Inheritance Tax

Post by Saxman
My neighbour wants to retire to his Indian property with his wife and
leave his UK flat (current residing property)to his only child for him
to live in. Apparently anything above the value of £120,000 will be
taxed at 28%. If he leaves it to his wife, there is no tax to pay. The
UK property is valued at about £215,000. His son was born in the UK.
Is there a way of avoiding the tax?
TIA.

My understanding is that the UK inheritance tax threshold is £325,000
and that the threshold of the first parent to die can be transferred to
surviving spouse, making £650,000.

I don't know if Indian law is involved.

2024-12-24 13:41:13 UTC

Post by Pancho

Post by Saxman
My neighbour wants to retire to his Indian property with his wife and
leave his UK flat (current residing property)to his only child for him
to live in. Apparently anything above the value of £120,000 will be
taxed at 28%. If he leaves it to his wife, there is no tax to pay.
The UK property is valued at about £215,000. His son was born in the UK.
Is there a way of avoiding the tax?
TIA.

I note that the two figures in the OP add up to the inheritance tax
threshold, so it's possible there's been a misunderstanding along the way?

Saxman

2024-12-24 16:31:20 UTC

Post by Pancho

Post by Saxman
My neighbour wants to retire to his Indian property with his wife and
leave his UK flat (current residing property)to his only child for
him to live in. Apparently anything above the value of £120,000 will
be taxed at 28%. If he leaves it to his wife, there is no tax to
pay. The UK property is valued at about £215,000. His son was born in
the UK.
Is there a way of avoiding the tax?
TIA.

My understanding is that the UK inheritance tax threshold is £325,000
and that the threshold of the first parent to die can be transferred
to surviving spouse, making £650,000.
I don't know if Indian law is involved.

I note that the two figures in the OP add up to the inheritance tax
threshold, so it's possible there's been a misunderstanding along the way?

I've confirmed that he has sought advice from a UK solicitor.

The father and son both hold Indian and British passports, so they
probably possess dual nationalities.

The whole issue could be affected by the father's wealth and property
portfolio.

I will update when I am able.

Martin Brown

2024-12-24 17:01:39 UTC

Post by Saxman

Post by Pancho

Post by Saxman
My neighbour wants to retire to his Indian property with his wife
and leave his UK flat (current residing property)to his only child
for him to live in. Apparently anything above the value of £120,000
will be taxed at 28%. If he leaves it to his wife, there is no tax
to pay. The UK property is valued at about £215,000. His son was
born in the UK.
Is there a way of avoiding the tax?
TIA.

My understanding is that the UK inheritance tax threshold is £325,000
and that the threshold of the first parent to die can be transferred
to surviving spouse, making £650,000.
I don't know if Indian law is involved.

I note that the two figures in the OP add up to the inheritance tax
threshold, so it's possible there's been a misunderstanding along the way?

I've confirmed that he has sought advice from a UK solicitor.
The father and son both hold Indian and British passports, so they
probably possess dual nationalities.
The whole issue could be affected by the father's wealth and property
portfolio.
I will update when I am able.

If he gifts the flat to his son now and then lives on for another 7
years then it should fall outside the scope of IHT under UK law.
UK Rules here:

https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax

Under UK IHT law there is also another rule about passing on a family
home to a child (or step-child):

https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/passing-on-home

Things get a lot more complicated if he gifts it to a child and
continues to live in it afterwards (eg. to avoid paying for a care home
- deliberate impoverishment) and various other such scenarios.

Indian law like US law might lay claim to global assets of a citizen?
UK IHT is normally 40% on the balance above the allowance.
(unless you are a farmer)

Google seems to think there is no IHT in India IDK if that is correct.

--
Martin Brown

Norman Wells

2024-12-24 14:37:07 UTC

Yes, he could give the flat to his son now, and survive seven years more.

Saxman

2024-12-24 19:36:36 UTC

Post by Saxman
My neighbour wants to retire to his Indian property with his wife and
leave his UK flat (current residing property)to his only child for him
to live in. Apparently anything above the value of £120,000 will be
taxed at 28%. If he leaves it to his wife, there is no tax to pay.
The UK property is valued at about £215,000. His son was born in the UK.
Is there a way of avoiding the tax?

Yes, he could give the flat to his son now, and survive seven years more.

I doubt he will survive another seven years, hence his decision to sort
his will out.

Theo

2024-12-24 19:56:41 UTC

Post by Saxman

Post by Saxman
My neighbour wants to retire to his Indian property with his wife and
leave his UK flat (current residing property)to his only child for him
to live in. Apparently anything above the value of £120,000 will be
taxed at 28%. If he leaves it to his wife, there is no tax to pay.
The UK property is valued at about £215,000. His son was born in the UK.
Is there a way of avoiding the tax?

Yes, he could give the flat to his son now, and survive seven years more.

I doubt he will survive another seven years, hence his decision to sort
his will out.

I don't see how IHT will be relevant unless he has £100k+ more UK assets, or
has disposed of such in the last 7 years. Maybe that's where the £120k
figure is coming from (if he recently gave away £205k, there would be £120k
left of his IHT free allowance), but above that the IHT rate would be 40%.
So the numbers don't seem to stack up.

28% used to be the higher capital gains tax rate (until April 2024), maybe
wires have become crossed somewhere? CGT doesn't apply for a main
residence.

Theo

JNugent

2024-12-24 16:36:25 UTC

Live for seven years after the gift?

Brian

2024-12-24 20:38:33 UTC

IHT isn’t paid until he dies.

Post by Saxman
From memory, he can leave £500k to his son ( including the house / flat)

free of IHT, the basic £325k plus £175k as it is his child.

If he leaves his estate to his wife, she can then leave £1m to the son free
of IHT- assuming she hasn’t ‘used’ her allowance.

I suspect he is worried about some other tax, perhaps capital gains if he
has multiple properties and allowing for ‘discount’ since the asset was
acquired.

Saxman

2024-12-25 08:42:14 UTC

IHT isn’t paid until he dies.

Post by Saxman
From memory, he can leave £500k to his son ( including the house / flat)

free of IHT, the basic £325k plus £175k as it is his child.
If he leaves his estate to his wife, she can then leave £1m to the son free
of IHT- assuming she hasn’t ‘used’ her allowance.
I suspect he is worried about some other tax, perhaps capital gains if he
has multiple properties and allowing for ‘discount’ since the asset was
acquired.

My neighbour has just sold a property in India. He could have more?

There is no Inheritance Tax in India, so my neighbour says.

That means he could leave his Indian home to his son and the UK flat to
his wife (no inheritance) and agree to swap abodes?

2024-12-25 12:12:06 UTC

IHT isn’t paid until he dies.

Post by Saxman
From memory, he can leave £500k to his son ( including the house / flat)

free of IHT, the basic £325k plus £175k as it is his child.
If he leaves his estate to his wife, she can then leave £1m to the son free
of IHT- assuming she hasn’t ‘used’ her allowance.
I suspect he is worried about some other tax, perhaps capital gains if he
has multiple properties and allowing for ‘discount’ since the asset was
acquired.

My neighbour has just sold a property in India. He could have more?
There is no Inheritance Tax in India, so my neighbour says.
That means he could leave his Indian home to his son and the UK flat to
his wife (no inheritance) and agree to swap abodes?

If his wife is likely to survive 7 years, it could be sensible to give
the UK property to her, and she can then gift it to their son. She has
the same tax free bands as her husband.

Frankly, they should be seeking professional advice. Not third hand
advice from a bunch of strangers on the internet.

Martin Brown

2024-12-25 14:18:17 UTC

IHT isn’t paid until he dies.

Post by Saxman
From memory, he can leave £500k to his son ( including the house / flat)

free of IHT, the basic £325k plus £175k as it is his child.
If he leaves his estate to his wife, she can then leave £1m to the son free
of IHT- assuming she hasn’t ‘used’ her allowance.
I suspect he is worried about some other tax, perhaps capital gains if he
has multiple properties and allowing for ‘discount’ since the asset was
acquired.

My neighbour has just sold a property in India. He could have more?
There is no Inheritance Tax in India, so my neighbour says.
That means he could leave his Indian home to his son and the UK flat
to his wife (no inheritance) and agree to swap abodes?

If his wife is likely to survive 7 years, it could be sensible to give
the UK property to her, and she can then gift it to their son. She has
the same tax free bands as her husband.
Frankly, they should be seeking professional advice. Not third hand
advice from a bunch of strangers on the internet.

It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be worth
much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true of IHT
rules for complex international holdings with dual nationality involved.

Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability insurance
for their client on them being right in law but there are still plenty
of edge cases where the consumer is severely disadvantaged.

--
Martin Brown

Roland Perry

2024-12-25 15:13:40 UTC

Post by Martin Brown
It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be
worth much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true of
IHT rules for complex international holdings with dual nationality
involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability insurance
for their client on them being right in law but there are still plenty
of edge cases where the consumer is severely disadvantaged.

Random advice is definitely to be discouraged, but the point of the
newsgroup is to flush out (assuming any exist) contributors who have
been through the same experience themselves, and can suply some hints
and tips. If only a pointer to some questions to ask a potential
solicitor, because many of those don't know their arse from their elbow
either.

--
Roland Perry

Saxman

2024-12-26 09:08:53 UTC

Post by Martin Brown
It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be
worth much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true
of IHT rules for complex international holdings with dual nationality
involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability insurance
for their client on them being right in law but there are still plenty
of edge cases where the consumer is severely disadvantaged.

