
I had to take a moment to consider where to start when picking apart the nonsense you've posted above and came to the conclusion there was no
right or wrong way so it was just best to work through the three major
issues with your post.
There are huge legal differences between a marriage [1] which is void
and one which is voidable, as I'm sure you realised when you made your post(!).
The clauses you've posted above relate to a marriage which is voidable
and here's the rub:
A marriage which is voidable under the Matrimonial Cause Act 1973 always revokes an earlier will of a party to the marriage [2]. Even if the marriage is subsequently annulled, the annulment of a voidable marriage
is not retrospective in effect and the marriage was therefore a valid marriage for the purpose of revoking any prior wills.
Ergo, the subsequent annulment does not affect the revocation of the
prior will because the marriage is treated as subsisting up until the
date when the decree of nullity is made.
All of which means, in the instant case, John still dies intestate and
with no relatives to benefit, the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the
Duchy of Cornwall takes the estate as bona vacantia (or, in Scotland as ultimus haeres). Now here's the key part of this point: there would therefore be no liability to tax on the estate as the Crown is immune
from taxation.
But that's not even the biggest problem. There are two much, much
larger problems. Let's press on with them, shall we?
For one thing, only a party to the marriage may challenge a voidable
marriage - a third party cannot.
And then, finally, having saved the best for last, here's the single
biggest issue with your post:
A voidable marriage cannot be annulled after the death of one of the
parties to it.
Something of an issue in the present case, don't you agree?
In short, only one of the parties to a marriage can seek a decree of
nullity in relation to the marriage and this can only happen whilst they
are both alive.
But for the issues I've highlighted above, your post makes some
excellent points.
On 28/02/2024 13:53, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 08:23, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 07:39, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 12:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
Had Sir Ken chosen at very short notice to marry a fan from Bolton
whom he had
never met before, could HMRC have challenged the validity of the
marriage? If
it had been a fan from Sri Lanka the immigration police (whatever
Americanism
they are using nowadays) could certainly have done so.
I find the easiest response to such imponderables to be to request
details of the legislation under which you believe HMRC might be able
to challenge the validity of the marriage.
If I thought I was being swindled out of what I was entitled to, I
might be looking at the validity of the hasty ceremony, seeing if I
could glean anything from any signatures (a bit like Guy Fawkes's
after torture), and considering, bearing in mind that one party was on
his deathbed and therefore not very well at all, words such as:
"that either party to the marriage did not validly consent to it,
whether in consequence of duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind or
otherwise"
and
"that at the time of the marriage either party, though capable of
giving a valid consent, was suffering (whether continuously or
intermittently) from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental
Health Act 1983 of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfitted
for marriage"
in the Matrimonial Causes Act.
Oh Norman, you do make me laugh sometimes.
My pleasure.
I had to take a moment to consider where to start when picking apart the
nonsense you've posted above and came to the conclusion there was no
right or wrong way so it was just best to work through the three major
issues with your post.
There are huge legal differences between a marriage [1] which is void
and one which is voidable, as I'm sure you realised when you made your
post(!).
Of course.
The clauses you've posted above relate to a marriage which is voidable
and here's the rub:
A marriage which is voidable under the Matrimonial Cause Act 1973 always
revokes an earlier will of a party to the marriage [2]. Even if the
marriage is subsequently annulled, the annulment of a voidable marriage
is not retrospective in effect and the marriage was therefore a valid
marriage for the purpose of revoking any prior wills.
Ergo, the subsequent annulment does not affect the revocation of the
prior will because the marriage is treated as subsisting up until the
date when the decree of nullity is made.
All of which means, in the instant case, John still dies intestate and
with no relatives to benefit, the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the
Duchy of Cornwall takes the estate as bona vacantia (or, in Scotland as
ultimus haeres). Now here's the key part of this point: there would
therefore be no liability to tax on the estate as the Crown is immune
from taxation.
But that's not even the biggest problem. There are two much, much
larger problems. Let's press on with them, shall we?
For one thing, only a party to the marriage may challenge a voidable
marriage - a third party cannot.
And then, finally, having saved the best for last, here's the single
biggest issue with your post:
A voidable marriage cannot be annulled after the death of one of the
parties to it.
Something of an issue in the present case, don't you agree?
In short, only one of the parties to a marriage can seek a decree of
nullity in relation to the marriage and this can only happen whilst they
are both alive.
But for the issues I've highlighted above, your post makes some
excellent points.
Thank you.
I said at the start these are some of things I might be looking at if I thought I was being swindled, not that they necessarily applied.
You will note that I have expressed no view whatsoever on the validity
of the civil partnership.
Suppose, though, that I discovered the ceremony had been improperly
conducted in some way, let's say by someone unauthorised, or witnessed
by 'Mickey Mouse' and 'Olive Oyl'? Would that not mean that the civil partnership was void ab initio?
In message <gagstidkttkqtln51tkolbkdoh9j57ee90@4ax.com>, at 20:16:54 on
Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
That wouldn't be my immediate choice. The best option would be to use a firm >>which will agree to work now, and take payment later from the estate once >>probate has been granted. Or, she could take out a loan, and then pay it >>back once probate has been granted. But the first stage in that, either way, >>would be to gat in touch with a firm which will offer a free initial >>consultation and get an idea of the likely costs.
Based on the two sets of solicitors I used for my mother's probate, they >quote a fixed fee off a price list.
But you, as you keep telling us, are not Jane. So your suspicions are >>irrelevant.
Does HMRC have a vulcan mind probe and answers the phone to Janes more >efficiently than Rolands? Don't be absurd.
That's why, if it was me, I'd get my accountants to do it.
Not solicitors?
AutoTrader offer a free valuation service based on what similar vehicles
have sold for on the site. You need an account so Jane will need to
create one if she doesn't already have one.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 15:35:16 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 13:53, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 08:23, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 07:39, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 12:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
Had Sir Ken chosen at very short notice to marry a fan from Bolton >>>>>> whom he had
never met before, could HMRC have challenged the validity of the
marriage? If
it had been a fan from Sri Lanka the immigration police (whatever
Americanism
they are using nowadays) could certainly have done so.
I find the easiest response to such imponderables to be to request
details of the legislation under which you believe HMRC might be able >>>>> to challenge the validity of the marriage.
If I thought I was being swindled out of what I was entitled to, I
might be looking at the validity of the hasty ceremony, seeing if I
could glean anything from any signatures (a bit like Guy Fawkes's
after torture), and considering, bearing in mind that one party was on >>>> his deathbed and therefore not very well at all, words such as:
"that either party to the marriage did not validly consent to it,
whether in consequence of duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind or
otherwise"
and
"that at the time of the marriage either party, though capable of
giving a valid consent, was suffering (whether continuously or
intermittently) from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental
Health Act 1983 of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfitted
for marriage"
in the Matrimonial Causes Act.
Oh Norman, you do make me laugh sometimes.
My pleasure.
I had to take a moment to consider where to start when picking apart the >>> nonsense you've posted above and came to the conclusion there was no
right or wrong way so it was just best to work through the three major
issues with your post.
There are huge legal differences between a marriage [1] which is void
and one which is voidable, as I'm sure you realised when you made your
post(!).
Of course.
The clauses you've posted above relate to a marriage which is voidable
and here's the rub:
A marriage which is voidable under the Matrimonial Cause Act 1973 always >>> revokes an earlier will of a party to the marriage [2]. Even if the
marriage is subsequently annulled, the annulment of a voidable marriage
is not retrospective in effect and the marriage was therefore a valid
marriage for the purpose of revoking any prior wills.
Ergo, the subsequent annulment does not affect the revocation of the
prior will because the marriage is treated as subsisting up until the
date when the decree of nullity is made.
All of which means, in the instant case, John still dies intestate and
with no relatives to benefit, the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the
Duchy of Cornwall takes the estate as bona vacantia (or, in Scotland as
ultimus haeres). Now here's the key part of this point: there would
therefore be no liability to tax on the estate as the Crown is immune
from taxation.
But that's not even the biggest problem. There are two much, much
larger problems. Let's press on with them, shall we?
For one thing, only a party to the marriage may challenge a voidable
marriage - a third party cannot.
And then, finally, having saved the best for last, here's the single
biggest issue with your post:
A voidable marriage cannot be annulled after the death of one of the
parties to it.
Something of an issue in the present case, don't you agree?
In short, only one of the parties to a marriage can seek a decree of
nullity in relation to the marriage and this can only happen whilst they >>> are both alive.
But for the issues I've highlighted above, your post makes some
excellent points.
Thank you.
I said at the start these are some of things I might be looking at if I
thought I was being swindled, not that they necessarily applied.
You will note that I have expressed no view whatsoever on the validity
of the civil partnership.
Suppose, though, that I discovered the ceremony had been improperly
conducted in some way, let's say by someone unauthorised, or witnessed
by 'Mickey Mouse' and 'Olive Oyl'? Would that not mean that the civil
partnership was void ab initio?
I think not, provided the Registrar had recorded it, that being condition for it being valid at all.
If a charity has been left anything in a Will, it's entitled to it, and >reasonably promptly.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:48:03 +0000, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >wrote:
AutoTrader offer a free valuation service based on what similar vehicles >>have sold for on the site. You need an account so Jane will need to
create one if she doesn't already have one.
I'd be inclined to just get a valuation from WeBuyAnyCar dot com. There's no >need to follow through and actually sell it to them. Their valuation will >tend to be on the low side, obviously, because if they did buy it they'd
want to re-sell at a profit. But it does represent a realistic market price >for the purpose of valuing the estate.
On 28/02/2024 16:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 15:35:16 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 13:53, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 08:23, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 07:39, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 12:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
Had Sir Ken chosen at very short notice to marry a fan from Bolton >>>>>>> whom he had
never met before, could HMRC have challenged the validity of the >>>>>>> marriage? If
it had been a fan from Sri Lanka the immigration police (whatever >>>>>>> Americanism
they are using nowadays) could certainly have done so.
I find the easiest response to such imponderables to be to request >>>>>> details of the legislation under which you believe HMRC might be able >>>>>> to challenge the validity of the marriage.
If I thought I was being swindled out of what I was entitled to, I
might be looking at the validity of the hasty ceremony, seeing if I
could glean anything from any signatures (a bit like Guy Fawkes's
after torture), and considering, bearing in mind that one party was on >>>>> his deathbed and therefore not very well at all, words such as:
"that either party to the marriage did not validly consent to it,
whether in consequence of duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind or
otherwise"
and
"that at the time of the marriage either party, though capable of
giving a valid consent, was suffering (whether continuously or
intermittently) from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental >>>>> Health Act 1983 of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfitted >>>>> for marriage"
in the Matrimonial Causes Act.
Oh Norman, you do make me laugh sometimes.
My pleasure.
I had to take a moment to consider where to start when picking apart the >>>> nonsense you've posted above and came to the conclusion there was no
right or wrong way so it was just best to work through the three major >>>> issues with your post.
There are huge legal differences between a marriage [1] which is void
and one which is voidable, as I'm sure you realised when you made your >>>> post(!).
Of course.
The clauses you've posted above relate to a marriage which is voidable >>>> and here's the rub:
A marriage which is voidable under the Matrimonial Cause Act 1973 always >>>> revokes an earlier will of a party to the marriage [2]. Even if the
marriage is subsequently annulled, the annulment of a voidable marriage >>>> is not retrospective in effect and the marriage was therefore a valid
marriage for the purpose of revoking any prior wills.
Ergo, the subsequent annulment does not affect the revocation of the
prior will because the marriage is treated as subsisting up until the
date when the decree of nullity is made.
All of which means, in the instant case, John still dies intestate and >>>> with no relatives to benefit, the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the >>>> Duchy of Cornwall takes the estate as bona vacantia (or, in Scotland as >>>> ultimus haeres). Now here's the key part of this point: there would
therefore be no liability to tax on the estate as the Crown is immune
from taxation.
But that's not even the biggest problem. There are two much, much
larger problems. Let's press on with them, shall we?
For one thing, only a party to the marriage may challenge a voidable
marriage - a third party cannot.
And then, finally, having saved the best for last, here's the single
biggest issue with your post:
A voidable marriage cannot be annulled after the death of one of the
parties to it.
Something of an issue in the present case, don't you agree?
In short, only one of the parties to a marriage can seek a decree of
nullity in relation to the marriage and this can only happen whilst they >>>> are both alive.
But for the issues I've highlighted above, your post makes some
excellent points.
Thank you.
I said at the start these are some of things I might be looking at if I
thought I was being swindled, not that they necessarily applied.
You will note that I have expressed no view whatsoever on the validity
of the civil partnership.
Suppose, though, that I discovered the ceremony had been improperly
conducted in some way, let's say by someone unauthorised, or witnessed
by 'Mickey Mouse' and 'Olive Oyl'? Would that not mean that the civil
partnership was void ab initio?
I think not, provided the Registrar had recorded it, that being condition for
it being valid at all.
Is it? Who says?
Anyway, it could in this hypothetical consideration have been the
'Registrar' who conducted the ceremony who may not have had the
authority he or she purported to have.
But it would still be valid, would it?
Perhaps you'd deal, though, with the generality of improper conduct of
the ceremony and not with just one particular possible instance. For
this consideration, it's a premise that there was such an impropriety.
Is there no impropriety that would make the civil partnership void?
In message <l474ioFlr2pU5@mid.individual.net>, at 22:04:09 on Tue, 27
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
If a charity has been left anything in a Will, it's entitled to it, and
reasonably promptly.
They are not in a hurry because they get a steady drip-feed of bequests
and one being a bit late makes very little difference.
After all, they didn't know when the person was going to die (or even
that they were a beneficiary). So receiving money in 2024 based on a
death in 2020 is better then receiving money in 2034 based on a death in 2033.
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a device
on presentation of a court order.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:53:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <gagstidkttkqtln51tkolbkdoh9j57ee90@4ax.com>, at 20:16:54 on >>Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
That wouldn't be my immediate choice. The best option would be to use a firm >>>which will agree to work now, and take payment later from the estate once >>>probate has been granted. Or, she could take out a loan, and then pay it >>>back once probate has been granted. But the first stage in that, either way, >>>would be to gat in touch with a firm which will offer a free initial >>>consultation and get an idea of the likely costs.
Based on the two sets of solicitors I used for my mother's probate, they >>quote a fixed fee off a price list.
That's a good start. Knowing the likely fee is a necessary precondition to >the decision-making.
But you, as you keep telling us, are not Jane. So your suspicions are >>>irrelevant.
Does HMRC have a vulcan mind probe and answers the phone to Janes more >>efficiently than Rolands? Don't be absurd.
No, they will be just as inefficient at answering. But, having answered >(which could take a while), they will know what questions to ask her.
That's why, if it was me, I'd get my accountants to do it.
Not solicitors?