It's not a waste of time posing such questions on this group. It looks
like he will consult a Financial Advisor on my advice sought from this
group.

Roger Hayter

2024-12-25 16:40:23 UTC

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Saxman

IHT isn’t paid until he dies.

Post by Saxman
From memory, he can leave £500k to his son ( including the house / flat)

free of IHT, the basic £325k plus £175k as it is his child.
If he leaves his estate to his wife, she can then leave £1m to the son free
of IHT- assuming she hasn’t ‘used’ her allowance.
I suspect he is worried about some other tax, perhaps capital gains if he
has multiple properties and allowing for ‘discount’ since the asset was
acquired.

My neighbour has just sold a property in India. He could have more?
There is no Inheritance Tax in India, so my neighbour says.
That means he could leave his Indian home to his son and the UK flat
to his wife (no inheritance) and agree to swap abodes?

If his wife is likely to survive 7 years, it could be sensible to give
the UK property to her, and she can then gift it to their son. She has
the same tax free bands as her husband.
Frankly, they should be seeking professional advice. Not third hand
advice from a bunch of strangers on the internet.

It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be worth
much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true of IHT
rules for complex international holdings with dual nationality involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability insurance
for their client on them being right in law but there are still plenty
of edge cases where the consumer is severely disadvantaged.

It is valid to point this out, but persons such as myself often post legal
issues here for interest and the possibility of something being missed, even
when we are also paying for legal advice on the same question.

--
Roger Hayter

Roland Perry

2024-12-25 18:27:28 UTC

Post by Martin Brown
It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be worth
much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true of IHT
rules for complex international holdings with dual nationality involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability insurance
for their client on them being right in law but there are still plenty
of edge cases where the consumer is severely disadvantaged.

Same here. I often post questions which have resulted in a blank stare
from a paralegal or junior solicitor. And what I'm after is a way to
phrase a question which they can't ignore and need to escalate.

Here's a new one: A daughter has been looking after her aged mother, and
by verbal agreement only, there's a joint bank account which gets topped
up with "housekeeping money" to be spent on the mother (and her bills).

The mother dies (not unexpectedly) and there's about £4k in that joint
account. Who does it belong to... Should it for example be turned over
to the solicitors to add to the estate, should it be frozen, can the
daughter continue to draw funds to pay some of the bills now owing to
the estate? Rinse and repeat when the dust has settled and there's
perhaps £3k in that account.

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2024-12-25 19:32:04 UTC

Post by Martin Brown
It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be worth
much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true of IHT
rules for complex international holdings with dual nationality involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability insurance
for their client on them being right in law but there are still plenty
of edge cases where the consumer is severely disadvantaged.

Same here. I often post questions which have resulted in a blank stare
from a paralegal or junior solicitor. And what I'm after is a way to
phrase a question which they can't ignore and need to escalate.
Here's a new one: A daughter has been looking after her aged mother, and
by verbal agreement only, there's a joint bank account which gets topped
up with "housekeeping money" to be spent on the mother (and her bills).
The mother dies (not unexpectedly) and there's about £4k in that joint
account. Who does it belong to... Should it for example be turned over
to the solicitors to add to the estate, should it be frozen, can the
daughter continue to draw funds to pay some of the bills now owing to
the estate? Rinse and repeat when the dust has settled and there's
perhaps £3k in that account.

Unless there is any reason to suppose any of the money belongs to the daughter
the balance should be transferred to the executor (if known) or else the
account frozen until an executor is appointed. The bank would probably release
the money for funeral expenses if the mother does not have a more suitable
sole account to be used for that purpose. My opinion from having dealt with a
simple estate.

--
Roger Hayter

Roland Perry

2024-12-25 20:07:49 UTC

Post by Martin Brown
It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be worth
much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true of IHT
rules for complex international holdings with dual nationality involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability insurance
for their client on them being right in law but there are still plenty
of edge cases where the consumer is severely disadvantaged.

Same here. I often post questions which have resulted in a blank stare
from a paralegal or junior solicitor. And what I'm after is a way to
phrase a question which they can't ignore and need to escalate.
Here's a new one: A daughter has been looking after her aged mother, and
by verbal agreement only, there's a joint bank account which gets topped
up with "housekeeping money" to be spent on the mother (and her bills).
The mother dies (not unexpectedly) and there's about £4k in that joint
account. Who does it belong to... Should it for example be turned over
to the solicitors to add to the estate, should it be frozen, can the
daughter continue to draw funds to pay some of the bills now owing to
the estate? Rinse and repeat when the dust has settled and there's
perhaps £3k in that account.

That's pretty much what I was expecting. I think the funeral has been
paid for from money released by the bank from the mother's sole account.
The daughter, however, might not realise that this isn't £3-4k which she
"found down the back of her sofa" and is nothing to do with the estate.

The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and down
demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday until perhaps
6th January, which is par for the course these days.

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2024-12-25 21:04:14 UTC

Post by Martin Brown
It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be worth
much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true of IHT
rules for complex international holdings with dual nationality involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability insurance
for their client on them being right in law but there are still plenty
of edge cases where the consumer is severely disadvantaged.

Same here. I often post questions which have resulted in a blank stare
from a paralegal or junior solicitor. And what I'm after is a way to
phrase a question which they can't ignore and need to escalate.
Here's a new one: A daughter has been looking after her aged mother, and
by verbal agreement only, there's a joint bank account which gets topped
up with "housekeeping money" to be spent on the mother (and her bills).
The mother dies (not unexpectedly) and there's about £4k in that joint
account. Who does it belong to... Should it for example be turned over
to the solicitors to add to the estate, should it be frozen, can the
daughter continue to draw funds to pay some of the bills now owing to
the estate? Rinse and repeat when the dust has settled and there's
perhaps £3k in that account.

That's pretty much what I was expecting. I think the funeral has been
paid for from money released by the bank from the mother's sole account.
The daughter, however, might not realise that this isn't £3-4k which she
"found down the back of her sofa" and is nothing to do with the estate.
The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and down
demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday until perhaps
6th January, which is par for the course these days.

Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

Theo

2024-12-25 22:21:27 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
That's pretty much what I was expecting. I think the funeral has been
paid for from money released by the bank from the mother's sole account.
The daughter, however, might not realise that this isn't £3-4k which she
"found down the back of her sofa" and is nothing to do with the estate.
The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and down
demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday until perhaps
6th January, which is par for the course these days.

Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

That's my understand too. Money in a joint account is joint. There's no
concept of 'really belongs to A even if B has access'. If they wanted that
kind of arrangement they'd set up an LPA or similar, or maybe an account
where two signatories are required (if such are available for personal
accounts).

Technically 'joint' meaning 'joint tenants'. Apparently it's possible to
have a 'tenants in common' trust arrangement where the money is split (may
be 50/50 or some other split) and is handled as part of their will, in the
same way that a 'tenants in common' property does:
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/wills-and-probate/content/103479

I suppose one way to deal with that would be to set up a tenants in common
trust where A holds 99.9% of the share and B holds 0.1%. Then almost all of
the money belongs to A's estate but B has the right of access while A is
alive.

I'm not sure whether the bank needs to know about such arrangements while A
is alive (whether the account needs to be in the name of the trust?), but
presumably they need to take different action when A dies.

Theo

Roger Hayter

2024-12-26 00:03:11 UTC

Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

Just because the bank has no such concept it does not mean the law has no such
concept. If the money came from the deceased's account and the daughter helped
her administer it I don't think a court would have the slightest difficulty in
saying it was the estate's money.

Post by Theo
Technically 'joint' meaning 'joint tenants'. Apparently it's possible to
have a 'tenants in common' trust arrangement where the money is split (may
be 50/50 or some other split) and is handled as part of their will, in the
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/wills-and-probate/content/103479
I suppose one way to deal with that would be to set up a tenants in common
trust where A holds 99.9% of the share and B holds 0.1%. Then almost all of
the money belongs to A's estate but B has the right of access while A is
alive.
I'm not sure whether the bank needs to know about such arrangements while A
is alive (whether the account needs to be in the name of the trust?), but
presumably they need to take different action when A dies.
Theo

--
Roger Hayter

Roland Perry

2024-12-26 06:06:27 UTC

Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

Ah, that's a different interpretation, which is close to the actual
situation because the money all derived from the mother, with the
daughter using it to pay for grocery shopping, and other bills as they
arose.

--
Roland Perry

Simon Parker

2025-01-03 18:51:48 UTC

On 25 Dec 2024 at 22:21:27 GMT, "Theo"

Too late for you now, but for others reading this in similar situations,
the correct procedure is to ask the bank to add the relative to the
account as a third-party authority, rather than converting it a "joint
account".

At all times, it is understood by all parties that the money in the
account in that of the account holder's and the account remains in their
sole name, but they have authorised the bank to allow the third-party
access to it.

On the death of the account holder, the account is treated like other
"normal" accounts and is frozen.

I had just such an arrangement with one of my father's accounts in the
later years of his life.

Regards

S.P.

Norman Wells

2024-12-26 08:54:27 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

I think you're wrong. There's a very strong presumption in law that
joint property is jointly owned.

Roger Hayter

2024-12-26 18:56:03 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

I think you're wrong. There's a very strong presumption in law that
joint property is jointly owned.