No, because it's about finance, not law. Filling in tax forms is the sort of >thing that accountants do for a living.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 19:27:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l474ioFlr2pU5@mid.individual.net>, at 22:04:09 on Tue, 27
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
If a charity has been left anything in a Will, it's entitled to it, and
reasonably promptly.
They are not in a hurry because they get a steady drip-feed of bequests
and one being a bit late makes very little difference.
After all, they didn't know when the person was going to die (or even
that they were a beneficiary). So receiving money in 2024 based on a
death in 2020 is better then receiving money in 2034 based on a death in
2033.
If anyone makes a bequest after talking to a charity about it (a practice they >strongly encourage - see TV adverts inter alia) the charity will request a >copy of the will.
The more opportunist charities provide a will writing service to those
making bequests which helps them in this respect. And, having got a
copy, I have no doubt at all they scan the death notices (and for all I
know the death register which is now online and available to banks at
least).
So I doubt the validity of your assertions.
In message <urlbme$3c00c$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:41 on Tue, 27 Feb
2024, SH <i.love@spam.com> remarked:
On 27/02/2024 17:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:57:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <j12sti9df447llnk543nm4peid37on3ge9@4ax.com>, at 16:16:33 on >>>> Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I suggest that a conversation with HMRC might be the best way to
get authoritative advice.
I've explained a few times why I think that's at best going to take a
long time, and at worst bear no useful fruit.
Well, the main issue is that Jane has, essentially, four options:
1. She can fill in all the forms herself, without any help.
2. She can ask a trusted friend, who has the necessary expertise,
to help her.
3. She can pay a professional to do it for her.
4. She can ask HMRC for advice.
You keep telling us that she can't afford number 3, she won't do
number 4,
and her dislike of bureaucracy means she's not inclined towards
number 1.
And if she had someone who could fill the role of number 2, then you
wouldn't need to be asking here.
Now, based on the various responses you have had (including those
from both
people with experience of dealing with large estates and people with a
certain amount of professional knowledge), then you can probably
distill her
options down to just two:
1. There's no IHT to pay, so just get on with it and fill in the
forms,
making absolutely certain that there are no errors at all, because >>> HMRC will be looking for them and even one could be costly.
2. Get help.
If I was in her position I think I'd still be leaning towards option
2. Not
least because of the excellent argument made by Simon Parker in
Message-ID:
<l43pbdF1sgU22@mid.individual.net>, where he points out that HMRC
will be
all over this like a rash. I'd trust myself to fill in the forms for an
estate that's below the threshold (which I expect I will, one day,
when my
mother dies), but if I did, perchance, happen to be an administrator
for an
estate that's well above the limit then I would consider it money
well spent
to get someone else to do the work and minimise my own exposure to risk. >>> Mark
HMRC are in fact casting a close eye on estates over £2m.... see
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/inheritance-tax-crackdown-on-thous
ands-as-hmrc-launches-substantial-investigation-do-you-owe-money/ar-BB1h
OFKA
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/private-client-law-blog/
hmrc-steps-up-its-investigations-on-inheritance-tax
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out.
In message <l474ioFlr2pU5@mid.individual.net>, at 22:04:09 on Tue, 27
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
If a charity has been left anything in a Will, it's entitled to it,
and reasonably promptly.
They are not in a hurry because they get a steady drip-feed of bequests
and one being a bit late makes very little difference.
After all, they didn't know when the person was going to die (or even
that they were a beneficiary). So receiving money in 2024 based on a
death in 2020 is better then receiving money in 2034 based on a death in 2033.
In message <l49i50F2qlpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:08:01 on Wed, 28
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 19:27:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l474ioFlr2pU5@mid.individual.net>, at 22:04:09 on Tue, 27
Feb 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
If a charity has been left anything in a Will, it's entitled to it, and >>>> reasonably promptly.
They are not in a hurry because they get a steady drip-feed of bequests
and one being a bit late makes very little difference.
After all, they didn't know when the person was going to die (or even
that they were a beneficiary). So receiving money in 2024 based on a
death in 2020 is better then receiving money in 2034 based on a death in >>> 2033.
If anyone makes a bequest after talking to a charity about it (a
practice they
strongly encourage - see TV adverts inter alia) the charity will
request a
copy of the will.
*If*, and that's only the charity doing the subsidised will-writing.
There may well be several other charities mentioned as well.
Having a copy of the will doesn't give them advance notice of when the
death will occur, either.
The more opportunist charities provide a will writing service to those
making bequests which helps them in this respect. And, having got a
copy, I have no doubt at all they scan the death notices (and for all
I know the death register which is now online and available to banks
at least).
It took them about four years in the case of my mother's esate (and that
was only one of several charities mentioned).
So I doubt the validity of your assertions.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it's misconceived.
A friend used to be the business manager of a large charity which
received a steady trickle of legacies, and she assured me that there was
no urgency at all. In fact, getting a letter saying "there's some money coming your way, but we don't yet know exactly how much or when" was
regarded as a needless distraction.
On 28 Feb 2024 at 16:46:07 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 16:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 15:35:16 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
I said at the start these are some of things I might be looking at if I >>>> thought I was being swindled, not that they necessarily applied.
You will note that I have expressed no view whatsoever on the validity >>>> of the civil partnership.
Suppose, though, that I discovered the ceremony had been improperly
conducted in some way, let's say by someone unauthorised, or witnessed >>>> by 'Mickey Mouse' and 'Olive Oyl'? Would that not mean that the civil >>>> partnership was void ab initio?
I think not, provided the Registrar had recorded it, that being condition for
it being valid at all.
Is it? Who says?
Anyway, it could in this hypothetical consideration have been the
'Registrar' who conducted the ceremony who may not have had the
authority he or she purported to have.
Registrars do not necessarily conduct the ceremony, but they are local appointees empowered to register marriages and their attendances is required for all but Church of England marriages.
But it would still be valid, would it?
Perhaps you'd deal, though, with the generality of improper conduct of
the ceremony and not with just one particular possible instance. For
this consideration, it's a premise that there was such an impropriety.
Is there no impropriety that would make the civil partnership void?
On 28/02/2024 20:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 16:46:07 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 16:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 15:35:16 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
I said at the start these are some of things I might be looking at if I >>>>> thought I was being swindled, not that they necessarily applied.
You will note that I have expressed no view whatsoever on the validity >>>>> of the civil partnership.
Suppose, though, that I discovered the ceremony had been improperly
conducted in some way, let's say by someone unauthorised, or witnessed >>>>> by 'Mickey Mouse' and 'Olive Oyl'? Would that not mean that the civil >>>>> partnership was void ab initio?
I think not, provided the Registrar had recorded it, that being condition for
it being valid at all.
Is it? Who says?
Anyway, it could in this hypothetical consideration have been the
'Registrar' who conducted the ceremony who may not have had the
authority he or she purported to have.
Registrars do not necessarily conduct the ceremony, but they are local
appointees empowered to register marriages and their attendances is required >> for all but Church of England marriages.
What if if the person attending is not actually authorised? Would that
not render the civil partnership invalid?
But it would still be valid, would it?
Perhaps you'd deal, though, with the generality of improper conduct of
the ceremony and not with just one particular possible instance. For
this consideration, it's a premise that there was such an impropriety.
Is there no impropriety that would make the civil partnership void?
Well, what's the answer to that?
On 28 Feb 2024 at 22:08:41 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 20:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 16:46:07 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 28/02/2024 16:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024 at 15:35:16 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
I said at the start these are some of things I might be looking at if I >>>>>> thought I was being swindled, not that they necessarily applied.
You will note that I have expressed no view whatsoever on the validity >>>>>> of the civil partnership.
Suppose, though, that I discovered the ceremony had been improperly >>>>>> conducted in some way, let's say by someone unauthorised, or witnessed >>>>>> by 'Mickey Mouse' and 'Olive Oyl'? Would that not mean that the civil >>>>>> partnership was void ab initio?
I think not, provided the Registrar had recorded it, that being condition for
it being valid at all.
Is it? Who says?
Anyway, it could in this hypothetical consideration have been the
'Registrar' who conducted the ceremony who may not have had the
authority he or she purported to have.
Registrars do not necessarily conduct the ceremony, but they are local
appointees empowered to register marriages and their attendances is required
for all but Church of England marriages.
What if if the person attending is not actually authorised? Would that
not render the civil partnership invalid?
Registrars and assistant registrars are appointed by the local authority (with
AIUI some central goveernment supervision) and there are only a few of them in
each district. There is no likely ambiguity about them being present, it has to be arranged with the local authority office. Do not confuse them with celebrants, although in registry offices they can do both tasks if desired.
Maybe someone somewhere has once successfully pretended to be a registrar, but
I actually doubt it.
But it would still be valid, would it?
Perhaps you'd deal, though, with the generality of improper conduct of >>>> the ceremony and not with just one particular possible instance. For
this consideration, it's a premise that there was such an impropriety. >>>> Is there no impropriety that would make the civil partnership void?
Well, what's the answer to that?
On 28/02/2024 15:35, Norman Wells wrote:
You will note that I have expressed no view whatsoever on the validity
of the civil partnership.
Nor were you asked to. The request was for "details of the legislation under which you believe HMRC might be able to challenge the validity of
the marriage."
Suppose, though, that I discovered the ceremony had been improperly
conducted in some way, let's say by someone unauthorised, or witnessed
by 'Mickey Mouse' and 'Olive Oyl'? Would that not mean that the civil
partnership was void ab initio?
At which point we return to our pin from earlier in the post where you claimed to know the difference between a marriage which is void and one
which is voidable.
If that were true, you would know the answer to the questions you are
posing
Maybe someone somewhere has once successfully pretended to be a registrar, but >I actually doubt it.
On 28/02/2024 17:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:48:03 +0000, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >> wrote:
AutoTrader offer a free valuation service based on what similar
vehicles
have sold for on the site. You need an account so Jane will need to
create one if she doesn't already have one.
I'd be inclined to just get a valuation from WeBuyAnyCar dot com.
There's no need to follow through and actually sell it to them. Their >>valuation will tend to be on the low side, obviously, because if they
did buy it they'd want to re-sell at a profit. But it does represent
a realistic market price for the purpose of valuing the estate.
There's no "tend to be on the low side" about it. In case you're not
aware, WeBuyAnyCar (WBAC) is a business of British Car Auctions (BCA).
WBAC generates stock for BCA
so the price offered by WBAC must be lower than the price the vehicle
is expected to sell for through BCA, the latter of which could be
considered "reasonable market value" for the car but the former of
which most certainly isn't.
Personally, for those reasons I would not consider a WBAC valuation as
useful for the purposes of probate but YMMV and Jane must do what she >considers best, bearing in mind that this estate is likely to be
scrutinised by HMRC.
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a
device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password >>reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one
additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to
recover / reset the password.
In Jane's case, I had assumed that she does not have access to any of
John's other devices. If that is not the case, and she has access to,
for example, his iPhone or Apple Watch then she may be able to use
those to reset the password to gain access to the MacBook.
This link gives details for resetting an AppleID where at least one
other trusted device exists / one has access to the account holder's
trusted phone number:
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT201487
Here's is a link to Apple's official policy on requesting access to a >deceased family member's AppleID:
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/102431
Regards
S.P.
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a
device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password
reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one
additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to
recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the
laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so it's
*her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member) is
wanting to recover.
In Jane's case, I had assumed that she does not have access to any of
John's other devices. If that is not the case, and she has access to,
for example, his iPhone or Apple Watch then she may be able to use
those to reset the password to gain access to the MacBook.
This link gives details for resetting an AppleID where at least one
other trusted device exists / one has access to the account holder's
trusted phone number:
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT201487
Here's is a link to Apple's official policy on requesting access to a
deceased family member's AppleID:
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/102431
Regards
S.P.
In message <l49tfkF4hqmU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:21:24 on Wed, 28
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Maybe someone somewhere has once successfully pretended to be a registrar, but
I actually doubt it.
Especially at a hospital bedside - the staff in the relatively small
number of wards affected will probably know them by sight.
I don't know how many have such ceremonies, but when my wife was in
hospital over the New Year, there were six beds in her bay on the ward,
and she said on average one person a day died (usually in the middle of
the night with all the disruption that caused).
The previous stay in the autumn there were only three beds in the bay and I think they all survived.
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled
out.
Is this your personal topic in a your personal newsgroup?
Best to man-up, so to speak and accept others have every right to
randomly 'blog' as they wish. Unless it's outside moderation rules of
course.
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out.
Is this your personal topic in a your personal newsgroup?
Best to man-up, so to speak and accept others have every right to
randomly 'blog' as they wish. Unless it's outside moderation rules of
course.
All I'm pointing out is they are far from authoritative sources, even if syndicated. In fact that makes it worse because they are unlikely to do
their own fact-checking before re-publishing.
I did find a source earlier today which has a very rare disclaimer:
"This gives some general guidance concerning things you need to know
about probate, but it's by no means a comprehensive guide to
obtaining this, which is complex".
On 29 Feb 2024 at 18:47:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a
device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password
reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one
additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to
recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the
laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so it's
*her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member) is
wanting to recover.
I believe someone has invented a concept called "personal data" which is not >to be freely handed around to anyone merely on the ground of ownership of the >hardware upon which it is stored.
Maybe someone somewhere has once successfully pretended to be a registrar, but
I actually doubt it.
Especially at a hospital bedside - the staff in the relatively small
number of wards affected will probably know them by sight.
I don't know how many have such ceremonies, but when my wife was in
hospital over the New Year, there were six beds in her bay on the ward,
and she said on average one person a day died (usually in the middle of
the night with all the disruption that caused).
Rather a high hit rate. She had better watch out.
In message <l4c4fgFeuaoU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:33:04 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 18:47:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28 >>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a
device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password >>>>> reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one
additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to
recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the
laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so it's
*her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member) is
wanting to recover.
I believe someone has invented a concept called "personal data" which is not >> to be freely handed around to anyone merely on the ground of ownership of the
hardware upon which it is stored.
Domestic exemption. Next contestant please.
In message <l4c4fgFeuaoU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:33:04 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 18:47:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28 >>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a
device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password >>>>> reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one
additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to
recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the
laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so it's
*her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member) is
wanting to recover.
I believe someone has invented a concept called "personal data" which is not >> to be freely handed around to anyone merely on the ground of ownership of the
hardware upon which it is stored.
Domestic exemption. Next contestant please.
On 29/02/2024 19:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
All I'm pointing out is they are far from authoritative sources,Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled
out.
Is this your personal topic in a your personal newsgroup?
Best to man-up, so to speak and accept others have every right to >>>randomly 'blog' as they wish. Unless it's outside moderation rules of >>>course.
even if syndicated. In fact that makes it worse because they are
unlikely to do their own fact-checking before re-publishing.
I did find a source earlier today which has a very rare disclaimer:
"This gives some general guidance concerning things you need to
know
about probate, but it's by no means a comprehensive guide to
obtaining this, which is complex".
This group is full of non-authoritative sources. It's par for the
course.
I would have thought this subject would be full of case law, where
large sums can be at stake and emotions run wild.
On 29/02/2024 19:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out.
Is this your personal topic in a your personal newsgroup?
Best to man-up, so to speak and accept others have every right to
randomly 'blog' as they wish. Unless it's outside moderation rules of
course.
All I'm pointing out is they are far from authoritative sources, even if
syndicated. In fact that makes it worse because they are unlikely to do
their own fact-checking before re-publishing.
I did find a source earlier today which has a very rare disclaimer:
"This gives some general guidance concerning things you need to know
about probate, but it's by no means a comprehensive guide to
obtaining this, which is complex".
This group is full of non-authoritative sources. It's par for the
course. People's experiences can also be useful. They say advice can
always be given, but not necessarily taken.
I would have thought this subject would be full of case law, where large
sums can be at stake and emotions run wild.
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out.
Is this your personal topic in a your personal newsgroup?
Best to man-up, so to speak and accept others have every right to
randomly 'blog' as they wish. Unless it's outside moderation rules of
course.
All I'm pointing out is they are far from authoritative sources, even if syndicated. In fact that makes it worse because they are unlikely to do
their own fact-checking before re-publishing.
I did find a source earlier today which has a very rare disclaimer:
"This gives some general guidance concerning things you need to know
about probate, but it's by no means a comprehensive guide to
obtaining this, which is complex".
In message <urqqe3$pp7e$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:55 on Thu, 29 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
On 29/02/2024 19:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
All I'm pointing out is they are far from authoritative sources,Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out. >>>>Is this your personal topic in a your personal newsgroup?
Best to man-up, so to speak and accept others have every right to
randomly 'blog' as they wish. Unless it's outside moderation rules
of course.
even if syndicated. In fact that makes it worse because they are
unlikely to do their own fact-checking before re-publishing.
I did find a source earlier today which has a very rare disclaimer:
"This gives some general guidance concerning things you need to know >>> about probate, but it's by no means a comprehensive guide to
obtaining this, which is complex".
This group is full of non-authoritative sources. It's par for the course.
I realise that, which is why the brief I gave (which almost everyone continues to ignore) said "no regurgitating random bloggers".
On 29/02/2024 19:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
All I'm pointing out is they are far from authoritative sources,Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled
out.
Is this your personal topic in a your personal newsgroup?
Best to man-up, so to speak and accept others have every right to >>>randomly 'blog' as they wish. Unless it's outside moderation rules of >>>course.
even if syndicated. In fact that makes it worse because they are
unlikely to do their own fact-checking before re-publishing.
I did find a source earlier today which has a very rare disclaimer:
"This gives some general guidance concerning things you need to
know
about probate, but it's by no means a comprehensive guide to
obtaining this, which is complex".
Roland, I've been away, and during that time this thread has grown >enormously. Can I ask whether you have received the answers you needed?
On 29 Feb 2024 at 20:45:55 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/02/2024 19:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out. >>>>Is this your personal topic in a your personal newsgroup?
Best to man-up, so to speak and accept others have every right to
randomly 'blog' as they wish. Unless it's outside moderation rules of
course.
All I'm pointing out is they are far from authoritative sources, even if >>> syndicated. In fact that makes it worse because they are unlikely to do
their own fact-checking before re-publishing.
I did find a source earlier today which has a very rare disclaimer:
"This gives some general guidance concerning things you need to know
about probate, but it's by no means a comprehensive guide to
obtaining this, which is complex".
This group is full of non-authoritative sources. It's par for the
course. People's experiences can also be useful. They say advice can
always be given, but not necessarily taken.
I would have thought this subject would be full of case law, where large
sums can be at stake and emotions run wild.
If the IHT questions are difficult enough to require case law then they also >require the professional knowledge and judgement to know which case law >applies! The common thread is to ask HMRC direct questions and/or employ a >professional.
Roland, I've been away, and during that time this thread has grown >>enormously. Can I ask whether you have received the answers you needed?
I only wanted one answer - which was whether the spousal exemption was
unconditional. The consensus is YES, given that none of the wrinkles
which in fact make it sometimes conditional don't apply in my case
study.
In the mean time dozens of un-asked questions have been answered
anyway, and perhaps 1:20 of those turn out to be helpful come the next
stage in the proceedings. Of course, several of the "nineteen" are
plain wrong :(
In message <urqqe3$pp7e$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:55 on Thu, 29 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
On 29/02/2024 19:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28 Feb >>>2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:This group is full of non-authoritative sources. It's par for the
course.
I realise that, which is why the brief I gave (which almost everyone continues to ignore) said "no regurgitating random bloggers".
I would have thought this subject would be full of case law, where
large sums can be at stake and emotions run wild.
Not much of that has emerged, which is a bit disappointing.
I only wanted one answer - which was whether the spousal exemption was unconditional. The consensus is YES[1], given that none of the wrinkles
which in fact make it sometimes conditional don't apply in my case
study.
In the mean time dozens of un-asked questions have been answered anyway,
and perhaps 1:20 of those turn out to be helpful come the next stage in
the proceedings. Of course, several of the "nineteen" are plain wrong :(
[1] Putting aside the fact that option (b), which few people nominated,
is actually the comprehensive answer, assuming that recursively Jane
doesn't remarry has a surviving spouse, and sufficient estate of her
own.
On 29 Feb 2024 at 21:30:36 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4c4fgFeuaoU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:33:04 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 18:47:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28 >>>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a >>>>>>> device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password >>>>>> reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one
additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to >>>>> recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the
laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so it's >>>> *her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member) is
wanting to recover.
I believe someone has invented a concept called "personal data"
which is not to be freely handed around to anyone merely on the
ground of ownership of the hardware upon which it is stored.
Domestic exemption. Next contestant please.
And is Apple supposed to know that that applies, just because someone says so?
You're no doubt aquainted with the things estranges partners get up to, for
instance.
On 29 Feb 2024 at 21:30:36 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4c4fgFeuaoU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:33:04 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 18:47:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28 >>>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a >>>>>>> device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password >>>>>> reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one
additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to >>>>> recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the
laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so it's >>>> *her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member) is
wanting to recover.
I believe someone has invented a concept called "personal data"
which is not to be freely handed around to anyone merely on the
ground of ownership of the hardware upon which it is stored.
Domestic exemption. Next contestant please.
Does that apply to sensitive personal data? Would not be a good basis to run a >medical practice on.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I only wanted one answer - which was whether the spousal exemption was
unconditional. The consensus is YES[1], given that none of the wrinkles
which in fact make it sometimes conditional don't apply in my case
study.
In the mean time dozens of un-asked questions have been answered anyway,
and perhaps 1:20 of those turn out to be helpful come the next stage in
the proceedings. Of course, several of the "nineteen" are plain wrong :(
[1] Putting aside the fact that option (b), which few people nominated,
is actually the comprehensive answer, assuming that recursively Jane
doesn't remarry has a surviving spouse, and sufficient estate of her
own.
[To remind other readers what option (b) was]
"(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate."
Nobody nominated it because it doesn't make any sense. If there is any
IHT liability on John's estate it has to be paid immediately (or at least
in instalments), and if there isn't it doesn't have to be paid at all,
ever. When Jane dies there will be IHT to be paid on her estate, and that
IHT will have to be paid then, from the assets in the estate at her
death. It can't be calculated in advance.
I bow to your superior knowledge, and will go to an Apple Store at the weekend to ask everyone turning up for help with their appliances, how
long it took them to get a court order, and how much it cost.
In message <l4cbqkFg0nsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:38:28 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 21:30:36 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4c4fgFeuaoU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:33:04 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 18:47:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29 >>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28 >>>>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a >>>>>>>> device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password >>>>>>> reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one >>>>>> additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to >>>>>> recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the
laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so it's >>>>> *her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member) is
wanting to recover.
I believe someone has invented a concept called "personal data"
which is not to be freely handed around to anyone merely on the
ground of ownership of the hardware upon which it is stored.
Domestic exemption. Next contestant please.
Does that apply to sensitive personal data? Would not be a good basis to run a
medical practice on.
A medical practice isn't "domestic" !!!
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <urqqe3$pp7e$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:55 on Thu, 29 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
On 29/02/2024 19:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28 Feb >>>>2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:This group is full of non-authoritative sources. It's par for the
course.
I realise that, which is why the brief I gave (which almost everyone
continues to ignore) said "no regurgitating random bloggers".
I would have thought this subject would be full of case law, where
large sums can be at stake and emotions run wild.
Not much of that has emerged, which is a bit disappointing.
It's because litigation only arises in contentious matters. This isn't.
For the record, I do not think it is necessary to hire a professional
to do the whole estate administration. But you could look back through
this thread and pick out a few key points you'd like to have verified >professionally and then ask your chosen estate practitioner to answer
them in writing. That would maybe cost a few hundred pounds.
In message <l4cbc3Fful5U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:30:43 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 20:45:55 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/02/2024 19:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out. >>>>>Is this your personal topic in a your personal newsgroup?
Best to man-up, so to speak and accept others have every right to
randomly 'blog' as they wish. Unless it's outside moderation rules of >>>>> course.
All I'm pointing out is they are far from authoritative sources, even if >>>> syndicated. In fact that makes it worse because they are unlikely to do >>>> their own fact-checking before re-publishing.
I did find a source earlier today which has a very rare disclaimer:
"This gives some general guidance concerning things you need to know >>>> about probate, but it's by no means a comprehensive guide to
obtaining this, which is complex".
This group is full of non-authoritative sources. It's par for the
course. People's experiences can also be useful. They say advice can
always be given, but not necessarily taken.
I would have thought this subject would be full of case law, where large >>> sums can be at stake and emotions run wild.
If the IHT questions are difficult enough to require case law then they also >> require the professional knowledge and judgement to know which case law
applies! The common thread is to ask HMRC direct questions and/or employ a >> professional.
Has anyone here actually asked HMRC questions in these circumstances.
And did they answer them? Or perhaps they'd say "this is too complicated
to deal with in a short phone call, fill in the IHT forms and we'll let
you know in three month's time".
On 28/02/2024 17:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:48:03 +0000, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
AutoTrader offer a free valuation service based on what similar vehicles >>> have sold for on the site. You need an account so Jane will need to
create one if she doesn't already have one.
I'd be inclined to just get a valuation from WeBuyAnyCar dot com.
There's no
need to follow through and actually sell it to them. Their valuation will
tend to be on the low side, obviously, because if they did buy it they'd
want to re-sell at a profit. But it does represent a realistic market
price
for the purpose of valuing the estate.
There's no "tend to be on the low side" about it. In case you're not
aware, WeBuyAnyCar (WBAC) is a business of British Car Auctions (BCA).
WBAC generates stock for BCA so the price offered by WBAC must be lower
than the price the vehicle is expected to sell for through BCA, the
latter of which could be considered "reasonable market value" for the
car but the former of which most certainly isn't.
Personally, for those reasons I would not consider a WBAC valuation as
useful for the purposes of probate but YMMV and Jane must do what she considers best, bearing in mind that this estate is likely to be
scrutinised by HMRC.
In message <yLcEX7$iXS4lFAYC@perry.uk>, at 00:48:34 on Fri, 1 Mar 2024, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
Roland, I've been away, and during that time this thread has grown
enormously. Can I ask whether you have received the answers you needed?
I only wanted one answer - which was whether the spousal exemption was
unconditional. The consensus is YES, given that none of the wrinkles
which in fact make it sometimes conditional don't apply in my case
study.
In the mean time dozens of un-asked questions have been answered
anyway, and perhaps 1:20 of those turn out to be helpful come the next
stage in the proceedings. Of course, several of the "nineteen" are
plain wrong :(
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus
capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost around
£4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and meals]. That's
far more than my state pension for even a whole month, and while it did
in effect come from short term savings, what if I'd financed it by a draw-down from my personal pension?
I'm going to assume that the element which paid for my wife's
participation is not-a-gift, but have no sources to back that up. (Not
even random bloggers).
Like most people I know, I am not in the habit of documenting gifts in
order to make an executor's life easier.
Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I only wanted one answer - which was whether the spousal exemption was
unconditional. The consensus is YES[1], given that none of the wrinkles
which in fact make it sometimes conditional don't apply in my case
study.
In the mean time dozens of un-asked questions have been answered anyway, >>> and perhaps 1:20 of those turn out to be helpful come the next stage in
the proceedings. Of course, several of the "nineteen" are plain wrong :( >>>
[1] Putting aside the fact that option (b), which few people nominated,
is actually the comprehensive answer, assuming that recursively Jane
doesn't remarry has a surviving spouse, and sufficient estate of her
own.
[To remind other readers what option (b) was]
"(b) No IHT liability immediately, but a sum would be calculated and
parked until Jane dies, and would then need to be paid from her estate."
Nobody nominated it because it doesn't make any sense. If there is any
IHT liability on John's estate it has to be paid immediately (or at least
in instalments), and if there isn't it doesn't have to be paid at all,
ever. When Jane dies there will be IHT to be paid on her estate, and that
IHT will have to be paid then, from the assets in the estate at her
death. It can't be calculated in advance.
My personal experience, which may be out of date, is that any IHT due must
be paid before probate is granted. The only asset of the estate that could
be used to pay IHT was premium bonds held by the deceased. Loans to pay IHT have been mentioned so I suspect that this has not changed much, if at all.
John’s unused IHT nil rate band can be passed to Jane as his civil partner if she applies for it but that is the only aspect of his estate that is carried over.
On 29/02/2024 11:29, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 17:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:48:03 +0000, Simon Parker >>><simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
AutoTrader offer a free valuation service based on what similar vehicles >>>> have sold for on the site. You need an account so Jane will need to
create one if she doesn't already have one.
I'd be inclined to just get a valuation from WeBuyAnyCar dot com. >>>There's no need to follow through and actually sell it to them.
Their valuation will tend to be on the low side, obviously, because
if they did buy it they'd want to re-sell at a profit. But it does >>>represent a realistic market price for the purpose of valuing the estate.
There's no "tend to be on the low side" about it. In case you're
not aware, WeBuyAnyCar (WBAC) is a business of British Car Auctions
(BCA). WBAC generates stock for BCA so the price offered by WBAC must
be lower than the price the vehicle is expected to sell for through
BCA, the latter of which could be considered "reasonable market
value" for the car but the former of which most certainly isn't.
A car is only worth what someone will pay for it. WBAC is a hassle free
way of turning surplus cars into cash if that is the intention. It
might not be the best possible price but it is by no means the worst.
On the flip side for small estates I have know professional executors
put the entire contents of houses into the possession of a random junk
shop or small local auctioneers on a job lot pricing basis. Then
followed by paid for house clearance of the stuff they didn't take
away. The amount raised seldom covering the cost of junk disposal.