You are mistaken. Evidence as to beneficial share, from 50% to 100%, has
always been accepted when available. The 50% presumption only operates in the
absence of other evidence. See the advice quoted recently in the thread by
Theo.

--
Roger Hayter

Roger Hayter

2024-12-26 19:06:32 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

I think you're wrong. There's a very strong presumption in law that
joint property is jointly owned.

Let me quote from Theo' post, because the linked government advice actually
answers the question fairly clearly:

"Interestingly, it seems the coverage is different for IHT purposes as it is
commonly for 'joint tenancy', and merely making an joint account does not
imply a transfer of assets:

"Jointly owned assets
Schedule IHT404
[...]

Jointly owned assets where all the money was provided by
the deceased

Sometimes assets may be owned jointly with another person,
but one person provided all the money, either in an account
or to buy an asset. For example, an elderly person who has
difficulty getting out, may add the name of a relative to an
account for convenience so the relative may draw out money
on the elderly person’s behalf.
If the person who provided all the money dies, then their
share of this account will be the whole. But if the other
joint owner has withdrawn money for their own use, those
withdrawals may be gifts and you may need to include them
on form IHT403, ‘Gifts and other transfers of value’.
It follows that if someone died with their name on a joint
account but they did not provide any of the funds, no part of
the account need be included in the estate unless the other
joint owner intended to make a gift to the deceased."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f5e53ed915d74e33f600f/IHT404.pdf
"

Note the use of "other joint owner" in this description. They are not talking
about a sole account the relative has access to, but explicitly about *joint*
accounts to which one person has provided all the assets. Opening a joint
account does *not* constitute a gift.

--
Roger Hayter

Norman Wells

2024-12-26 20:16:12 UTC

Post by Theo
"Jointly owned assets
Schedule IHT404
[...]
Jointly owned assets where all the money was provided by
the deceased
Sometimes assets may be owned jointly with another person,
but one person provided all the money, either in an account
or to buy an asset. For example, an elderly person who has
difficulty getting out, may add the name of a relative to an
account for convenience so the relative may draw out money
on the elderly person’s behalf.
If the person who provided all the money dies, then their
share of this account will be the whole. But if the other
joint owner has withdrawn money for their own use, those
withdrawals may be gifts and you may need to include them
on form IHT403, ‘Gifts and other transfers of value’.
It follows that if someone died with their name on a joint
account but they did not provide any of the funds, no part of
the account need be included in the estate unless the other
joint owner intended to make a gift to the deceased."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f5e53ed915d74e33f600f/IHT404.pdf
Note the use of "other joint owner" in this description. They are not talking
about a sole account the relative has access to, but explicitly about *joint*
accounts to which one person has provided all the assets. Opening a joint
account does *not* constitute a gift.

That depends on whether the joint account was set up as 'joint tenants'
or 'tenants in common'. The former is the usual, default way. The bank
should be able to clarify.

Roland Perry

2024-12-26 20:45:33 UTC

Post by Theo
"Jointly owned assets
Schedule IHT404
[...]
Jointly owned assets where all the money was provided by
the deceased
Sometimes assets may be owned jointly with another person,
but one person provided all the money, either in an account
or to buy an asset. For example, an elderly person who has
difficulty getting out, may add the name of a relative to an
account for convenience so the relative may draw out money
on the elderly person’s behalf.
If the person who provided all the money dies, then their
share of this account will be the whole. But if the other
joint owner has withdrawn money for their own use, those
withdrawals may be gifts and you may need to include them
on form IHT403, ‘Gifts and other transfers of value’.
It follows that if someone died with their name on a joint
account but they did not provide any of the funds, no part of
the account need be included in the estate unless the other
joint owner intended to make a gift to the deceased."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f5e53ed915d74e33f600f
/IHT404.pdf
Note the use of "other joint owner" in this description. They are not talking
about a sole account the relative has access to, but explicitly about *joint*
accounts to which one person has provided all the assets. Opening a joint
account does *not* constitute a gift.

That depends on whether the joint account was set up as 'joint tenants'
or 'tenants in common'. The former is the usual, default way. The
bank should be able to clarify.

You don't think the otherwise apparently very carefully drafted IHT404
guidance would have made that distinction?

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2024-12-26 21:23:29 UTC

That depends on whether the joint account was set up as 'joint tenants'
or 'tenants in common'. The former is the usual, default way. The bank
should be able to clarify.

Are you totally sure those terms mean what you think outside the context of
real property? The bank does not usually have any arrangement for death other
than leaving the contents to be *controlled* by the survivor. The bank has no
opinion on beneficial *ownership*.

For instance, the joint account could have been set up by two (or more)
executors to hold the estate funds they were administering. One might die and
his survivor(s) retain control of the account; but the money would not have
magically become the property of the remaining executor(s).

--
Roger Hayter

Norman Wells

2024-12-27 11:13:28 UTC

That depends on whether the joint account was set up as 'joint tenants'
or 'tenants in common'. The former is the usual, default way. The bank
should be able to clarify.

Are you totally sure those terms mean what you think outside the context of
real property?

Yes. You can look it up.

Post by Roger Hayter
The bank does not usually have any arrangement for death other
than leaving the contents to be *controlled* by the survivor.

It does actually. If there were any doubt, it could freeze the account
pending resolution.

Post by Roger Hayter
The bank has no opinion on beneficial *ownership*.

Most often, when opening a joint bank account, joint tenancy will be
specified and agreed to, together with the express or implied rights of
survivorship. If it is, the bank is perfectly correct in transferring
the account into the sole name of the survivor who is then free to do
with it what he or she wishes.

Post by Roger Hayter
For instance, the joint account could have been set up by two (or more)
executors to hold the estate funds they were administering. One might die and
his survivor(s) retain control of the account; but the money would not have
magically become the property of the remaining executor(s).

It would actually. The executors owned the estate jointly. The
surviving executor owns it singly. But by law he holds it in trust for
the eventual beneficiaries so he cannot do with it as he wishes, just as
the joint executors couldn't.

Theo

2024-12-27 16:53:59 UTC

That depends on whether the joint account was set up as 'joint tenants'
or 'tenants in common'. The former is the usual, default way. The bank
should be able to clarify.

Are you totally sure those terms mean what you think outside the context of
real property?

Yes. You can look it up.

Post by Roger Hayter
The bank does not usually have any arrangement for death other
than leaving the contents to be *controlled* by the survivor.

It does actually. If there were any doubt, it could freeze the account
pending resolution.

Post by Roger Hayter
The bank has no opinion on beneficial *ownership*.

I think you're talking at cross purposes.

'Joint tenancy' refers to ownership. If A and B own something as joint
tenants, on the death of A it passes to B, irrespective of whatever A's will
says. That applies whatever the relation A and B are to each other.

IHT404 refers to *taxes*. If the house or bank account passes from A to B,
it does not mean A's estate can dodge inheritance tax that way. Otherwise
you could put the child as joint tenant of the house and it would pass
without paying IHT. So the house/account passes to B but A's estate is
still liable for the IHT on it, subject to however that is calculated for a
joint asset (as IHT404 explains). If A had put £1m in the bank account held
via joint tenancy then B now owns it, but the estate has to pay IHT on the
£1m and any other assets before probate is granted.

I'm not sure what happens if there isn't enough money in the estate to pay
the IHT if B runs off with the money, and I'm not sure if there's a way for
the executors to claw back money that wasn't actually 'given' to B. Perhaps
there wasn't an explicit/implied joint tenancy (as in say a joint account of
a cohabiting couple both depositing their incomes), merely that B's name was
added to an account for convenience but the money was still nominally all
A's.

I suspect in that circumstance legal advice and/or challenge may be needed.
But on the taxation front I'm sure HMRC has seen all the wheezes before.

Theo

Norman Wells

2024-12-26 20:10:15 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

I think you're wrong. There's a very strong presumption in law that
joint property is jointly owned.

The 50% presumption applies by default and it's that which would have to
be displaced by convincing evidence of some other arrangement.

In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held by the
joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the death of one
account holder the funds in the account pass to the surviving account
holder by the principle of survivorship.

This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the deceased
person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is usually no need to
obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer the funds. The surviving
account holder can simply provide the bank or building society with the
deceased joint account holder’s death certificate and the account will
be transferred into the survivor’s name.

However, this may not necessarily be the case if the account holders
have agreed otherwise. For example, they may have signed a declaration
of trust stating that the account is held by them as ‘tenants in
common’, rather than joint tenants, so that on the death of one of the
account holders his or her share (as defined in the declaration of
trust) passes under the terms of his or her will or intestacy, rather
than to the other account holder.

I assume there was no such declaration of trust, which means an uphill
struggle to overcome the default presumption.

Roland Perry

2024-12-26 20:48:05 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held by the
joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the death of
one account holder the funds in the account pass to the surviving
account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the deceased
person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is usually no need
to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer the funds. The
surviving account holder can simply provide the bank or building
society with the deceased joint account holder’s death certificate
and the account will be transferred into the survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2024-12-26 21:38:08 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held by
the joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the death of
one account holder the funds in the account pass to the surviving
account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the deceased
person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is usually no need
to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer the funds. The
surviving account holder can simply provide the bank or building
society with the deceased joint account holder’s death certificate and
the account will be transferred into the survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

I doubt it. The account, if it was held as joint tenants becomes the
daughter's to do with as she will. As far as I can see, she has no
obligation to the estate, and the estate has no call on her.