I doubt if professional executors ever do much more than put old cars
through something like the equivalent of WBAC unless there is reason to >believe it has serious value as a rarity, antique or collectable.
Valuation of houses is pretty random too unless you happen to live on
an estate of near identikit houses all built the same.
Where I live no two houses are even remotely alike and they change
hands very infrequently.
Personally, for those reasons I would not consider a WBAC valuation
as useful for the purposes of probate but YMMV and Jane must do what
she considers best, bearing in mind that this estate is likely to be >>scrutinised by HMRC.
It is one of the better prices around. She isn't likely to do any
better trading it in at a garage unless she is extremely skilled at
haggling.
On 01/03/2024 03:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <yLcEX7$iXS4lFAYC@perry.uk>, at 00:48:34 on Fri, 1 Mar
2024, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
Roland, I've been away, and during that time this thread has grown >>>>enormously. Can I ask whether you have received the answers you needed?
I only wanted one answer - which was whether the spousal exemption
was unconditional. The consensus is YES, given that none of the
wrinkles which in fact make it sometimes conditional don't apply in
In the mean time dozens of un-asked questions have been answered
anyway, and perhaps 1:20 of those turn out to be helpful come the
next stage in the proceedings. Of course, several of the "nineteen"
are plain wrong :(
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a >>distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus
capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost
around 4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and
meals]. That's far more than my state pension for even a whole month,
and while it did in effect come from short term savings, what if I'd >>financed it by a draw-down from my personal pension?
I'm going to assume that the element which paid for my wife's >>participation is not-a-gift, but have no sources to back that up. (Not
even random bloggers).
It falls under the general exemption of transfer of any and all assets >between spouses iff it was just your wife you took on the holiday.
Where it gets complicated is with high value gifts given away to
children and other beneficiaries if you fail to live on for another 7
years.
What will really raise HMRC eyebrows are recent (within 7 years) gifts
made to your Will's beneficiaries that bring the estate value below the
IHT tax threshold.
Or other deliberate means of impoverishment intended to avoid having to
pay for a care home place.
Like most people I know, I am not in the habit of documenting gifts
in order to make an executor's life easier.
Larger gifts (10+k) you probably should document since your
executor(s) will be liable for any mistakes that come to light.
I'm inclined to the view that the uncertainty in the valuation of a
house is so enormous that it entirely dominates the subjective value of
most estates.
The fact that most people (who probably should know better) don't think
to do it doesn't make it right.
This will be my last post to the sub-thread.
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus
capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost around
£4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and meals]. That's
far more than my state pension for even a whole month, and while it did
in effect come from short term savings, what if I'd financed it by a draw-down from my personal pension?
I'm going to assume that the element which paid for my wife's
participation is not-a-gift, but have no sources to back that up. (Not
even random bloggers).
Like most people I know, I am not in the habit of documenting gifts in
order to make an executor's life easier.
On 29/02/2024 08:17, Norman Wells wrote:
Perhaps you'd deal with the hypothetical premise that there was improper
conduct of the ceremony. Is there no impropriety that would make the
civil partnership void? Even if, say, the 'Registrar' purporting to
conduct the ceremony was an imposter, however unlikely that may be?
Or if Mickey Mouse and Olive Oyl were apparently the witnesses?
You may have snipped the words from your response, but the statement
still stands:
"I'm sure you will understand when I state that I am disinclined to
acquiesce to your request to accompany you further in this particular sub-thread."
This will be my last post to the sub-thread.
On 29/02/2024 11:29, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 17:13, Mark Goodge wrote:
I'd be inclined to just get a valuation from WeBuyAnyCar dot com.
There's no
need to follow through and actually sell it to them. Their valuation will >>> tend to be on the low side, obviously, because if they did buy it they'd >>> want to re-sell at a profit. But it does represent a realistic market
price
for the purpose of valuing the estate.
There's no "tend to be on the low side" about it. In case you're not
aware, WeBuyAnyCar (WBAC) is a business of British Car Auctions (BCA).
WBAC generates stock for BCA so the price offered by WBAC must be lower
than the price the vehicle is expected to sell for through BCA, the
latter of which could be considered "reasonable market value" for the
car but the former of which most certainly isn't.
A car is only worth what someone will pay for it. WBAC is a hassle free
way of turning surplus cars into cash if that is the intention. It might
not be the best possible price but it is by no means the worst.
In message <t5putidbcivr1pha47vlpr9r33gk26mm65@4ax.com>, at 16:54:51 on
Wed, 28 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:53:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <gagstidkttkqtln51tkolbkdoh9j57ee90@4ax.com>, at 20:16:54 on >>>Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
That wouldn't be my immediate choice. The best option would be to use a firm
which will agree to work now, and take payment later from the estate once >>>>probate has been granted. Or, she could take out a loan, and then pay it >>>>back once probate has been granted. But the first stage in that, either way,
would be to gat in touch with a firm which will offer a free initial >>>>consultation and get an idea of the likely costs.
Based on the two sets of solicitors I used for my mother's probate, they >>>quote a fixed fee off a price list.
That's a good start. Knowing the likely fee is a necessary precondition to >>the decision-making.
But you, as you keep telling us, are not Jane. So your suspicions are >>>>irrelevant.
Does HMRC have a vulcan mind probe and answers the phone to Janes more >>>efficiently than Rolands? Don't be absurd.
No, they will be just as inefficient at answering. But, having answered >>(which could take a while), they will know what questions to ask her.
Ever optimistic I see.
That's why, if it was me, I'd get my accountants to do it.
Not solicitors?
No, because it's about finance, not law. Filling in tax forms is the sort of >>thing that accountants do for a living.
You need to tell that to firms of solicitors who have whole departments >dealing with probate.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:45:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <t5putidbcivr1pha47vlpr9r33gk26mm65@4ax.com>, at 16:54:51 on
Wed, 28 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:53:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <gagstidkttkqtln51tkolbkdoh9j57ee90@4ax.com>, at 20:16:54 on >>>> Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
That wouldn't be my immediate choice. The best option would be to use a firm
which will agree to work now, and take payment later from the estate once >>>>> probate has been granted. Or, she could take out a loan, and then pay it >>>>> back once probate has been granted. But the first stage in that, either way,
would be to gat in touch with a firm which will offer a free initial >>>>> consultation and get an idea of the likely costs.
Based on the two sets of solicitors I used for my mother's probate, they >>>> quote a fixed fee off a price list.
That's a good start. Knowing the likely fee is a necessary precondition to >>> the decision-making.
But you, as you keep telling us, are not Jane. So your suspicions are >>>>> irrelevant.
Does HMRC have a vulcan mind probe and answers the phone to Janes more >>>> efficiently than Rolands? Don't be absurd.
No, they will be just as inefficient at answering. But, having answered
(which could take a while), they will know what questions to ask her.
Ever optimistic I see.
What's the worst that could happen? Jane wastes half an hour of her time, 20 minutes on hold and 10 minutes engaging in a fruitless conversation. OK, so that's not particularly desirable, but it's not the end of the world.
That's why, if it was me, I'd get my accountants to do it.
Not solicitors?
No, because it's about finance, not law. Filling in tax forms is the sort of
thing that accountants do for a living.
You need to tell that to firms of solicitors who have whole departments
dealing with probate.
I'm sure that solicitors also enjoy taking on this kind of work. It's not mutually exclusive. But, still, if it was me, I'd go first to my accoutants, because I know them, and they know me, and they do have a department which deals with this sort of stuff.
Mark
On 2024-03-01 17:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:45:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <t5putidbcivr1pha47vlpr9r33gk26mm65@4ax.com>, at 16:54:51What's the worst that could happen? Jane wastes half an hour of her
on
Wed, 28 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:53:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <gagstidkttkqtln51tkolbkdoh9j57ee90@4ax.com>, at 20:16:54 on >>>>> Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
That wouldn't be my immediate choice. The best option would be to >>>>>>use a firm which will agree to work now, and take payment later >>>>>>from the estate once probate has been granted. Or, she could take >>>>>>out a loan, and then pay it back once probate has been granted. >>>>>>But the first stage in that, either way, would be to gat in touch >>>>>>with a firm which will offer a free initial consultation and get
Based on the two sets of solicitors I used for my mother's probate, they >>>>> quote a fixed fee off a price list.
That's a good start. Knowing the likely fee is a necessary precondition to >>>> the decision-making.
But you, as you keep telling us, are not Jane. So your suspicions are >>>>>> irrelevant.
Does HMRC have a vulcan mind probe and answers the phone to Janes more >>>>> efficiently than Rolands? Don't be absurd.
No, they will be just as inefficient at answering. But, having answered >>>> (which could take a while), they will know what questions to ask her.
Ever optimistic I see.
time, 20
minutes on hold and 10 minutes engaging in a fruitless conversation. OK, so >> that's not particularly desirable, but it's not the end of the world.
I'm sure that solicitors also enjoy taking on this kind of work.That's why, if it was me, I'd get my accountants to do it.
Not solicitors?
No, because it's about finance, not law. Filling in tax forms is
the sort of
thing that accountants do for a living.
You need to tell that to firms of solicitors who have whole departments
dealing with probate.
It's not
mutually exclusive. But, still, if it was me, I'd go first to my accoutants, >> because I know them, and they know me, and they do have a department which >> deals with this sort of stuff.
Mark
And, as I found with my father's estate, the solicitor may well have a
tame accountant to consult.
On 01/03/2024 03:30, Roland Perry wrote:
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a >>distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus
capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost
around 4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and
meals]. That's far more than my state pension for even a whole month,
and while it did in effect come from short term savings, what if I'd >>financed it by a draw-down from my personal pension?
In theory, you are quite right that part of the 4k expenditure is a
gift to others, and gifts in kind are indeed caught by IHT. In
practice, it's unlikely that anyone will try to apportion the 4k
between amounts spent on yourself, your spouse, and others.
It gets a bit ridiculous. If you invite someone over for lunch, is that
a gift for IHT purposes?
I'm going to assume that the element which paid for my wife's >>participation is not-a-gift, but have no sources to back that up. (Not
even random bloggers).
Like most people I know, I am not in the habit of documenting gifts
in order to make an executor's life easier.
In message <ursjbv$186r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:57:36 on Fri, 1 Mar
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 03:30, Roland Perry wrote:
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a
distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus
capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost
around £4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and
meals]. That's far more than my state pension for even a whole
month, and while it did in effect come from short term savings, what
if I'd financed it by a draw-down from my personal pension?
In theory, you are quite right that part of the £4k expenditure is a
gift to others, and gifts in kind are indeed caught by IHT. In
practice, it's unlikely that anyone will try to apportion the £4k
between amounts spent on yourself, your spouse, and others.
It gets a bit ridiculous. If you invite someone over for lunch, is
that a gift for IHT purposes?
You've completely missed the point - the question isn't apportioning[1]
lump sums between participants, but whether any gift is allowable under
a rule about paying from current income rather than capital.
I'm going to assume that the element which paid for my wife's
participation is not-a-gift, but have no sources to back that up.
(Not even random bloggers).
Like most people I know, I am not in the habit of documenting gifts
in order to make an executor's life easier.
[1] Within less than 1%, my Scottish holiday's costs were attributable
in exact thirds between the participants. Three identical train
tickets, three people sharing each overnight accommodation, three
people sharing the same taxi (where used), almost identical meals.
In message <l4egh9Fphv8U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:11:04 on Fri, 1 Mar 2024, nib <news@caffnib.co.uk> remarked:
And, as I found with my father's estate, the solicitor may well have a
tame accountant to consult.
And that sounds like nightmare for the compliance officer.
Also a typical accountant doing VAT returns, and small limited company statutory accounts, is likely to know diddly-squat about topics likeI do detect a few, perhaps unwarranted, assumptions here, and a certain
transfer of historic nil-rate bands, winding up trusts, and answers to questions like mine from the other day about what is an exempt gift
rather than something to be noted for seen years.
In message <ursjbv$186r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:57:36 on Fri, 1 Mar 2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 03:30, Roland Perry wrote:
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a
distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus capital. >>> And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost around £4k
in total for the week [transport, accommodation and meals]. That's far more
than my state pension for even a whole month, and while it did in effect >>> come from short term savings, what if I'd financed it by a draw-down from my
personal pension?
In theory, you are quite right that part of the £4k expenditure is a gift to
others, and gifts in kind are indeed caught by IHT. In practice, it's unlikely
that anyone will try to apportion the £4k between amounts spent on yourself,
your spouse, and others.
It gets a bit ridiculous. If you invite someone over for lunch, is that a gift
for IHT purposes?
You've completely missed the point - the question isn't apportioning[1] lump sums between participants, but whether any gift is allowable under a rule about
paying from current income rather than capital.
On 02/03/2024 07:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4egh9Fphv8U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:11:04 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, nib <news@caffnib.co.uk> remarked:
And, as I found with my father's estate, the solicitor may well have
a tame accountant to consult.
And that sounds like nightmare for the compliance officer.
I see no reason why that should be.
Also a typical accountant doing VAT returns, and small limited companyI do detect a few, perhaps unwarranted, assumptions here, and a certain
statutory accounts, is likely to know diddly-squat about topics like
transfer of historic nil-rate bands, winding up trusts, and answers to
questions like mine from the other day about what is an exempt gift
rather than something to be noted for seen years.
lack of respect for professionals generally. Maybe that's why nothing
ever seems to get done?
In message <ursjbv$186r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:57:36 on Fri, 1 Mar
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 03:30, Roland Perry wrote:
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a
distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus
capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost
around £4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and
meals]. That's far more than my state pension for even a whole
month, and while it did in effect come from short term savings, what
if I'd financed it by a draw-down from my personal pension?
In theory, you are quite right that part of the £4k expenditure is a
gift to others, and gifts in kind are indeed caught by IHT. In
practice, it's unlikely that anyone will try to apportion the £4k
between amounts spent on yourself, your spouse, and others.
It gets a bit ridiculous. If you invite someone over for lunch, is
that a gift for IHT purposes?
You've completely missed the point - the question isn't apportioning[1]
lump sums between participants, but whether any gift is allowable under
a rule about paying from current income rather than capital.
I'm going to assume that the element which paid for my wife's
participation is not-a-gift, but have no sources to back that up.
(Not even random bloggers).
Like most people I know, I am not in the habit of documenting gifts
in order to make an executor's life easier.
[1] Within less than 1%, my Scottish holiday's costs were attributable
in exact thirds between the participants. Three identical train
tickets, three people sharing each overnight accommodation, three
people sharing the same taxi (where used), almost identical meals.
On 02/03/2024 08:32, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 07:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4egh9Fphv8U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:11:04 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, nib <news@caffnib.co.uk> remarked:
And, as I found with my father's estate, the solicitor may well have
a tame accountant to consult.
And that sounds like nightmare for the compliance officer.
I see no reason why that should be.
Also a typical accountant doing VAT returns, and small limited companyI do detect a few, perhaps unwarranted, assumptions here, and a certain
statutory accounts, is likely to know diddly-squat about topics like
transfer of historic nil-rate bands, winding up trusts, and answers to
questions like mine from the other day about what is an exempt gift
rather than something to be noted for seen years.
lack of respect for professionals generally. Maybe that's why nothing
ever seems to get done?
I have to agree that an accountant would not the first choice. Their >profession is aimed at companies, corporations and personal taxation.
On 01/03/2024 12:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l4dvp1F1sgU49@mid.individual.net...
This will be my last post to the sub-thread.
And how. for busy readers at least, to readily identify sub-threads ?
Any ideas ?
I commend to you Message-ID: <uq0uob$1jvtq$1@dont-email.me>, (BB-ID: Wed, 7th Feb 2024,
22:04:22 -0000, Thread: "The legal presumption that computers are reliable", BB-Sub-Thread Reference: "b") as the poster that made that post, (one billy bookcase
esquire), appeared to have a clear and cogent understanding of what constituted a
sub-thread as he made a reference thereto therein.
If his understanding of the subject isn't clear from that post, perhaps you could ask
him to clarify the matter for you as he obviously possesses a clear understanding of
sub-threads, and I think you and he would likely see eye to eye on the subject.
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:l4dvp1F1sgU49@mid.individual.net...
This will be my last post to the sub-thread.
And how. for busy readers at least, to readily identify sub-threads ?
Any ideas ?
In message <urshp6$17s6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:30:24 on Fri, 1 Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:l4dvp1F1sgU49@mid.individual.net...
This will be my last post to the sub-thread.
And how. for busy readers at least, to readily identify sub-threads ?
Any ideas ?
Use a decent Usenet client.
eg: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/ukr-threading.jpg
In message <urshp6$17s6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:30:24 on Fri, 1 Mar
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l4dvp1F1sgU49@mid.individual.net...
This will be my last post to the sub-thread.
And how. for busy readers at least, to readily identify sub-threads ?
Any ideas ?
Use a decent Usenet client.
eg: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/ukr-threading.jpg
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:xBjklMSYJz5lFABJ@perry.uk...
In message <urshp6$17s6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:30:24 on Fri, 1 Mar
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:l4dvp1F1sgU49@mid.individual.net...
This will be my last post to the sub-thread.
And how. for busy readers at least, to readily identify sub-threads ?
Any ideas ?
Use a decent Usenet client.
eg: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/ukr-threading.jpg
As a matter of interest, how exactly does your particular Usenet
client identify subthreads ?
I think the question here is to what extent HMRC would expect the >administrators of an estate to get the best possible price for assets they >decide to liquidate, as opposed to accepting the price on offer for the >simplest means of sale to a genuine unrelated purchaser. Obviously, HMRC >wouldn't accept, say, a valuation of a tenner for a 2016 reg BMW on the
basis that that's what your mate down the pub offered you. But I think it >would be hard for them to argue that the value for probate purposes must be >more than the owner could get by selling the car to one of several entirely >legitimate and commonly used car purchasing companies.
On 29/02/2024 18:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed,
28 Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a >>>>>device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a
password reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one >>>additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to >>>recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the
laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so
it's *her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member)
is wanting to recover.
Jane's challenge, should she choose to accept it, is to convince the
relevant guru at the Apple Genius Bar she attends of these facts and
that they should unlock the device on that basis.
I've provided a link to Apple's official policy on the matter.
You and Jane are free to make whatever claims you like, either here on
in person to Apple, but IME Apple are unlikely to deviate from their >published policy on the matter.
On 1 Mar 2024 at 07:47:29 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4cbqkFg0nsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:38:28 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 21:30:36 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4c4fgFeuaoU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:33:04 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 18:47:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29 >>>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28 >>>>>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a >>>>>>>>> device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password >>>>>>>> reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one >>>>>>> additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to >>>>>>> recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the >>>>>> laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so it's >>>>>> *her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member) is >>>>>> wanting to recover.
I believe someone has invented a concept called "personal data"
which is not to be freely handed around to anyone merely on the
ground of ownership of the hardware upon which it is stored.
Domestic exemption. Next contestant please.
Does that apply to sensitive personal data? Would not be a good
basis to run a medical practice on.
A medical practice isn't "domestic" !!!
Neither is Apple. I think that's the point. I am not surprised if it is >lawful to handle one's late partners data as you will, but if you need a third >party then it is not obvious that they can help you without evidence.
In message <l4dlohFm1pkU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:34:09 on Fri, 1 Mar 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 1 Mar 2024 at 07:47:29 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4cbqkFg0nsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:38:28 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 21:30:36 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <l4c4fgFeuaoU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:33:04 on Thu, 29 >>>>> Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 18:47:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>>
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29 >>>>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28 >>>>>>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a >>>>>>>>>> device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password >>>>>>>>> reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one >>>>>>>> additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to >>>>>>>> recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the >>>>>>> laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so it's >>>>>>> *her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member) is >>>>>>> wanting to recover.
I believe someone has invented a concept called "personal data"
which is not to be freely handed around to anyone merely on the
ground of ownership of the hardware upon which it is stored.
Domestic exemption. Next contestant please.
Does that apply to sensitive personal data? Would not be a good
basis to run a medical practice on.
A medical practice isn't "domestic" !!!
Neither is Apple. I think that's the point. I am not surprised if it is
lawful to handle one's late partners data as you will, but if you need a third
party then it is not obvious that they can help you without evidence.
The Apple people just need to unlock the device, there's no need for
*them* to subsequently look at any of the personal data which might be
stored on it.
On 9 Mar 2024 at 19:19:02 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4dlohFm1pkU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:34:09 on Fri, 1 Mar
2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 1 Mar 2024 at 07:47:29 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l4cbqkFg0nsU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:38:28 on Thu, 29
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 21:30:36 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
In message <l4c4fgFeuaoU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:33:04 on Thu, 29 >>>>>> Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 18:47:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>
In message <l4b876F2goU23@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:44 on Thu, 29 >>>>>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 28/02/2024 20:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l486pjF1sgU35@mid.individual.net>, at 07:48:03 on Wed, 28
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>
Apple's official policy is that they will only grant access to a >>>>>>>>>>> device on presentation of a court order.
Why would they need a court order to assist someone to do a password
reset on their own laptop?
No because it is likely that such a person would have at least one >>>>>>>>> additional trusted device tied to the account which could be used to >>>>>>>>> recover / reset the password.
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the >>>>>>>> laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so it's
*her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family member) is >>>>>>>> wanting to recover.
I believe someone has invented a concept called "personal data"
which is not to be freely handed around to anyone merely on the >>>>>>> ground of ownership of the hardware upon which it is stored.
Domestic exemption. Next contestant please.
Does that apply to sensitive personal data? Would not be a good
basis to run a medical practice on.
A medical practice isn't "domestic" !!!
Neither is Apple. I think that's the point. I am not surprised if it is >>> lawful to handle one's late partners data as you will, but if you
need a third
party then it is not obvious that they can help you without evidence.
The Apple people just need to unlock the device, there's no need for
*them* to subsequently look at any of the personal data which might be
stored on it.
I don't think that the lack of an obligation for a data controller to protect >access to his family's data from other family members even vaguely maps onto a >commercial data controller freely handing one family member's data to another >family member.
Though I can see an exception may be made for the deceased's data even
then the person controlling accesss should satisy themselves that they
are dealing with the nearest relative. What about an estranged husband >getting his wife's whereabouts from a deceased relative's computer?
OTOH, if it is a 10-year old BMW 3-series, print outs showing what
three similar cars, (make, model, age, mileage, condition), sold for
on eBay / AutoTrader should be sufficient.
Specifically, most such adverts are over-optimistic in their
valuations,
On 09/03/2024 19:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4e03kF1sgU51@mid.individual.net>, at 12:30:43 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 29/02/2024 18:47, Roland Perry wrote:
The instant circumstances don't matter, it's because the
request is *not* being made by a public authority. And even if the >>>>laptop was bought by (say) John, it now belongs (FSVO) to Jane, so >>>>it's *her* laptop, which she (not some other busybody family
member) is wanting to recover.
Jane's challenge, should she choose to accept it, is to convince the >>>relevant guru at the Apple Genius Bar she attends of these facts and
that they should unlock the device on that basis.
I've provided a link to Apple's official policy on the matter.
You and Jane are free to make whatever claims you like, either here
on in person to Apple, but IME Apple are unlikely to deviate from
their published policy on the matter.
That's simple then, she merely has to say it's hers (which is at
least mainly true, and that she's lost the password.
Not quite. She has to demonstrate, or prove if you will, to Apple's >satisfaction that it is her device and that she has a legal right to
access the content.
Claiming to have lost the password for an AppleID that is clearly not
hers (assuming it is "JohnSomethingOrOther [at] icloud.com" and she is >clearly not "John") is unlikely to assist her cause.
IME, Apple Gurus do not like people being "smart" with them and tend to
give them short shrift.
If she has access to the phone which picks up email to the Apple-ID
(which is just an email address) it might be the case that a friend
could DIY it for her, by following the password recovery FAQs
published by Apple.
If only somebody had pointed that out in a previous post(!).
Perhaps they could have said something along the lines of:
<Begin Quote>
In Jane's case, I had assumed that she does not have access to any of
John's other devices. If that is not the case, and she has access to,
for example, his iPhone or Apple Watch then she may be able to use
those to reset the password to gain access to the MacBook.
This link gives details for resetting an AppleID where at least one
other trusted device exists / one has access to the account holder's
trusted phone number:
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT201487
<End Quote>
With all due respect, I do not see why you are continuing to post on
the matter.
I've posted details of how to reset the password if Jane has access
(note that's "access" not merely possession) of at least one other
trusted device and quoted you Apple's stated policy as they apply it in
Great Britain for accessing a deceased person's device when that isn't
the case. (Note the "en-gb" in both of the URLs previously provided.)
You don't need to convince me of anything. I cannot unlock the device
for Jane even if you were somehow able to persuade me that you were
right.
You do, though, need to convince Apple, but their Gurus at the Genius
Bar have heard it all before, are not lawyers, and are not trained in
the law. However, they are trained in Apple policy and tend to follow
it to the letter.
Jane needs to either reset the password if she can, or either make an >appointment at the nearest Genius Bar and try her luck, or she needs to >formally reach out to Apple via their web-page.
Further discussions here, especially with a pause of a week and a half >between exchanges (for which I understand the circumstances and am
merely making an observation, rather than raising it as criticism) are >unlikely to get Jane access to the device formerly owned by John and
now held in trust by Jane in her role as his executrix.
Regards
S.P.
On 01/03/2024 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:
I bow to your superior knowledge, and will go to an Apple Store at
the weekend to ask everyone turning up for help with their
appliances, how long it took them to get a court order, and how much
it cost.
You may mock, but someone has to get the computer unlocked if there is
to be any progress.
How are you (plural) going to do that?
On 02/03/2024 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ursjbv$186r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:57:36 on Fri, 1 Mar
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 03:30, Roland Perry wrote:
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a >>>>distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus >>>>capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost >>>>around 4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and >>>>meals]. That's far more than my state pension for even a whole
month, and while it did in effect come from short term savings,
what if I'd financed it by a draw-down from my personal pension?
In theory, you are quite right that part of the 4k expenditure is a >>>gift to others, and gifts in kind are indeed caught by IHT. In
practice, it's unlikely that anyone will try to apportion the 4k >>>between amounts spent on yourself, your spouse, and others.
It gets a bit ridiculous. If you invite someone over for lunch, is
that a gift for IHT purposes?
You've completely missed the point - the question isn't
apportioning[1] lump sums between participants, but whether any gift
is allowable under a rule about paying from current income rather
than capital.
And what about if the recipient then "gifts" you back at some point. We
have, in the past rented a house abroad and said the kids, if you want
to come there is room. And had the same invitations.
On 02/03/2024 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ursjbv$186r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:57:36 on Fri, 1 Mar
2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 03:30, Roland Perry wrote:
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a >>>>distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus >>>>capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost >>>>around 4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and
meals]. That's far more than my state pension for even a whole
month, and while it did in effect come from short term savings,
what if I'd financed it by a draw-down from my personal pension?
In theory, you are quite right that part of the 4k expenditure is a >>>gift to others, and gifts in kind are indeed caught by IHT. In
practice, it's unlikely that anyone will try to apportion the 4k
between amounts spent on yourself, your spouse, and others.
It gets a bit ridiculous. If you invite someone over for lunch, is
that a gift for IHT purposes?
You've completely missed the point - the question isn't
apportioning[1] lump sums between participants, but whether any gift
is allowable under a rule about paying from current income rather
than capital.
I'm going to assume that the element which paid for my wife's >>>>participation is not-a-gift, but have no sources to back that up.
(Not even random bloggers).
Like most people I know, I am not in the habit of documenting
gifts in order to make an executor's life easier.
[1] Within less than 1%, my Scottish holiday's costs were
attributable
in exact thirds between the participants. Three identical train
tickets, three people sharing each overnight accommodation, three
people sharing the same taxi (where used), almost identical meals.
Where do you think this concentration on trivia is going to lead?
In theory, you are quite right that part of the 4k expenditure is a >>>gift to others, and gifts in kind are indeed caught by IHT. In
practice, it's unlikely that anyone will try to apportion the 4k
between amounts spent on yourself, your spouse, and others.
It gets a bit ridiculous. If you invite someone over for lunch, is
that a gift for IHT purposes?
You've completely missed the point - the question isn't
apportioning[1] lump sums between participants, but whether any gift
is allowable under a rule about paying from current income rather
than capital.
As it happens, Roland, I hadn't missed that point at all, but chose to >discuss a different aspect.
On 02/03/2024 08:32, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 07:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4egh9Fphv8U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:11:04 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, nib <news@caffnib.co.uk> remarked:
And, as I found with my father's estate, the solicitor may well
have a tame accountant to consult.
And that sounds like nightmare for the compliance officer.
I see no reason why that should be.
Also a typical accountant doing VAT returns, and small limited
company statutory accounts, is likely to know diddly-squat about
topics like transfer of historic nil-rate bands, winding up trusts,
and answers to questions like mine from the other day about what is
an exempt gift rather than something to be noted for seen years.
I do detect a few, perhaps unwarranted, assumptions here, and a
certain lack of respect for professionals generally. Maybe that's
why nothing ever seems to get done?
I have to agree that an accountant would not the first choice. Their >profession is aimed at companies, corporations and personal taxation.
A financial advisor would be a better choice, with views of minimising
tax and where to invest and long term planning to include IHT. I
suppose it is possible that a company of accountants, if large enough,
might have someone suitable versed in financial planning, and its >consequences.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 17:03:26 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/03/2024 08:32, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 07:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4egh9Fphv8U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:11:04 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, nib <news@caffnib.co.uk> remarked:
And, as I found with my father's estate, the solicitor may well have >>>>> a tame accountant to consult.