Roland Perry

2024-12-27 10:59:05 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held by
the joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the
death of one account holder the funds in the account pass to the
surviving account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the deceased
person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is usually no
need to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer the funds. The
surviving account holder can simply provide the bank or building
society with the deceased joint account holder’s death certificate
and the account will be transferred into the survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

I doubt it. The account, if it was held as joint tenants becomes the
daughter's to do with as she will. As far as I can see, she has no
obligation to the estate, and the estate has no call on her.

OK, so you think the IHT404 guidance is plain wrong. Maybe you should
write to them and tell them.

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2024-12-27 11:58:34 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held by
the joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the death
of one account holder the funds in the account pass to the surviving
account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the deceased
person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is usually no need
to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer the funds. The
surviving account holder can simply provide the bank or building
society with the deceased joint account holder’s death certificate
and the account will be transferred into the survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

I doubt it. The account, if it was held as joint tenants becomes the
daughter's to do with as she will. As far as I can see, she has no
obligation to the estate, and the estate has no call on her.

OK, so you think the IHT404 guidance is plain wrong. Maybe you should
write to them and tell them.

I really don't think that's necessary, but you can if you like.

"Other complications can sometimes arise. For example, if two people
open a joint bank account and complete a standard application form
dealing specifically with the underlying ownership of the money, the
application form prevails, notwithstanding any contrary intention on the
part of the account holders. Thus, the parties may intend between
themselves that the account holder who provides all of the money in the
joint account is solely entitled to it but account application forms
will take precedence even if they state something different."

https://www.lblaw.co.uk/knowledge/blog/joint-bank-accounts/#:~:text=Although%20joint%20bank%20accounts%20often,intention%20of%20the%20account%20holders.

As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that were
actually agreed to on opening the account investigated. However, the
fact that it has transferred the account rather than freezing it does
indicate that it was opened on a joint tenant basis with the rights of
survivorship that follow from that.

Roland Perry

2024-12-27 14:44:48 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held
by the joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on
the death of one account holder the funds in the account pass to
the surviving account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the
deceased person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is
usually no need to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer
the funds. The surviving account holder can simply provide the
bank or building society with the deceased joint account
holder’s death certificate and the account will be transferred into the survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

I doubt it. The account, if it was held as joint tenants becomes
the daughter's to do with as she will. As far as I can see, she
has no obligation to the estate, and the estate has no call on her.

OK, so you think the IHT404 guidance is plain wrong. Maybe you
should write to them and tell them.

I really don't think that's necessary, but you can if you like.
"Other complications can sometimes arise. For example, if two people
open a joint bank account and complete a standard application form
dealing specifically with the underlying ownership of the money, the
application form prevails, notwithstanding any contrary intention on
the part of the account holders. Thus, the parties may intend between
themselves that the account holder who provides all of the money in the
joint account is solely entitled to it but account application forms
will take precedence even if they state something different."
https://www.lblaw.co.uk/knowledge/blog/joint-bank-accounts/#:~:text=Alth
ough%20joint%20bank%20accounts%20often,intention%20of%20the%20account%20
holders.
As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that
were actually agreed to on opening the account investigated.

I agree, but this hasn't yet happened.

Post by Norman Wells
However, the fact that it has transferred the account rather than
freezing it does indicate that it was opened on a joint tenant basis
with the rights of survivorship that follow from that.

But in the absence of knowing the sole contributing accountholder has
died, nothing has been done.

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2024-12-27 16:32:36 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held
by the joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the
death of one account holder the funds in the account pass to the
surviving account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the
deceased person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is
usually no need to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer
the funds. The surviving account holder can simply provide the
bank or building society with the deceased joint account holder’s
death certificate and the account will be transferred into the
survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

I doubt it. The account, if it was held as joint tenants becomes
the daughter's to do with as she will. As far as I can see, she
has no obligation to the estate, and the estate has no call on her.

OK, so you think the IHT404 guidance is plain wrong. Maybe you
should write to them and tell them.

I really don't think that's necessary, but you can if you like.
"Other complications can sometimes arise. For example, if two people
open a joint bank account and complete a standard application form
dealing specifically with the underlying ownership of the money, the
application form prevails, notwithstanding any contrary intention on
the part of the account holders. Thus, the parties may intend between
themselves that the account holder who provides all of the money in
the joint account is solely entitled to it but account application
forms will take precedence even if they state something different."
https://www.lblaw.co.uk/knowledge/blog/joint-bank-accounts/#:~:text=Alth
ough%20joint%20bank%20accounts%20often,intention%20of%20the%20account%20
holders.
As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that
were actually agreed to on opening the account investigated.

I agree, but this hasn't yet happened.

But in the absence of knowing the sole contributing accountholder has
died, nothing has been done.

I thought we all knew. Who doesn't?

Roger Hayter

2024-12-27 19:19:55 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held
by the joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the
death of one account holder the funds in the account pass to the
surviving account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the
deceased person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is
usually no need to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer
the funds. The surviving account holder can simply provide the
bank or building society with the deceased joint account holder’s
death certificate and the account will be transferred into the
survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

I doubt it. The account, if it was held as joint tenants becomes
the daughter's to do with as she will. As far as I can see, she
has no obligation to the estate, and the estate has no call on her.

OK, so you think the IHT404 guidance is plain wrong. Maybe you
should write to them and tell them.

I really don't think that's necessary, but you can if you like.
"Other complications can sometimes arise. For example, if two people
open a joint bank account and complete a standard application form
dealing specifically with the underlying ownership of the money, the
application form prevails, notwithstanding any contrary intention on
the part of the account holders. Thus, the parties may intend between
themselves that the account holder who provides all of the money in
the joint account is solely entitled to it but account application
forms will take precedence even if they state something different."
https://www.lblaw.co.uk/knowledge/blog/joint-bank-accounts/#:~:text=Alth
ough%20joint%20bank%20accounts%20often,intention%20of%20the%20account%20
holders.
As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that
were actually agreed to on opening the account investigated.

I agree, but this hasn't yet happened.

But in the absence of knowing the sole contributing accountholder has
died, nothing has been done.

I thought we all knew. Who doesn't?

The bank, presumably!

--
Roger Hayter

Norman Wells

2024-12-27 21:12:31 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held
by the joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the
death of one account holder the funds in the account pass to the
surviving account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the
deceased person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is
usually no need to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer
the funds. The surviving account holder can simply provide the
bank or building society with the deceased joint account holder’s
death certificate and the account will be transferred into the
survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

I doubt it. The account, if it was held as joint tenants becomes
the daughter's to do with as she will. As far as I can see, she
has no obligation to the estate, and the estate has no call on her.

OK, so you think the IHT404 guidance is plain wrong. Maybe you
should write to them and tell them.

I really don't think that's necessary, but you can if you like.
"Other complications can sometimes arise. For example, if two people
open a joint bank account and complete a standard application form
dealing specifically with the underlying ownership of the money, the
application form prevails, notwithstanding any contrary intention on
the part of the account holders. Thus, the parties may intend between
themselves that the account holder who provides all of the money in
the joint account is solely entitled to it but account application
forms will take precedence even if they state something different."
https://www.lblaw.co.uk/knowledge/blog/joint-bank-accounts/#:~:text=Alth
ough%20joint%20bank%20accounts%20often,intention%20of%20the%20account%20
holders.
As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that
were actually agreed to on opening the account investigated.

I agree, but this hasn't yet happened.

But in the absence of knowing the sole contributing accountholder has
died, nothing has been done.

I thought we all knew. Who doesn't?

The bank, presumably!

Mr Perry informed us earlier that 'I think the funeral has been paid for
from money released by the bank from the mother's sole account', so it
presumably does know of her death, and should already have removed her
name from the joint account she held with her daughter.

Roland Perry

2024-12-28 08:52:43 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that
were actually agreed to on opening the account investigated.

I agree, but this hasn't yet happened.

But in the absence of knowing the sole contributing accountholder has
died, nothing has been done.

I thought we all knew. Who doesn't?

The bank, presumably!

Mr Perry informed us earlier that 'I think the funeral has been paid
for from money released by the bank from the mother's sole account', so
it presumably does know of her death, and should already have removed
her name from the joint account she held with her daughter.

If it's the same bank, and they also have systems for correlating IDs in
such circumstances. It's entirely possible they require telling the
account numbers of each account, rather than "Mrs Jones has died, stop
all the accounts you have in her name or joint name".

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2024-12-28 10:25:49 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that
were actually agreed to on opening the account investigated.

I agree, but this hasn't yet happened.

But in the absence of knowing the sole contributing accountholder has
died, nothing has been done.

I thought we all knew. Who doesn't?

The bank, presumably!

Mr Perry informed us earlier that 'I think the funeral has been paid
for from money released by the bank from the mother's sole account',
so it presumably does know of her death, and should already have
removed her name from the joint account she held with her daughter.

If it's the same bank,

... which it surely is

Post by Roland Perry
and they also have systems for correlating IDs in
such circumstances.

I can't imagine any bank being so poor that it doesn't.

Post by Roland Perry
It's entirely possible they require telling the
account numbers of each account, rather than "Mrs Jones has died, stop
all the accounts you have in her name or joint name".

I can't imagine any bank being that poor in that respect either.

In any case, it seems the bank *has* been informed of the death and
*should* have taken the necessary action as regards all of her accounts.
The death of a customer is hardly a rare occurrence, and action is
rapidly required to prevent fraud if any accounts are to be frozen.
Otherwise I think it would be liable for any losses.

Roland Perry

2024-12-28 11:43:32 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that
were actually agreed to on opening the account investigated.

I agree, but this hasn't yet happened.

But in the absence of knowing the sole contributing accountholder has
died, nothing has been done.

I thought we all knew. Who doesn't?

The bank, presumably!

Mr Perry informed us earlier that 'I think the funeral has been paid
for from money released by the bank from the mother's sole account',
so it presumably does know of her death, and should already have
removed her name from the joint account she held with her daughter.

If it's the same bank,

... which it surely is

I have a joint account for household expenses with someone, using a new
fangled online bank which neither of us previously used.

Post by Roland Perry
and they also have systems for correlating IDs in such
circumstances.

I can't imagine any bank being so poor that it doesn't.

It's not a question of poverty, but somewhere between "can't be arsed"
and "because of data protection".

Post by Roland Perry
It's entirely possible they require telling the account numbers of
each account, rather than "Mrs Jones has died, stop all the accounts
you have in her name or joint name".

I can't imagine any bank being that poor in that respect either.

See above.

Post by Norman Wells
In any case, it seems the bank *has* been informed of the death and
*should* have taken the necessary action as regards all of her
accounts.

See above.

Post by Norman Wells
The death of a customer is hardly a rare occurrence, and action is
rapidly required to prevent fraud if any accounts are to be frozen.
Otherwise I think it would be liable for any losses.

Liability for losses is an interesting concept, but if un-notified I
think they might wriggle out of a claim.

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2024-12-27 15:58:50 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held by
the joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the death
of one account holder the funds in the account pass to the surviving
account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the deceased
person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is usually no need
to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer the funds. The
surviving account holder can simply provide the bank or building
society with the deceased joint account holder’s death certificate
and the account will be transferred into the survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

I doubt it. The account, if it was held as joint tenants becomes the
daughter's to do with as she will. As far as I can see, she has no
obligation to the estate, and the estate has no call on her.

OK, so you think the IHT404 guidance is plain wrong. Maybe you should
write to them and tell them.

I really don't think that's necessary, but you can if you like.
"Other complications can sometimes arise. For example, if two people
open a joint bank account and complete a standard application form
dealing specifically with the underlying ownership of the money, the
application form prevails, notwithstanding any contrary intention on the
part of the account holders. Thus, the parties may intend between
themselves that the account holder who provides all of the money in the
joint account is solely entitled to it but account application forms
will take precedence even if they state something different."
https://www.lblaw.co.uk/knowledge/blog/joint-bank-accounts/#:~:text=Although%20joint%20bank%20accounts%20often,intention%20of%20the%20account%20holders.
As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that were
actually agreed to on opening the account investigated. However, the
fact that it has transferred the account rather than freezing it does
indicate that it was opened on a joint tenant basis with the rights of
survivorship that follow from that.

I think you are confusing the rights you have in respect of the bank with the
actual ownership of the money. The bank can't change ownership of the money
just by what it has in the application form.

--
Roger Hayter

Norman Wells

2024-12-27 16:36:57 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held by
the joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the death
of one account holder the funds in the account pass to the surviving
account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the deceased
person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is usually no need
to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer the funds. The
surviving account holder can simply provide the bank or building
society with the deceased joint account holder’s death certificate
and the account will be transferred into the survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

I doubt it. The account, if it was held as joint tenants becomes the
daughter's to do with as she will. As far as I can see, she has no
obligation to the estate, and the estate has no call on her.

OK, so you think the IHT404 guidance is plain wrong. Maybe you should
write to them and tell them.

I really don't think that's necessary, but you can if you like.
"Other complications can sometimes arise. For example, if two people
open a joint bank account and complete a standard application form
dealing specifically with the underlying ownership of the money, the
application form prevails, notwithstanding any contrary intention on the
part of the account holders. Thus, the parties may intend between
themselves that the account holder who provides all of the money in the
joint account is solely entitled to it but account application forms
will take precedence even if they state something different."
https://www.lblaw.co.uk/knowledge/blog/joint-bank-accounts/#:~:text=Although%20joint%20bank%20accounts%20often,intention%20of%20the%20account%20holders.
As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that were
actually agreed to on opening the account investigated. However, the
fact that it has transferred the account rather than freezing it does
indicate that it was opened on a joint tenant basis with the rights of
survivorship that follow from that.

I think you are confusing the rights you have in respect of the bank with the
actual ownership of the money. The bank can't change ownership of the money
just by what it has in the application form.

If it's a joint account on a joint tenancy basis, which does depend on
the application form, the daughter already owned it 100%, so there is no
change. It's a function of joint tenancy which you can look up.

Brian

2024-12-28 11:22:05 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
In the UK, bank and building society accounts are generally held by
the joint account holders as ‘joint tenants’, so that on the death
of one account holder the funds in the account pass to the surviving
account holder by the principle of survivorship.
This happens automatically, regardless of the terms of the deceased
person’s will or the rules of intestacy and there is usually no need
to obtain a grant of probate in order to transfer the funds. The
surviving account holder can simply provide the bank or building
society with the deceased joint account holder’s death certificate
and the account will be transferred into the survivor’s name.

And based on the IHT404 document cited (in the circumstances of a
"household expenses convenience account"), would then have to hand
the money straight over to the executors.

I doubt it. The account, if it was held as joint tenants becomes the
daughter's to do with as she will. As far as I can see, she has no
obligation to the estate, and the estate has no call on her.

OK, so you think the IHT404 guidance is plain wrong. Maybe you should
write to them and tell them.

I really don't think that's necessary, but you can if you like.
"Other complications can sometimes arise. For example, if two people
open a joint bank account and complete a standard application form
dealing specifically with the underlying ownership of the money, the
application form prevails, notwithstanding any contrary intention on the
part of the account holders. Thus, the parties may intend between
themselves that the account holder who provides all of the money in the
joint account is solely entitled to it but account application forms
will take precedence even if they state something different."
https://www.lblaw.co.uk/knowledge/blog/joint-bank-accounts/#:~:text=Although%20joint%20bank%20accounts%20often,intention%20of%20the%20account%20holders.
As I said before, the bank needs to be contacted and the terms that were
actually agreed to on opening the account investigated. However, the
fact that it has transferred the account rather than freezing it does
indicate that it was opened on a joint tenant basis with the rights of
survivorship that follow from that.

I think you are confusing the rights you have in respect of the bank with the
actual ownership of the money. The bank can't change ownership of the money
just by what it has in the application form.

If two people are named on a joint account ( A and B) and one dies ( say A
), the bank will transfer the account to B.

HMRC will ‘take an interest’ from the IHT view point. If, for example, they
believe A had contributed the money and there is a liability ( eg A & B
aren’t married, the estate is over the limit, …..) this MAY be avoided if
you can provide evidence B contributed some (or all) of the money.

ISAs, while not joint, can be transferred to spouses ( even if they have
used their ISA allowance).

Roger Hayter

2024-12-26 21:26:42 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

I think you're wrong. There's a very strong presumption in law that
joint property is jointly owned.

The 50% presumption applies by default and it's that which would have to
be displaced by convincing evidence of some other arrangement.

The daughter, we are told, *says* this was her mother's money and she was
helping her mother by using the account to pay her mother's household
expenses. The court/executor need look no further; neither need you.
snip irrelevant speculation

--
Roger Hayter

Roland Perry

2024-12-27 06:16:16 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

I think you're wrong. There's a very strong presumption in law that
joint property is jointly owned.

The 50% presumption applies by default and it's that which would have to
be displaced by convincing evidence of some other arrangement.

Eventually, yes; but in the short term I fear the daughter may have read
the widespread opinion that money in joint accounts always belongs to
the survivor, and might start spending it. Which could have consequences
later.

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2024-12-27 08:43:46 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

I think you're wrong. There's a very strong presumption in law that
joint property is jointly owned.

The 50% presumption applies by default and it's that which would have to
be displaced by convincing evidence of some other arrangement.

The bank has clearly concluded that, under the terms of the joint
account when it was set up, rights of survivorship existed, hence their
willingness to put the account into the survivor's sole name. Such
rights only exist if the account was set up with the owners being joint
tenants.

If a standard application form was completed on opening the account, for
example when supplying signatures of those entitled to operate it, the
application form prevails, notwithstanding any contrary intention on the
part of the account holders. So, you need to ask the bank and look at that.

What is clear is that you do not get to choose who owns the money or how
much tax to pay.

Norman Wells

2024-12-26 21:34:46 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

I think you're wrong. There's a very strong presumption in law that
joint property is jointly owned.

The 50% presumption applies by default and it's that which would have to
be displaced by convincing evidence of some other arrangement.

A lot of people say things, especially if they think they will bring the
result they want. HMRC and the courts tend to want something a bit more
substantial.

Roland Perry

2024-12-27 11:00:25 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
The daughter, we are told, *says* this was her mother's money and
she was helping her mother by using the account to pay her mother's
household expenses. The court/executor need look no further; neither
need you.

A lot of people say things, especially if they think they will bring
the result they want. HMRC and the courts tend to want something a bit
more substantial.

In this instance what was said appears to me to be entirely accurate.
And is precisely the arrangement described in the IHT404 guidance.

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2024-12-27 11:11:45 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

I think you're wrong. There's a very strong presumption in law that
joint property is jointly owned.

The 50% presumption applies by default and it's that which would have to
be displaced by convincing evidence of some other arrangement.