And that sounds like nightmare for the compliance officer.
I see no reason why that should be.
Also a typical accountant doing VAT returns, and small limited company >>>> statutory accounts, is likely to know diddly-squat about topics like
transfer of historic nil-rate bands, winding up trusts, and answers to >>>> questions like mine from the other day about what is an exempt gift
rather than something to be noted for seen years.
I do detect a few, perhaps unwarranted, assumptions here, and a certain
lack of respect for professionals generally. Maybe that's why nothing
ever seems to get done?
I have to agree that an accountant would not the first choice. Their >>profession is aimed at companies, corporations and personal taxation.
IHT *is* personal taxation.
As I said elsewhere, the accountancy firm I use for my personal and
company accounts has an IHT department. I'd be surprised if they are in
some way unique.
Mark
On 02/03/2024 07:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4egh9Fphv8U1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:11:04 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, nib <news@caffnib.co.uk> remarked:
And, as I found with my father's estate, the solicitor may well have
a tame accountant to consult.
And that sounds like nightmare for the compliance officer.
I see no reason why that should be.
Also a typical accountant doing VAT returns, and small limited
company statutory accounts, is likely to know diddly-squat about
topics like transfer of historic nil-rate bands, winding up trusts,
and answers to questions like mine from the other day about what is
an exempt gift rather than something to be noted for seen years.
I do detect a few, perhaps unwarranted, assumptions here, and a certain
lack of respect for professionals generally.
Maybe that's why nothing ever seems to get done?
On 29/02/2024 21:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <urqqe3$pp7e$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:45:55 on Thu, 29 Feb
2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
On 29/02/2024 19:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <uro2rm$1v67$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:18 on Wed, 28
Feb 2024, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
All I'm pointing out is they are far from authoritative sources,Oh look: even more "random bloggers", which I specifically ruled out. >>>>>Is this your personal topic in a your personal newsgroup?
Best to man-up, so to speak and accept others have every right to >>>>>randomly 'blog' as they wish. Unless it's outside moderation rules
of course.
even if syndicated. In fact that makes it worse because they are >>>>unlikely to do their own fact-checking before re-publishing.
I did find a source earlier today which has a very rare
disclaimer:
"This gives some general guidance concerning things you need to know >>>> about probate, but it's by no means a comprehensive guide to
obtaining this, which is complex".
This group is full of non-authoritative sources. It's par for the course.
I realise that, which is why the brief I gave (which almost everyone >>continues to ignore) said "no regurgitating random bloggers".
That's rather difficult, though, because you regard any blogger as
'random' if you don't like what he says.
Other people might call them 'reputable sources'.
In message <l4dk0lFl5etU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:04:22 on Fri, 1 Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:
I bow to your superior knowledge, and will go to an Apple Store at
the weekend to ask everyone turning up for help with their
appliances, how long it took them to get a court order, and how much
it cost.
You may mock, but someone has to get the computer unlocked if there is
to be any progress.
How are you (plural) going to do that?
Encourage Jane to find a local computer geek to plough through Apple's
rather opaque FAQ. SP thinks the Apple Store geeks will go into
"jobsworth mode", which seem a bit contrary to the warm friendly public
image they try to portray.
In message <l4gmvvF5llsU2@mid.individual.net>, at 13:13:36 on Sat, 2 Mar 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 02/03/2024 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ursjbv$186r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:57:36 on Fri, 1 Mar 2024, >>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 03:30, Roland Perry wrote:
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a
distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus
capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost around >>>>> £4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and meals]. That's >>>>> far more than my state pension for even a whole month, and while it did >>>>> in effect come from short term savings, what if I'd financed it by a >>>>> draw-down from my personal pension?
In theory, you are quite right that part of the £4k expenditure is a gift >>>> to others, and gifts in kind are indeed caught by IHT. In practice, it's >>>> unlikely that anyone will try to apportion the £4k between amounts spent on
yourself, your spouse, and others.
It gets a bit ridiculous. If you invite someone over for lunch, is that a >>>> gift for IHT purposes?
You've completely missed the point - the question isn't apportioning[1] >>> lump sums between participants, but whether any gift is allowable under a >>> rule about paying from current income rather than capital.
And what about if the recipient then "gifts" you back at some point. We have,
in the past rented a house abroad and said the kids, if you want to come there
is room. And had the same invitations.
If it's not the same gift boomeranging back, I doubt it counts.
But for example if a child was gifted a car on passing their test, then hands it
back[1] five years later, some mitigation of the value of the original gift might be expected (but I don't know what HMRC's rule is).
[1] Maybe they get married and it becomes surplus to requirements.
ps Presumably dad paying for the wedding reception is a classic gift to
be taken into account.
In message <QZ1sDxF7Xe3lFAkF@perry.uk>, at 13:39:07 on Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
OTOH, if it is a 10-year old BMW 3-series, print outs showing what
three similar cars, (make, model, age, mileage, condition), sold for
on eBay / AutoTrader should be sufficient.
Specifically, most such adverts are over-optimistic in their valuations,
I've now traced an example, because when I gave Jane the ~6k figure she protested that she'd seen a similar vehicle on sale at Autotrader for £12,999 so I went and had a look.
Turns out the vendor claims it has "£7k of optional extras". That would
be at the original purchase price of course (and he probably has the invoice).
The problem is that the vendor has taken the £6k figure and added £7k to it! My own experience of buying such cars is that by 3yrs old such
optional extras have depreciated to about half, and by six years old to
zero. That's not just because they are worn out, but the typical buyer
would not have wanted/bought that particular combination of extras
themselves anyway.
So they might think leather seats were quite attractive (although the driver's seat tends to wear badly) but are completely disinterested in super-expensive alloy wheels[1] or the now obsolete satnav.
[1] In fact if they require matching super-expensive tyres, it's a
*negative*
On 12/03/2024 06:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4dk0lFl5etU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:04:22 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:
I bow to your superior knowledge, and will go to an Apple Store at >>>>the weekend to ask everyone turning up for help with their
appliances, how long it took them to get a court order, and how
much it cost.
You may mock, but someone has to get the computer unlocked if there
is to be any progress.
How are you (plural) going to do that?
Encourage Jane to find a local computer geek to plough through
Apple's rather opaque FAQ. SP thinks the Apple Store geeks will go
into "jobsworth mode", which seem a bit contrary to the warm friendly >>public image they try to portray.
So, I buy a good-looking Apple computer for a tenner in the pub 'coz
I've forgotten the password and it's still locked, see', and I go to an
Apple store with it, asking them to unlock it. What do you think will >happen?
What do you think *should* happen?
On 27/02/2024 13:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l460grF2goU14@mid.individual.net>, at 11:48:43 on Tue, 27
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 26/02/2024 16:19, Roland Perry wrote:
[...]
I expect that was done months ago (shortly after the death). Things
have been treading water since then and have only gained urgency
because of a suggestion that if the IHT forms aren't put in by six
months there will be "penalties".
Then let's address that issue with reference to the relevant
legislation (the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA84)) to put Jane's
mind at rest.
IHT must be paid by the end of the sixth month following John's death
or the estate is liable for interest on the overdue IHT.
Similarly, Jane must submit the IHT form within 12 months of John's
death. If she misses this deadline there are penalties that may be
levied. The initial penalty for late delivery is £100 (IHTA84
s.245(2)(a)) with a further penalty of £100 if the return is
submitted between 6 and 12 months late, (i.e. 18-24 months after
John's death) (IHTA84 s.(3) and (4)). If the return is delivered
later than this, a additional penalty up to a maximum of £3,000 can
be imposed (so £3,200 in total) (IHTA84 s.245(4A).
However, Jane has a "Get out of Jail Free" card.
Section 245(5) of the Inheritance Act 1984 limits the penalty(ies)
imposed to the maximum tax due. No tax due = no penalties. :-)
Thankyou for all that information.
You are most welcome.
However, there's a potential wrinkle in that HMRC can levy the
penalties for late submission and only later remove them once it has
been proved to their satisfaction that the IHT liability is zero.
You've mentioned Jane's "dislike of bureaucracy" so if it is likely
that Jane isn't going to "deal well" with notices of penalties from
HMRC, even if it is likely that they will later be cancelled, then
she may have a problem and I recommend contacting HMRC as a matter of
urgency.
When I was doing my mothers's estate recently it took over four
years to get all the institutions to come up with the numbers. LV
was especially knuckle-dragging.
I know. We've discussed this previously privately and my thoughts on
what I think you should do haven't changed. :-)
I won't be doing anything in the near future, because I have other
things on my plate. Having wasted a couple of days failing to get LV
to take formal complaints seriously.
There's no rush. In the case of the solicitor, you have six years from
the date of the negligence occurring. :-)
[...]
I think that is in hand, but hampered because most of his records
are on a PC that we haven't yet been able to hack into.
Assuming it is a Windows PC, my e-mail address is valid, as you know.
It's a Mac laptop.
In that case, I'm tapping out WRT helping personally.
Hopefully, John had Jane as a "Legacy Contact" registered against his AppleID. If he did, Jane will hopefully have been sent an "Access Key"
or John has it printed off somewhere for her.
All the details of what to do with the Access Key and Death Certificate
are here: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/102678
Tangentially, everyone reading this with one or more Apple devices that hasn't already setup their "Legacy Contact" details, please consider
this a prompt to do that now. Please stop reading for a minute and go
setup your Legacy Contact details. This message will still be here in
two minutes, which is about how long it will take to do it, and you may forget if you don't go and do it now.
On 12/03/2024 06:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4dk0lFl5etU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:04:22 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:
I bow to your superior knowledge, and will go to an Apple Store at
the weekend to ask everyone turning up for help with their
appliances, how long it took them to get a court order, and how
much it cost.
You may mock, but someone has to get the computer unlocked if there
is to be any progress.
How are you (plural) going to do that?
Encourage Jane to find a local computer geek to plough through Apple's
rather opaque FAQ. SP thinks the Apple Store geeks will go into
"jobsworth mode", which seem a bit contrary to the warm friendly
public image they try to portray.
So, I buy a good-looking Apple computer for a tenner in the pub 'coz
I've forgotten the password and it's still locked, see', and I go to an
Apple store with it, asking them to unlock it. What do you think will happen?
What do you think *should* happen?
On 12/03/2024 06:23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4gmvvF5llsU2@mid.individual.net>, at 13:13:36 on Sat, 2
Mar 2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 02/03/2024 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ursjbv$186r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:57:36 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 03:30, Roland Perry wrote:
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's >>>>>>a distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, >>>>>>versus capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost >>>>>>around 4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and >>>>>>meals]. That's far more than my state pension for even a whole >>>>>>month, and while it did in effect come from short term savings, >>>>>>what if I'd financed it by a draw-down from my personal pension?
In theory, you are quite right that part of the 4k expenditure is
a gift to others, and gifts in kind are indeed caught by IHT. In >>>>>practice, it's unlikely that anyone will try to apportion the 4k >>>>>between amounts spent on yourself, your spouse, and others.
It gets a bit ridiculous. If you invite someone over for lunch, is >>>>>that a gift for IHT purposes?
You've completely missed the point - the question isn't >>>>apportioning[1] lump sums between participants, but whether any
gift is allowable under a rule about paying from current income >>>>rather than capital.
And what about if the recipient then "gifts" you back at some point.
We have, in the past rented a house abroad and said the kids, if you >>>want to come there is room. And had the same invitations.
If it's not the same gift boomeranging back, I doubt it counts.
It is in a way though isn't it.
But for example if a child was gifted a car on passing their test,
then hands it back[1] five years later, some mitigation of the value
of the original gift might be expected (but I don't know what HMRC's
rule is).
[1] Maybe they get married and it becomes surplus to requirements.
ps Presumably dad paying for the wedding reception is a classic gift
to
be taken into account.
There are separate rules about gifts upon marriage.
Obviously you are aware that we have an allowance that we may use every
year, and if not used one year it can be added to the next year. There
is an additional allowance for a child getting wed.
I don't know if the numbers have changed, but when my elder daughter
got married we could give her 6000, in addition to our annual
allowances.
But really, dad paying for the party is - or was - tradition and when I
got married the parents mainly decided who was coming, 2 lists of
family members and even friends of my, and my husband's, parents ( and
a few of ours). Would that sort of do really be a gift to the bride,
or them having a family knees-up, celebrating getting her of their
hands?
Different these days though, I know.
Current income or capital? I doubt it makes any difference.
A big sum is a big sum, one within the annual allowances, is still
within it. But I am not an expert.
Years ago, one of my business partners died suddenly, from a heart
attack. He had a Blackberry device. His widow was very upset when it
proved impossible to get past the password and get access to the
contents of the device. She tried complaining to Blackberry, but of
course to no avail. I am fairly sure that she wanted to see if he had
any sexual relationships that she hadn't been aware of. I think she
tortured herself with worry. When it was my job to clear out his desk, I decided to withhold two documents from her - one was a letter from a
girl from decades earlier, saying how much she had enjoyed intercourse
with him, and another was a list that he had prepared listing the pros
and cons of going for a divorce.
On 12/03/2024 08:26, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/03/2024 06:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4dk0lFl5etU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:04:22 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:
I bow to your superior knowledge, and will go to an Apple Store at
the weekend to ask everyone turning up for help with their
appliances, how long it took them to get a court order, and how
much it cost.
You may mock, but someone has to get the computer unlocked if there
is to be any progress.
How are you (plural) going to do that?
Encourage Jane to find a local computer geek to plough through
Apple's rather opaque FAQ. SP thinks the Apple Store geeks will go
into "jobsworth mode", which seem a bit contrary to the warm friendly
public image they try to portray.
So, I buy a good-looking Apple computer for a tenner in the pub 'coz
I've forgotten the password and it's still locked, see', and I go to
an Apple store with it, asking them to unlock it. What do you think
will happen?
What do you think *should* happen?
There's plenty of guidance online. If the aim is to make use of a
perfectly good Mac computer without getting access to any of the content stored by a previous owner, it seems to be an option to erase all the
content and return to factory configuration.
Whether the staff will
actually help you follow the instructions, I wouldn't know.
On 12/03/2024 10:18, The Todal wrote:
Years ago, one of my business partners died suddenly, from a heart
attack. He had a Blackberry device. His widow was very upset when it
proved impossible to get past the password and get access to the
contents of the device. She tried complaining to Blackberry, but of
course to no avail. I am fairly sure that she wanted to see if he had
any sexual relationships that she hadn't been aware of. I think she
tortured herself with worry. When it was my job to clear out his desk,
I decided to withhold two documents from her - one was a letter from a
girl from decades earlier, saying how much she had enjoyed intercourse
with him, and another was a list that he had prepared listing the pros
and cons of going for a divorce.