A lot of people say things, especially if they think they will bring the
result they want. HMRC and the courts tend to want something a bit more
substantial.

Given that the only likely owners of the money are the estate and the
daughter, the daughter's testimony as to the ownership being the estate is not
only "substantial" but pretty conclusive. Which party might be in a position
to dispute her testimony and on what possible ground could any court come to a
different conclusion? Why is testimony of a party not "substantial" evidence?

--
Roger Hayter

Norman Wells

2024-12-27 11:39:02 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

I think you're wrong. There's a very strong presumption in law that
joint property is jointly owned.

The 50% presumption applies by default and it's that which would have to
be displaced by convincing evidence of some other arrangement.

A lot of people say things, especially if they think they will bring the
result they want. HMRC and the courts tend to want something a bit more
substantial.

Given that the only likely owners of the money are the estate and the
daughter, the daughter's testimony as to the ownership being the estate is not
only "substantial" but pretty conclusive.

Ownership of the money is a matter of fact under the law, not of
opinion. Rules apply and have to be followed.

She is in no position to determine the legal status as regards
ownership. Indeed, she is likely very wrong through misunderstanding.
If the account was set up on a joint tenant basis, which is the usual
way, the account and the monies de facto belong to her by survivorship
whatever opinion she may have expressed.

And her opinion may not be held quite as firmly as you think in view of
Mr Perry's suspicion expressed here this morning that she 'might start
spending it'.

Post by Roger Hayter
Which party might be in a position
to dispute her testimony and on what possible ground could any court come to a
different conclusion? Why is testimony of a party not "substantial" evidence?

Because testimony has to come from a person with knowledge of what they
are testifying. Which she doesn't have.

Theo

2024-12-26 10:59:02 UTC

Post by Theo
That's my understand too. Money in a joint account is joint. There's no
concept of 'really belongs to A even if B has access'. If they wanted that
kind of arrangement they'd set up an LPA or similar, or maybe an account
where two signatories are required (if such are available for personal
accounts).

Just because the bank has no such concept it does not mean the law has no
such concept. If the money came from the deceased's account and the
daughter helped her administer it I don't think a court would have the
slightest difficulty in saying it was the estate's money.

It waan't the deceased's account (so we're told), it was a *joint account*.
That means the money is joint and, aside from any trust arrangement, it
automatically passes to the survivor. There is no process by which you can
say 'ah but really it was A's money' - you put money in joint names and it
becomes joint money, just like you put a house in joint names (ie 'joint
tenancy') and it automatically passes to the survivor.

If the account was not in joint names but merely the daughter knew the
password, then it belongs to the estate. But that's not what we're told
happened.

Theo

Martin Brown

2024-12-26 09:55:10 UTC

Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

That's my understand too. Money in a joint account is joint. There's no
concept of 'really belongs to A even if B has access'. If they wanted that
kind of arrangement they'd set up an LPA or similar, or maybe an account
where two signatories are required (if such are available for personal
accounts).
Technically 'joint' meaning 'joint tenants'. Apparently it's possible to
have a 'tenants in common' trust arrangement where the money is split (may
be 50/50 or some other split) and is handled as part of their will, in the
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/wills-and-probate/content/103479
I suppose one way to deal with that would be to set up a tenants in common
trust where A holds 99.9% of the share and B holds 0.1%. Then almost all of
the money belongs to A's estate but B has the right of access while A is
alive.

A genuine joint account where the survivor is named on the account then
they get it all under UK law.

An informal "joint" account where a trusted third party has online
access or the bank card and PIN number of the now deceased sole account
holder (which is against bank rules but happens more often than you
might think) then the account is a part of the estate.

Formal arrangements like an LPoA expires with the deceased (although
most bank managers will ignore that for the purposes of retrieving the
original Will from the deceased's safe deposit box).

Under Napoleonic law on the continent Belgium and France the opposite is
true and all accounts with the deceased's name on it are immediately
frozen on their death and you have to take out insurance against this
eventuality if you have a joint bank account.

Sometimes the order of the names on a UK account can be important as
happened with the various privatisation share issues where solicitors
acting for probate had put their own name first on the account(s)
depriving the estates of their full aliquot of shares.

Post by Theo
I'm not sure whether the bank needs to know about such arrangements while A
is alive (whether the account needs to be in the name of the trust?), but
presumably they need to take different action when A dies.

The executor will need to know if any strange or unusual mechanisms are
in play.

--
Martin Brown

Theo

2024-12-26 11:41:49 UTC

Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

That's my understand too. Money in a joint account is joint. There's no
concept of 'really belongs to A even if B has access'.

This is the sort of thing I was expecting a solicitor to be able to
answer, which is I why I raised it as an example. But as far as I can
tell they avoided the question.
OK, next question...
All the money in the joint account was supplied by the mother, does that
count as a gift for IHT purposes, either when it was done, or now that
it suddenly all belongs to the daughter?

If it's joint tenancy then the deceased owns half of the money and the
daughter the other half. So IHT would be payable on half. As to the
daughter's half I suppose putting that half in the daughter's name could
count as a gift, although I'm not sure how you'd work it out if used for
daily living expenses.

(In theory every deposit of the mother's pension could be viewed as a new
gift although arguably not if then spent on things that benefit the mother,
similar to handing over a fiver to fetch some groceries. I imagine if the
balance was small the accounting might disregard it, but if the balance was
say £100k then it might incur greater scrutiny. I'd probably want
legal/accountancy advice on this topic)

And a moral question...
If the money was put into the joint account so the daughter could pay
for goods and services on behalf of the mother, would that include the
funeral expenses? Or are they exclusively a matter for the estate.

If I were the daughter I'd say that money could be used for funeral
expenses, and may be easier to access than the estate. Although it would
depend on the terms of the will: if it said 'I give Alice the money and Bob
the house' then Alice would be disadvantaged by doing so.

Theo

Theo

2024-12-26 16:23:11 UTC

Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

Interestingly, it seems the coverage is different for IHT purposes as it is
commonly for 'joint tenancy', and merely making an joint account does not
imply a transfer of assets:

"Jointly owned assets
Schedule IHT404
[...]

Jointly owned assets where all the money was provided by
the deceased

Sometimes assets may be owned jointly with another person,
but one person provided all the money, either in an account
or to buy an asset. For example, an elderly person who has
difficulty getting out, may add the name of a relative to an
account for convenience so the relative may draw out money
on the elderly person’s behalf.
If the person who provided all the money dies, then their
share of this account will be the whole. But if the other
joint owner has withdrawn money for their own use, those
withdrawals may be gifts and you may need to include them
on form IHT403, ‘Gifts and other transfers of value’.
It follows that if someone died with their name on a joint
account but they did not provide any of the funds, no part of
the account need be included in the estate unless the other
joint owner intended to make a gift to the deceased."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f5e53ed915d74e33f600f/IHT404.pdf

Theo

Brian

2024-12-26 14:52:17 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
That's pretty much what I was expecting. I think the funeral has been
paid for from money released by the bank from the mother's sole

account.

Post by Roland Perry
The daughter, however, might not realise that this isn't £3-4k

which she

Post by Roland Perry
"found down the back of her sofa" and is nothing to do with the

estate.

Post by Roland Perry
The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and

down

Post by Roland Perry
demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday until

perhaps

Post by Roland Perry
6th January, which is par for the course these days.

Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

That's my understand too. Money in a joint account is joint. There's no
concept of 'really belongs to A even if B has access'.

Even if it did, presumably the date of gifting would be the point of
death.

HMRC could argue no 'discount' on IHT was due owing to the lack of time
between the gift and death. There is a 'sliding scale' - from memory,
you play 40% for the first 3 years, unless the gift meets certain
criteria (eg birthday, wedding gifts etc. There is an exemption for
money paid from income - provided it doesn't impact your standard of
living- but it would be difficult to claim that in a case like this.

Norman Wells

2024-12-26 09:01:43 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
That's pretty much what I was expecting. I think the funeral has been
paid for from money released by the bank from the mother's sole

account.

Post by Roland Perry
The daughter, however, might not realise that this isn't £3-4k

which she

Post by Roland Perry
"found down the back of her sofa" and is nothing to do with the

estate.

Post by Roland Perry
The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and

down

Post by Roland Perry
demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday until

perhaps

Post by Roland Perry
6th January, which is par for the course these days.

Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

That's my understand too. Money in a joint account is joint. There's no
concept of 'really belongs to A even if B has access'.

This is the sort of thing I was expecting a solicitor to be able to
answer, which is I why I raised it as an example. But as far as I can
tell they avoided the question.

Solicitors in my experience are very reluctant to answer any legal
questions these days. They're too scared of getting it wrong and being
sued. Which makes their usefulness rather questionable.

OK, next question...
All the money in the joint account was supplied by the mother, does that
count as a gift for IHT purposes, either when it was done, or now that
it suddenly all belongs to the daughter?

It was a gift when any of her money was put into in the joint account.

That's not a moral question but another legal one. The next-of-kin is
responsible for arranging the funeral. The estate is liable for the
cost. The estate has no call on the money that was in the joint account
that now belongs solely to the daughter.

Andy Burns

2024-12-25 22:54:43 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

Two estates I've dealt with as executor/administrator, had husband-wife
joint accounts, upon informing the banks, they simple removed the
deceased name from the account, leaving the survivor in full control.
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.

No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

Roger Hayter

2024-12-26 00:06:48 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

Two estates I've dealt with as executor/administrator, had husband-wife
joint accounts, upon informing the banks, they simple removed the
deceased name from the account, leaving the survivor in full control.
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

In the husband/wife case this could be presumed to be their joint property.
We are told in the mother/daughter case that this was the mother's money and
the daughter had permission to use the account to help administer the mother's
affairs. No different in principle to giving a servant petty cash to manage a
household I would have thought. The money doesn't suddenly become the
servant's because it is in their charge.

--
Roger Hayter

Brian

2024-12-26 14:27:42 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

Two estates I've dealt with as executor/administrator, had husband-wife
joint accounts, upon informing the banks, they simple removed the
deceased name from the account, leaving the survivor in full control.
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

You are confusing a joint account with an account where there is an
account holder and someone they allow access to the account- perhaps an
employee, carer, etc.

Of course, not all banks / accounts may allow such arrangements but some
do.

A joint account is generally just that- each person has the same access
etc.

An account which allows someone to have access can impose restrictions
on that person (eg withdrawal limits).

(I've not included the 'special' case of someone who is trusted to have
access, typically if the account holder dies or becomes incapacitated
which some banks allow. )

Norman Wells

2024-12-26 08:14:22 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

Two estates I've dealt with as executor/administrator, had husband-wife
joint accounts, upon informing the banks, they simple removed the
deceased name from the account, leaving the survivor in full control.
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

In the husband/wife case this could be presumed to be their joint property.

No, it is presumed to be joint property because it's in a joint account.

Post by Roger Hayter
We are told in the mother/daughter case that this was the mother's money and
the daughter had permission to use the account to help administer the mother's
affairs.

No, not permission but a right. In fact, a right to use it as she wished.

Post by Roger Hayter
No different in principle to giving a servant petty cash to manage a
household I would have thought. The money doesn't suddenly become the
servant's because it is in their charge.

It is different because there the money is never joint.

Roland Perry

2024-12-26 06:14:02 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

That sounds plausible (rather than freezing the account).

Post by Andy Burns
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.

But that's a new aspect. Why would that half-the-cash have to be
declared for IHT if as I understand it half a jointly owned house would
not?

Post by Andy Burns
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

There are certainly many things which happen on death which are specific
between partners (and not friends/relatives) hence the concept of
deathbed marriages.

In another scenario, where I'm not aware of the final outcome, two
friends had a deathbed marriage, but there wasn't time to put any
accounts/properties into joint names. I wonder if for example the house
did in fact transfer free of IHT as a result, not being either jointly
owned, nor in fact the survivor's previous [insert appropriate
adjective] residence.

--
Roland Perry

Andy Burns

2024-12-26 08:55:15 UTC

Why would that half-the-cash have to be declared for IHT if as I
understand it half a jointly owned house would not?

Because the rules say* a main residence can be passed to a spouse/civil
partner with no IHT liability, but cash isn't a home?

[*] Quite baldly, with no apparent ifs/buts/maybes
<https://gov.uk/inheritance-tax/print#:~:text=you can,do this>

Andy Burns

2024-12-26 08:59:03 UTC

Post by Andy Burns
<https://gov.uk/inheritance-tax/print#:~:text=you can,do this>

damned spaces

<https://gov.uk/inheritance-tax/print#:~:text=you%20can,do%20this>

Roland Perry

2024-12-26 19:32:40 UTC

Why would that half-the-cash have to be declared for IHT if as I
understand it half a jointly owned house would not?

Because the rules say* a main residence can be passed to a spouse/civil
partner with no IHT liability,

There are several edge cases, which I discovered a year ago in a
separate case. If the surviving spouse is an expat for example, and not
living in the house.

But what if the surviving spouse's main residence is in the UK, but not
the house solely owned by the deceased?

Post by Andy Burns
but cash isn't a home?

I'm happy that other postings have clarified the position regarding the
cash.

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2024-12-26 11:25:46 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

That sounds plausible (rather than freezing the account).

Post by Andy Burns
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.

But that's a new aspect. Why would that half-the-cash have to be
declared for IHT if as I understand it half a jointly owned house would
not?

Even if not part of the estate for inheritance purposes, half (or other
provable fraction) of a joint property *does* form part of the estate for IHT
purposes. And does have to be declared.

Post by Andy Burns
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

There are certainly many things which happen on death which are specific
between partners (and not friends/relatives) hence the concept of
deathbed marriages.
In another scenario, where I'm not aware of the final outcome, two
friends had a deathbed marriage, but there wasn't time to put any
accounts/properties into joint names. I wonder if for example the house
did in fact transfer free of IHT as a result, not being either jointly
owned, nor in fact the survivor's previous [insert appropriate
adjective] residence.

As far as I know, property does not become joint on marriage if it was not
joint before. Even though a family court might share it if crystalised on
divorce, the actual ownership does not change if they remain married.

--
Roger Hayter

Roland Perry

2024-12-26 19:34:57 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

That sounds plausible (rather than freezing the account).

Post by Andy Burns
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.

But that's a new aspect. Why would that half-the-cash have to be
declared for IHT if as I understand it half a jointly owned house would
not?

Even if not part of the estate for inheritance purposes, half (or other
provable fraction) of a joint property *does* form part of the estate for IHT
purposes. And does have to be declared.

Moot for the cases I'm discussing, where the house isn't jointly owned
with anyone.

Post by Andy Burns
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

There are certainly many things which happen on death which are specific
between partners (and not friends/relatives) hence the concept of
deathbed marriages.
In another scenario, where I'm not aware of the final outcome, two
friends had a deathbed marriage, but there wasn't time to put any
accounts/properties into joint names. I wonder if for example the house
did in fact transfer free of IHT as a result, not being either jointly
owned, nor in fact the survivor's previous [insert appropriate
adjective] residence.

As far as I know, property does not

automatically

Post by Roger Hayter
become joint on marriage if it was not joint before.
Even though a family court might share it if crystalised on
divorce, the actual ownership does not change if they remain married.

Moot, as my examples have no divorces involved.

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2024-12-26 22:03:31 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

That sounds plausible (rather than freezing the account).

Post by Andy Burns
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.

But that's a new aspect. Why would that half-the-cash have to be
declared for IHT if as I understand it half a jointly owned house would
not?

Even if not part of the estate for inheritance purposes, half (or other
provable fraction) of a joint property *does* form part of the estate for IHT
purposes. And does have to be declared.

Moot for the cases I'm discussing, where the house isn't jointly owned
with anyone.

Post by Andy Burns
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

There are certainly many things which happen on death which are specific
between partners (and not friends/relatives) hence the concept of
deathbed marriages.
In another scenario, where I'm not aware of the final outcome, two
friends had a deathbed marriage, but there wasn't time to put any
accounts/properties into joint names. I wonder if for example the house
did in fact transfer free of IHT as a result, not being either jointly
owned, nor in fact the survivor's previous [insert appropriate
adjective] residence.

As far as I know, property does not

automatically

Moot, as my examples have no divorces involved.

Indeed, it is irrelevant to your case. My excuse is that another poster
opined, obiter, that it was not necessary to declare for IHT half a house
inherited automatically, so for the record I pointed out that it *was*
necessary, even though it might not affect the distribution of the estate.
Sorry it was irrelevant to you, but I thought it best not to let the
suggestion stand unopposed.

--
Roger Hayter

Roland Perry

2024-12-27 06:21:12 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

That sounds plausible (rather than freezing the account).

Post by Andy Burns
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.

But that's a new aspect. Why would that half-the-cash have to be
declared for IHT if as I understand it half a jointly owned house would
not?

Even if not part of the estate for inheritance purposes, half (or other
provable fraction) of a joint property *does* form part of the estate for IHT
purposes. And does have to be declared.

Moot for the cases I'm discussing, where the house isn't jointly owned
with anyone.

Post by Andy Burns
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

There are certainly many things which happen on death which are specific
between partners (and not friends/relatives) hence the concept of
deathbed marriages.
In another scenario, where I'm not aware of the final outcome, two
friends had a deathbed marriage, but there wasn't time to put any
accounts/properties into joint names. I wonder if for example the house
did in fact transfer free of IHT as a result, not being either jointly
owned, nor in fact the survivor's previous [insert appropriate
adjective] residence.

As far as I know, property does not

automatically

Moot, as my examples have no divorces involved.

Fair enough but for clarity, when is this declaration required?

Is it for the IHT when the first partner dies, or when the survivor
later dies?

And when you say "half a house", is that just the situation of tenants
in Commom 50:50, rather than Joint Tenants

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2024-12-27 09:13:16 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

That sounds plausible (rather than freezing the account).

Post by Andy Burns
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.

But that's a new aspect. Why would that half-the-cash have to be
declared for IHT if as I understand it half a jointly owned house would
not?

Even if not part of the estate for inheritance purposes, half (or other
provable fraction) of a joint property *does* form part of the estate for IHT
purposes. And does have to be declared.

Moot for the cases I'm discussing, where the house isn't jointly owned
with anyone.

Post by Andy Burns
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

There are certainly many things which happen on death which are specific
between partners (and not friends/relatives) hence the concept of
deathbed marriages.
In another scenario, where I'm not aware of the final outcome, two
friends had a deathbed marriage, but there wasn't time to put any
accounts/properties into joint names. I wonder if for example the house
did in fact transfer free of IHT as a result, not being either jointly
owned, nor in fact the survivor's previous [insert appropriate
adjective] residence.