By what right did you withhold any of his personal possessions?
If you were not his executor, was it not theft from the estate?
In message <l5ahtpF5f0pU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:33 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 06:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4dk0lFl5etU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:04:22 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:
I bow to your superior knowledge, and will go to an Apple Store at
the weekend to ask everyone turning up for help with their
appliances, how long it took them to get a court order, and how
much it cost.
You may mock, but someone has to get the computer unlocked if there
is to be any progress.
How are you (plural) going to do that?
Encourage Jane to find a local computer geek to plough through
Apple's rather opaque FAQ. SP thinks the Apple Store geeks will go
into "jobsworth mode", which seem a bit contrary to the warm
friendly public image they try to portray.
So, I buy a good-looking Apple computer for a tenner in the pub 'coz
I've forgotten the password and it's still locked, see', and I go to
an Apple store with it, asking them to unlock it. What do you think
will happen?
What do you think *should* happen?
You can't approach them completely cold, some information is required.
eg the Apple-ID. Did the man in the pub hand that over too?
In message <l5aneuF6f6tU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:01:03 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 06:23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4gmvvF5llsU2@mid.individual.net>, at 13:13:36 on Sat, 2 Mar >>> 2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 02/03/2024 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ursjbv$186r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:57:36 on Fri, 1 Mar 2024,
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 03:30, Roland Perry wrote:
One area that's not been touched on is gifts, and I think there's a >>>>>>> distinction between those made from contemporaneous income, versus >>>>>>> capital. And the distinction is far from simple.
Last summer I paid for a group holiday (in Scotland) which cost around
£4k in total for the week [transport, accommodation and meals]. That's
far more than my state pension for even a whole month, and while it >>>>>>> did in effect come from short term savings, what if I'd financed it by
a draw-down from my personal pension?
In theory, you are quite right that part of the £4k expenditure is a gift
to others, and gifts in kind are indeed caught by IHT. In practice, it's
unlikely that anyone will try to apportion the £4k between amounts spent
on yourself, your spouse, and others.
It gets a bit ridiculous. If you invite someone over for lunch, is that a
gift for IHT purposes?
You've completely missed the point - the question isn't apportioning[1] >>>>> lump sums between participants, but whether any gift is allowable under a
rule about paying from current income rather than capital.
And what about if the recipient then "gifts" you back at some point. We >>>> have, in the past rented a house abroad and said the kids, if you want to
come there is room. And had the same invitations.
If it's not the same gift boomeranging back, I doubt it counts.
It is in a way though isn't it.
Nit in a way which counts in this context.
It might however be something the kids need to consider noting as a gift for *their* IHT.
But for example if a child was gifted a car on passing their test, then >>> hands it back[1] five years later, some mitigation of the value of the >>> original gift might be expected (but I don't know what HMRC's rule is). >>> [1] Maybe they get married and it becomes surplus to requirements.
ps Presumably dad paying for the wedding reception is a classic gift to >>> be taken into account.
There are separate rules about gifts upon marriage.
I don't the kid has just married mum-and-dad!
Obviously you are aware that we have an allowance that we may use every year,
and if not used one year it can be added to the next year. There is an
additional allowance for a child getting wed.
But this example isn't a gift on marriage, it's a negative gift.
I don't know if the numbers have changed, but when my elder daughter got
married we could give her £6000, in addition to our annual allowances.
Presumably "giving" the cost of the wedding reception comes out of that £6,000 -
not that it will go very far nowadays.
But really, dad paying for the party is - or was - tradition and when I got >> married the parents mainly decided who was coming, 2 lists of family members >> and even friends of my, and my husband's, parents ( and a few of ours). Would
that sort of do really be a gift to the bride, or them having a family
knees-up, celebrating getting her of their hands?
If the knees up involves external caterers, venue hire, photographer and so on,
why not. If done entirely in-house, probably not.
Different these days though, I know.
Current income or capital? I doubt it makes any difference.
On the contrary this is the acid test HMRC applies, as far as I know.
A big sum is a big sum, one within the annual allowances, is still within it.
But I am not an expert.
Are the allowances per recipient, or the sum of all recipients? That's a pretty
simple question...
On 12/03/2024 11:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/03/2024 10:18, The Todal wrote:
Years ago, one of my business partners died suddenly, from a heart
attack. He had a Blackberry device. His widow was very upset when it
proved impossible to get past the password and get access to the
contents of the device. She tried complaining to Blackberry, but of
course to no avail. I am fairly sure that she wanted to see if he had
any sexual relationships that she hadn't been aware of. I think she
tortured herself with worry. When it was my job to clear out his
desk, I decided to withhold two documents from her - one was a letter
from a girl from decades earlier, saying how much she had enjoyed
intercourse with him, and another was a list that he had prepared
listing the pros and cons of going for a divorce.
By what right did you withhold any of his personal possessions?
Obviously no right at all.
The motive was compassion. You'd probably have acted differently.
On 12/03/2024 10:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5ahtpF5f0pU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:33 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 06:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4dk0lFl5etU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:04:22 on Fri, 1
Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:
I bow to your superior knowledge, and will go to an Apple Store at >>>>>> the weekend to ask everyone turning up for help with their
appliances, how long it took them to get a court order, and how
much it cost.
You may mock, but someone has to get the computer unlocked if there
is to be any progress.
How are you (plural) going to do that?
Encourage Jane to find a local computer geek to plough through
Apple's rather opaque FAQ. SP thinks the Apple Store geeks will go
into "jobsworth mode", which seem a bit contrary to the warm
friendly public image they try to portray.
So, I buy a good-looking Apple computer for a tenner in the pub 'coz
I've forgotten the password and it's still locked, see', and I go to
an Apple store with it, asking them to unlock it. What do you think
will happen?
What do you think *should* happen?
You can't approach them completely cold, some information is required.
eg the Apple-ID. Did the man in the pub hand that over too?
Why would that make a difference?
It's being brought in by someone who
may not be its owner.
On 12/03/2024 11:44, The Todal wrote:
On 12/03/2024 11:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/03/2024 10:18, The Todal wrote:
Years ago, one of my business partners died suddenly, from a heart
attack. He had a Blackberry device. His widow was very upset when it
proved impossible to get past the password and get access to the
contents of the device. She tried complaining to Blackberry, but of
course to no avail. I am fairly sure that she wanted to see if he
had any sexual relationships that she hadn't been aware of. I think
she tortured herself with worry. When it was my job to clear out his
desk, I decided to withhold two documents from her - one was a
letter from a girl from decades earlier, saying how much she had
enjoyed intercourse with him, and another was a list that he had
prepared listing the pros and cons of going for a divorce.
By what right did you withhold any of his personal possessions?
Obviously no right at all.
Not only no right at all, but quite likely illegally.
The motive was compassion. You'd probably have acted differently.
So, *you* decided for her that she should not see what you said above
she wanted to see.
Isn't that a bit presumptuous, as well as quite likely being illegal?
Why wasn't it theft from the estate?
On 12/03/2024 11:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/03/2024 10:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5ahtpF5f0pU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:33 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 06:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4dk0lFl5etU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:04:22 on Fri,
1 Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:
I bow to your superior knowledge, and will go to an Apple Store
at the weekend to ask everyone turning up for help with their
appliances, how long it took them to get a court order, and how >>>>>>> much it cost.
You may mock, but someone has to get the computer unlocked if
there is to be any progress.
How are you (plural) going to do that?
Encourage Jane to find a local computer geek to plough through
Apple's rather opaque FAQ. SP thinks the Apple Store geeks will go >>>>> into "jobsworth mode", which seem a bit contrary to the warm
friendly public image they try to portray.
So, I buy a good-looking Apple computer for a tenner in the pub 'coz
I've forgotten the password and it's still locked, see', and I go to
an Apple store with it, asking them to unlock it. What do you think
will happen?
What do you think *should* happen?
You can't approach them completely cold, some information is
required. eg the Apple-ID. Did the man in the pub hand that over too?
Why would that make a difference?
It will imply a legitimate sale or transfer.
It's being brought in by someone who may not be its owner.
Why would that make a difference?
On 12/03/2024 10:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5ahtpF5f0pU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:26:33 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 06:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l4dk0lFl5etU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:04:22 on Fri,
1 Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 01/03/2024 07:46, Roland Perry wrote:
I bow to your superior knowledge, and will go to an Apple Store
at the weekend to ask everyone turning up for help with their >>>>>>appliances, how long it took them to get a court order, and how
You may mock, but someone has to get the computer unlocked if
there is to be any progress.
How are you (plural) going to do that?
Encourage Jane to find a local computer geek to plough through >>>>Apple's rather opaque FAQ. SP thinks the Apple Store geeks will go >>>>into "jobsworth mode", which seem a bit contrary to the warm
friendly public image they try to portray.
So, I buy a good-looking Apple computer for a tenner in the pub 'coz >>>I've forgotten the password and it's still locked, see', and I go to
an Apple store with it, asking them to unlock it. What do you think
will happen?
What do you think *should* happen?
You can't approach them completely cold, some information is
required. eg the Apple-ID. Did the man in the pub hand that over too?
Why would that make a difference? It's being brought in by someone who
may not be its owner.
Current income or capital? I doubt it makes any difference.
On the contrary this is the acid test HMRC applies, as far as I
know.
A big sum is a big sum, one within the annual allowances, is still >>>within it. But I am not an expert.
Are the allowances per recipient, or the sum of all recipients?
That's a pretty simple question...
The sum. As I understand it anyway. I can give away 3000 this year in >total.
What I don't know is, should I be adding up what I spent on Christmas
and Birthday presents?
( not that I would expect anyone to care unless I was giving people
cars or diamonds, a lego set is neither here nor there).
In message <l5au55F7hlfU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:55:17 on Tue, 12 Mar 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
Current income or capital? I doubt it makes any difference.
On the contrary this is the acid test HMRC applies, as far as I know.
A big sum is a big sum, one within the annual allowances, is still within >>>> it. But I am not an expert.
Are the allowances per recipient, or the sum of all recipients? That's a >>> pretty simple question...
The sum. As I understand it anyway. I can give away £3000 this year in total.
Someone else mentioned £6000.
Jane has three options, in order of complexity - easiest first:
(1) She knows John's AppleID and has access to at least one trusted
device on the account which she can use to recover / reset the password.
(Having done that, and in the name of completeness, I'd then suggest
she sets herself up as a legacy contact and proceeds to step (2)
regardless.)
(2) She is in possession of / has access to John's "Legacy Contact
access Key" - she can use this to request access to the account via the >Digital Legacy - Request Access [1] process.
(3) Armed with a copy of the death certificate and a court order, she
gets Apple to give her access to the relevant AppleID and thereby all >devices.
I would suggest her first port of call should be to reach our to Apple >Support. [2]
Can't apply for probate because there are documents on the Mac needed
for the application, but can't access the Mac without a Court Order that
can only be made by a Personal Representative. :-)
Actually, I'm sure the court would take a pragmatic view in granting the >order in the circumstances, should it be necessary.
On 12/03/2024 10:18, The Todal wrote:
Years ago, one of my business partners died suddenly, from a heart
attack. He had a Blackberry device. His widow was very upset when it
proved impossible to get past the password and get access to the
contents of the device. She tried complaining to Blackberry, but of
course to no avail. I am fairly sure that she wanted to see if he had
any sexual relationships that she hadn't been aware of. I think she
tortured herself with worry. When it was my job to clear out his desk,
I decided to withhold two documents from her - one was a letter from a
girl from decades earlier, saying how much she had enjoyed intercourse
with him, and another was a list that he had prepared listing the pros
and cons of going for a divorce.
I had a similar scenario, and some here may wish to look disapprovingly
upon what I did too.
An employee was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. HR felt it
would be better if I, rather than they,
placed the contents of his desk
and drawers into cardboard boxes for them to inspect and remove anything considered "company property" before making arrangements for the boxes
to be passed to him.
In his top drawer, under his pen tidy, were a number of incredibly compromising photographs of a current member of staff with whom it was alleged he was in a relationship but both denied it and nothing was ever proved one way or the other. I placed the photographs in an envelope, invited the subject of the photos to a meeting room, handed them over
and explained that I didn't consider it necessary for HR to see them
On 14/03/2024 15:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:50, Simon Parker wrote:
On 12/03/2024 10:18, The Todal wrote:
Years ago, one of my business partners died suddenly, from a heart
attack. He had a Blackberry device. His widow was very upset when it
proved impossible to get past the password and get access to the
contents of the device. She tried complaining to Blackberry, but of
course to no avail. I am fairly sure that she wanted to see if he
had any sexual relationships that she hadn't been aware of. I think
she tortured herself with worry. When it was my job to clear out his
desk, I decided to withhold two documents from her - one was a
letter from a girl from decades earlier, saying how much she had
enjoyed intercourse with him, and another was a list that he had
prepared listing the pros and cons of going for a divorce.
I had a similar scenario, and some here may wish to look
disapprovingly upon what I did too.
An employee was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. HR felt it
would be better if I, rather than they,
Why, if they were going to go through them anyway?
Did they just want you for that bit of manual labour?
And why was he not given the opportunity to clear his own desk, which
is the normal courtesy to avoid such problems?
Previous discussions on employment have shone a light on the fact that
our respective experiences of work are very different. I have tended to work, in the main part, with and for very large MNCs, many of whom are household names.
You, well, haven't.
I see no point in attempting to explain the working practices of organisations like these to you any more than I would attempt to show
the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to an ant by attempting to control its traversal thereof, all the time whilst directing it to "look down". In
both cases the subject matter is beyond the understanding of the one requiring assistance regardless of how much help they are given.
And even were I to attempt to do so, as I have in the past, you would
insist my explanation was wrong and that this isn't how things work.
So you'll excuse me if I choose not to waste my time answering your
questions when you're only going to argue with the answer whatever I say.
placed the contents of his desk and drawers into cardboard boxes for
them to inspect and remove anything considered "company property"
before making arrangements for the boxes to be passed to him.
In his top drawer, under his pen tidy, were a number of incredibly
compromising photographs of a current member of staff with whom it
was alleged he was in a relationship but both denied it and nothing
was ever proved one way or the other. I placed the photographs in an
envelope, invited the subject of the photos to a meeting room, handed
them over and explained that I didn't consider it necessary for HR to
see them
Why did it even cross your mind that it might be? It's perfectly
clear they were personal, rather than company, property that HR had no
right to look at. As such, why did you consider it was for you to
decide who should have them? And on what basis did you decide that
she should have them rather than him?
And why did you not just label the envelope 'Personal photographs',
seal it and put it in the box with the rest of his possessions?
See above.
But so what? I was asking for some clarification of why your particular company acted in the way it did, particularly as regards not giving him
the opportunity to clear his own desk, which is the normal practice in
any reputable organisation regardless of size.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
But so what? I was asking for some clarification of why your particular
company acted in the way it did, particularly as regards not giving him
the opportunity to clear his own desk, which is the normal practice in
any reputable organisation regardless of size.
In my experience it depends on how and why someone leaves the company.
Those retiring or resigning on good terms with the company and their
manager in particular have a final day agreed some time in advance and have >their normal access up to that day. Any clearing of personal possessions
must be done by that day.
Those who leave as a result of any kind of dispute or who resign suddenly
and unexpectedly will have all their access revoked immediately and be >escorted off the premises. There will be no opportunity to clear personal >possessions from any desk, locker or other location.
On 12/03/2024 10:24, The Todal wrote:
On 12/03/2024 08:26, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/03/2024 06:04, Roland Perry wrote:
There's plenty of guidance online. If the aim is to make use of a >>perfectly good Mac computer without getting access to any of theEncourage Jane to find a local computer geek to plough through
Apple's rather opaque FAQ. SP thinks the Apple Store geeks will go
into "jobsworth mode", which seem a bit contrary to the warm
friendly public image they try to portray.
So, I buy a good-looking Apple computer for a tenner in the pub 'coz >>>I've forgotten the password and it's still locked, see', and I go to
an Apple store with it, asking them to unlock it. What do you think
will happen?
What do you think *should* happen?
content stored by a previous owner, it seems to be an option to erase
all the content and return to factory configuration. Whether the
staff will actually help you follow the instructions, I wouldn't know.
Roland has stated that there are numerous valuable documents, needed to
apply for probate, stored on the Mac.
I posted on the basis that wiping it and starting over is not an option
and that access to the contents of the device is required.
Also, depending on the device concerned, the OS installed and the
security options enabled, it can be impossible to return a device to
factory default without the relevant password.
Regards
S.P.
An employee was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. HR felt
it would be better if I, rather than they,
Why, if they were going to go through them anyway?
Did they just want you for that bit of manual labour?
And why was he not given the opportunity to clear his own desk, which
is the normal courtesy to avoid such problems?
placed the contents of his desk and drawers into cardboard boxes for
them to inspect and remove anything considered "company property"
before making arrangements for the boxes to be passed to him.
On 12/03/2024 02:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l599foF755bU27@mid.individual.net>, at 20:56:22 on Mon,
11 Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 09/03/2024 19:17, Roland Perry wrote:
The Apple people aren't using any special magic (like a gadget toThat's simple then, she merely has to say it's hers (which is at >>>>least mainly true, and that she's lost the password.
Not quite. She has to demonstrate, or prove if you will, to Apple's >>>satisfaction that it is her device and that she has a legal right to >>>access the content.
Claiming to have lost the password for an AppleID that is clearly
not hers (assuming it is "JohnSomethingOrOther [at] icloud.com" and
she is clearly not "John") is unlikely to assist her cause.
IME, Apple Gurus do not like people being "smart" with them and tend
to give them short shrift.
plug into the phone to pick the lock) but are just assisting the >>non-techie customer through the process that Apple publis already fro >>doing password recovery. Any sufficiently geeky friend could do it as >>well, but only a tiny fraction of the public have one of those on speed-dial.
I'm sorry, Roland, and there's no easy way to say this, nor does it
bring me any pleasure to do so, but you are wrong.
An inexorable part of the password recovery process involves the used
of a trusted device already linked to the account.
If all the trusted devices are locked,
the password reset process may not work (and I say "may" because it
depends of the OS version in use and the various security features that
have been enabled).
Similarly, a new trusted device cannot be added without the AppleID and >password.
However, on presentation of the correct paperwork, Apple can reset the >password.
Similarly, Apple - and only Apple - has the facility to bypass
"Activation Lock" and "Security Lockout".
It has only emerged very recently. Indeed originally they said they >>didn't - bt that was just them being insufficiently geeky to be ableIf she has access to the phone which picks up email to the Apple-ID >>>>(which is just an email address) it might be the case that a friend >>>>could DIY it for her, by following the password recovery FAQs >>>>published by Apple.
If only somebody had pointed that out in a previous post(!).
to navigate Apple's rather opaque FAQs.
Jane must have known whether or not she had possession of John's
iPhone? Similarly, she must have known whether or not she had access
to the device? And she would know whether or not John had ever sent
her a message mentioning "Legacy Contact". In the case of the latter,
if she cannot remember, I recommend instigating an immediate search for
that precise phrase on her devices. Or look for a print-out of it in
John's stack of "Important documents".
If Jane has that it will greatly simplify matters.
Perhaps they could have said something along the lines of:To draw a line under the matter, now further infomation has emerged.
<Begin Quote>
In Jane's case, I had assumed that she does not have access to any
of John's other devices. If that is not the case, and she has
access to, for example, his iPhone or Apple Watch then she may be
able to use those to reset the password to gain access to the MacBook.
This link gives details for resetting an AppleID where at least one >>>other trusted device exists / one has access to the account holder's >>>trusted phone number:
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT201487
<End Quote>
With all due respect, I do not see why you are continuing to post on
the matter.
OK.
I've posted details of how to reset the password if Jane has access >>>(note that's "access" not merely possession) of at least one other >>>trusted device and quoted you Apple's stated policy as they apply itIs that because you are not confident in navigating Apple's opaque
in Great Britain for accessing a deceased person's device when that
isn't the case. (Note the "en-gb" in both of the URLs previously provided.) >>>
You don't need to convince me of anything. I cannot unlock the
device for Jane even if you were somehow able to persuade me that
you were right.
FAQs, or something else?
Jane has three options, in order of complexity - easiest first:
(1) She knows John's AppleID and has access to at least one trusted
device on the account which she can use to recover / reset the
password. (Having done that, and in the name of completeness, I'd then >suggest she sets herself up as a legacy contact and proceeds to step
(2) regardless.)
(2) She is in possession of / has access to John's "Legacy Contact
access Key" - she can use this to request access to the account via the >Digital Legacy - Request Access [1] process.
(3) Armed with a copy of the death certificate and a court order, she
gets Apple to give her access to the relevant AppleID and thereby all >devices.
I would suggest her first port of call should be to reach our to Apple >Support. [2]
You do, though, need to convince Apple, but their Gurus at theSee earlier comments.
Genius Bar have heard it all before, are not lawyers, and are not >>>trained in the law. However, they are trained in Apple policy and
tend to follow it to the letter.
Noted
Jane needs to either reset the password if she can, or either makeUnless she finds a geeky friend, and I'm currently unavailable not
an appointment at the nearest Genius Bar and try her luck, or she
needs to formally reach out to Apple via their web-page.
Further discussions here, especially with a pause of a week and a
half between exchanges (for which I understand the circumstances and
am merely making an observation, rather than raising it as
criticism) are unlikely to get Jane access to the device formerly
owned by John and
least because it would be the best part of a day's round trip. They
are not exactly a neighbour.
If she's in my neck of the woods, I will assist in any way I can.
now held in trust by Jane in her role as his executrix.
That's another thing, there was a suggestion that TPTB would need
abut three months to make that determination, after various paperwork
was filed, and I'm not even sure that's been done yet.
The race condition is that maybe there's things on the laptop which
are verging on essential to get that paperwork completed.
Can't apply for probate because there are documents on the Mac needed
for the application, but can't access the Mac without a Court Order
that can only be made by a Personal Representative. :-)
Actually, I'm sure the court would take a pragmatic view in granting
the order in the circumstances, should it be necessary.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://digital-legacy.apple.com/
[2] https://getsupport.apple.com/topics
On 22/03/2024 10:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5gdevF755bU44@mid.individual.net>, at 13:47:09 on Thu, 14
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 02:58, Roland Perry wrote:
The Apple people aren't using any special magic (like a gadget to
plug into the phone to pick the lock) but are just assisting the
non-techie customer through the process that Apple publis already
fro doing password recovery. Any sufficiently geeky friend could do
it as well, but only a tiny fraction of the public have one of
those on speed-dial.
I'm sorry, Roland, and there's no easy way to say this, nor does it
bring me any pleasure to do so, but you are wrong.
An inexorable part of the password recovery process involves the used
of a trusted device already linked to the account.
It's shame the Apple FAQs are written as opaquely as they are, and are
really only of ny use to an expert who already probably knows what to do.
You should forward this useful observation to Apple via their "Helpful?
[Yes] [No]" prompt at the bottom of every guide page. Click "No" and
you'll be proffered the optional opportunity to tell Apple how they can
make the article more helpful.
On 22/03/2024 10:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5gdevF755bU44@mid.individual.net>, at 13:47:09 on Thu, 14
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 02:58, Roland Perry wrote:
The Apple people aren't using any special magic (like a gadget to
plug into the phone to pick the lock) but are just assisting the
non-techie customer through the process that Apple publis already
fro doing password recovery. Any sufficiently geeky friend could do
it as well, but only a tiny fraction of the public have one of those
on speed-dial.
I'm sorry, Roland, and there's no easy way to say this, nor does it
bring me any pleasure to do so, but you are wrong.
An inexorable part of the password recovery process involves the used
of a trusted device already linked to the account.
It's shame the Apple FAQs are written as opaquely as they are, and are
really only of ny use to an expert who already probably knows what to do.
You should forward this useful observation to Apple via their "Helpful?
[Yes] [No]" prompt at the bottom of every guide page. Click "No" and
you'll be proffered the optional opportunity to tell Apple how they can
make the article more helpful.
If all the trusted devices are locked,
Johns phone was unlocked because Jane was able eventually to mimic the
"gesture".
To the best of my knowledge, iPhones don't support "gesture" unlock.
There's FaceID, TouchID and using a passcode (which is not a "gesture").
Is the iPhone in question running an older version of iOS?
On 24/03/2024 10:44, Simon Parker wrote:
You should forward this useful observation to Apple via their "Helpful?
[Yes] [No]" prompt at the bottom of every guide page. Click "No" and
you'll be proffered the optional opportunity to tell Apple how they can
make the article more helpful.
Does anyone read this text, or is it just a way of blowing off steam?
On 22/03/2024 10:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5gdevF755bU44@mid.individual.net>, at 13:47:09 on Thu,
14 Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 02:58, Roland Perry wrote:
The Apple people aren't using any special magic (like a gadget to >>>>plug into the phone to pick the lock) but are just assisting the >>>>non-techie customer through the process that Apple publis already
fro doing password recovery. Any sufficiently geeky friend could do
it as well, but only a tiny fraction of the public have one of
those on speed-dial.
I'm sorry, Roland, and there's no easy way to say this, nor does it >>>bring me any pleasure to do so, but you are wrong.
An inexorable part of the password recovery process involves the
used of a trusted device already linked to the account.
It's shame the Apple FAQs are written as opaquely as they are, and
are really only of ny use to an expert who already probably knows
what to do.
You should forward this useful observation to Apple via their "Helpful?
[Yes] [No]" prompt at the bottom of every guide page. Click "No" and
you'll be proffered the optional opportunity to tell Apple how they can
make the article more helpful.
If all the trusted devices are locked,
Johns phone was unlocked because Jane was able eventually to mimic
the "gesture".
To the best of my knowledge, iPhones don't support "gesture" unlock.
There's FaceID, TouchID and using a passcode (which is not a
"gesture").
Is the iPhone in question running an older version of iOS?
It has only emerged very recently. Indeed originally they said they >>>>didn't - bt that was just them being insufficiently geeky to be able >>>>to navigate Apple's rather opaque FAQs.
Jane must have known whether or not she had possession of John's >>>iPhone? Similarly, she must have known whether or not she had access
to the device? And she would know whether or not John had ever sent
her a message mentioning "Legacy Contact". In the case of the
latter, if she cannot remember, I recommend instigating an immediate >>>search for that precise phrase on her devices. Or look for a print-
out of it in John's stack of "Important documents".
Recursively, they are pretty much exclusively stored on the laptop.
The whole point of Legacy Contact is that it is external to the device
to which access may be needed in the future. Storing a soft copy of
the Legacy Contact pass key on the device itself is unhelpful in the
extreme.
She's further away from you than I am.Unless she finds a geeky friend, and I'm currently unavailable not >>>>least because it would be the best part of a day's round trip. They >>>>are not exactly a neighbour.
If she's in my neck of the woods, I will assist in any way I can.
Shame. That might have been an easy fix.
Regards
S.P.
On 25/03/2024 04:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l6aeg3Fq816U5@mid.individual.net>, at 10:44:19 on Sun, 24
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 22/03/2024 10:44, Roland Perry wrote:
It's shame the Apple FAQs are written as opaquely as they are, and
are really only of ny use to an expert who already probably knows
what to do.
You should forward this useful observation to Apple via their "Helpful?
[Yes] [No]" prompt at the bottom of every guide page. Click "No" and
you'll be proffered the optional opportunity to tell Apple how they can
make the article more helpful.
In my experience, Apple are extremely arrogant and don't take kindly
to outsiders telling them how awful their products/documentation are.
And believe me, I've tried, and had the most extraordinarily
dismissive letters from their head office.
And yet you were hoping the Gurus at the Genius Bar would ignore stated
Apple policy and instead assist Jane out of the kindness of their
hearts?
Meanwhile, actually authoring less-opaque FAQs is a very special skill,
which very few manufacturers possess, let alone random customers.
You could do worse than proffering your skills to them.
You could re-write the page in question is a less-opaque manner and
submit it as an example of what you can do and the standard of work
they can expect from you.
<https://www.applevis.com/forum/ios-ipados/unlocking-your-iphone-Johns phone was unlocked because Jane was able eventually to mimic
the "gesture".
To the best of my knowledge, iPhones don't support "gesture" unlock.
There's FaceID, TouchID and using a passcode (which is not a
"gesture").
gestures-instead-passcode>
I commend to you in the strongest possible terms the sixth word of that >article.
If John was operating JailBroken devices, all bets are off.
Is the iPhone in question running an older version of iOS?John usually had the very latest iPhones, which will therefore have
the
very latest iOS.
But were they Jailbroken? No Jailbreak = No Gesture unlock.
(And even on a Jailbroken device it is a separately purchased and
installed App, not native to the device.)
Recursively, they are pretty much exclusively stored on the laptop.
The whole point of Legacy Contact is that it is external to the device
to which access may be needed in the future. Storing a soft copy of
the Legacy Contact pass key on the device itself is unhelpful in the
extreme.
What I meant was, the "important documents" (of whatever flavour)
are mainly on the laptop (or possibly some external drives keyed to
the laptop). If there had been a Legacy Contact issued, then this >>sub-thread would simply have never been needed to be started.
I mentioned it as it was possible that Jane had received a message
informing her she was a Legacy Contact some considerable time ago but >forgotten about it, especially in the "fog of war" in which she now
finds herself.
Alternatively, my hope was that John had printed it off and left it in
his pile of "Important Stuff".
Armed with the phrase "Legacy Contact" Jane should be able to scan the
pile quite quickly.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 45:29:39 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,235 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