As far as I know, property does not

automatically

Moot, as my examples have no divorces involved.

Fair enough but for clarity, when is this declaration required?
Is it for the IHT when the first partner dies, or when the survivor
later dies?

Both. An IHT declaration should be made if it is near or above the threshold,
even if no IHT is liable.

Post by Roland Perry
And when you say "half a house", is that just the situation of tenants
in Commom 50:50, rather than Joint Tenants

Both unless there is evidence to the contrary. House deeds often say equal
shares. And other kinds of beneficial interest.

--
Roger Hayter

Roland Perry

2024-12-27 10:18:32 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

That sounds plausible (rather than freezing the account).

Post by Andy Burns
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.

But that's a new aspect. Why would that half-the-cash have to be
declared for IHT if as I understand it half a jointly owned house would
not?

Even if not part of the estate for inheritance purposes, half (or other
provable fraction) of a joint property *does* form part of the estate for IHT
purposes. And does have to be declared.

Moot for the cases I'm discussing, where the house isn't jointly owned
with anyone.

Post by Andy Burns
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

There are certainly many things which happen on death which are specific
between partners (and not friends/relatives) hence the concept of
deathbed marriages.
In another scenario, where I'm not aware of the final outcome, two
friends had a deathbed marriage, but there wasn't time to put any
accounts/properties into joint names. I wonder if for example the house
did in fact transfer free of IHT as a result, not being either jointly
owned, nor in fact the survivor's previous [insert appropriate
adjective] residence.

As far as I know, property does not

automatically

Moot, as my examples have no divorces involved.

Fair enough but for clarity, when is this declaration required?
Is it for the IHT when the first partner dies, or when the survivor
later dies?

Both. An IHT declaration should be made if it is near or above the threshold,
even if no IHT is liable.

"It" being what - the full value of the house plus all other joint
assets, or something else.

Post by Roland Perry
And when you say "half a house", is that just the situation of tenants
in Commom 50:50, rather than Joint Tenants

Both unless there is evidence to the contrary. House deeds often say equal
shares.

Every house I've ever bought since getting married 35yrs ago specified
"joint tenants". Where the whole house automatically belongs to the
survivor.

Post by Roger Hayter
And other kinds of beneficial interest.

3rd party's interests in the house, or the deceased's interest in other
assets?

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2024-12-27 11:16:39 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

That sounds plausible (rather than freezing the account).

Post by Andy Burns
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.

But that's a new aspect. Why would that half-the-cash have to be
declared for IHT if as I understand it half a jointly owned house would
not?

Even if not part of the estate for inheritance purposes, half (or other
provable fraction) of a joint property *does* form part of the estate for IHT
purposes. And does have to be declared.

Moot for the cases I'm discussing, where the house isn't jointly owned
with anyone.

Post by Andy Burns
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

There are certainly many things which happen on death which are specific
between partners (and not friends/relatives) hence the concept of
deathbed marriages.
In another scenario, where I'm not aware of the final outcome, two
friends had a deathbed marriage, but there wasn't time to put any
accounts/properties into joint names. I wonder if for example the house
did in fact transfer free of IHT as a result, not being either jointly
owned, nor in fact the survivor's previous [insert appropriate
adjective] residence.

As far as I know, property does not

automatically

Moot, as my examples have no divorces involved.

Fair enough but for clarity, when is this declaration required?
Is it for the IHT when the first partner dies, or when the survivor
later dies?

Both. An IHT declaration should be made if it is near or above the threshold,
even if no IHT is liable.

"It" being what - the full value of the house plus all other joint
assets, or something else.

"It" in the above being the estate. But the relevant value is usually 50%
unless proven otherwise.

Post by Roland Perry
And when you say "half a house", is that just the situation of tenants
in Commom 50:50, rather than Joint Tenants

Both unless there is evidence to the contrary. House deeds often say equal
shares.

Every house I've ever bought since getting married 35yrs ago specified
"joint tenants". Where the whole house automatically belongs to the
survivor.

Post by Roger Hayter
And other kinds of beneficial interest.

3rd party's interests in the house, or the deceased's interest in other
assets?

Just for completeness, their might be someone else with an interest - but
usually isn't. But commonly a building society!

--
Roger Hayter

Norman Wells

2024-12-26 08:23:41 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

That sounds plausible (rather than freezing the account).

Post by Andy Burns
Half of the value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate
valuation report.

But that's a new aspect. Why would that half-the-cash have to be
declared for IHT if as I understand it half a jointly owned house would
not?

Whatever each puts into the joint account is a gift. Between spouses
gifts are exempt from any taxes. Between others, they are only
potentially exempt depending on tax free allowances and how long the
person making the gift survives afterwards.

Post by Andy Burns
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

That doesn't matter. What applies in that case is what the Will of the
deceased said. With the proviso that a marriage invalidates any
previous Will, so a new one would need to have been executed on the
deathbed too, or the rules of intestacy apply.

kat

2024-12-27 11:34:38 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

Two estates I've dealt with as executor/administrator, had husband-wife joint
accounts, upon informing the banks, they simple removed the deceased name from
the account, leaving the survivor in full control. Half of the value at time of
death was declared towards the IHT estate valuation report.
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

Years ago my father added me to his current account because he was going blind,
and it was better if I was able to sign cheques. and also doing his shopping was
simplified as I had a debit card.

When he died the account became mine.

But that isn't altogether helpful because I, the only child, inherited
everything anyway, the whole being well below any tax level.

--
kat

^..^<

Roland Perry

2024-12-27 12:27:39 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

Two estates I've dealt with as executor/administrator, had
husband-wife joint accounts, upon informing the banks, they simple
removed the deceased name from the account, leaving the survivor in
full control. Half of the value at time of death was declared towards
the IHT estate valuation report.
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

Years ago my father added me to his current account because he was
going blind, and it was better if I was able to sign cheques. and also
doing his shopping was simplified as I had a debit card.
When he died the account became mine.
But that isn't altogether helpful because I, the only child, inherited
everything anyway,

He might have had a will leaving it all to Battersea Dogs Home.

Post by kat
the whole being well below any tax level.

But you still need the numbers, to fill in the IHT forms.

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2024-12-27 16:04:48 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

Two estates I've dealt with as executor/administrator, had
husband-wife joint accounts, upon informing the banks, they simple
removed the deceased name from the account, leaving the survivor in
full control. Half of the value at time of death was declared towards
the IHT estate valuation report.
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

Years ago my father added me to his current account because he was
going blind, and it was better if I was able to sign cheques. and also
doing his shopping was simplified as I had a debit card.
When he died the account became mine.
But that isn't altogether helpful because I, the only child, inherited
everything anyway,

He might have had a will leaving it all to Battersea Dogs Home.

Post by kat
the whole being well below any tax level.

But you still need the numbers, to fill in the IHT forms.

If the total is vastly below IHT levels you don't have to do a proper itemised
IHT form, just a declaration that the value is below some arbitrary figure
well below the IHT threshold.

--
Roger Hayter

Roland Perry

2024-12-27 17:24:09 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

Two estates I've dealt with as executor/administrator, had
husband-wife joint accounts, upon informing the banks, they simple
removed the deceased name from the account, leaving the survivor in
full control. Half of the value at time of death was declared towards
the IHT estate valuation report.
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

Years ago my father added me to his current account because he was
going blind, and it was better if I was able to sign cheques. and also
doing his shopping was simplified as I had a debit card.
When he died the account became mine.
But that isn't altogether helpful because I, the only child, inherited
everything anyway,

He might have had a will leaving it all to Battersea Dogs Home.

Post by kat
the whole being well below any tax level.

But you still need the numbers, to fill in the IHT forms.

If the total is vastly below IHT levels you don't have to do a proper itemised
IHT form, just a declaration that the value is below some arbitrary figure
well below the IHT threshold.

Anyone owning a house or flat is very unlikely to be "vastly below",
even if their current account only has a few thousand pounds in it.

--
Roland Perry

kat

2024-12-28 10:54:09 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

Two estates I've dealt with as executor/administrator, had
husband-wife joint accounts, upon informing the banks, they simple
removed the deceased name from the account, leaving the survivor in
full control. Half of the value at time of death was declared towards
the IHT estate valuation report.
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any
differently?

Years ago my father added me to his current account because he was
going blind, and it was better if I was able to sign cheques. and also
doing his shopping was simplified as I had a debit card.
When he died the account became mine.
But that isn't altogether helpful because I, the only child, inherited
everything anyway,

He might have had a will leaving it all to Battersea Dogs Home.

Post by kat
the whole being well below any tax level.

But you still need the numbers, to fill in the IHT forms.

If the total is vastly below IHT levels you don't have to do a proper itemised
IHT form, just a declaration that the value is below some arbitrary figure
well below the IHT threshold.

Anyone owning a house or flat is very unlikely to be "vastly below", even if
their current account only has a few thousand pounds in it.

It was well below as I have just shown. And to confirm, the tax limit in 2008
when he died was £312,000 and his estate worth around half of that. Not all
houses were that expensive then. Just a simple 3 bed semi.

--
kat

^..^<

kat

2024-12-28 10:48:57 UTC

monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the survivor.

Two estates I've dealt with as executor/administrator, had husband-wife
joint accounts, upon informing the banks, they simple removed the deceased
name from the account, leaving the survivor in full control. Half of the
value at time of death was declared towards the IHT estate valuation report.
No idea if a mother-daughter joint account would be treated any differently?

Years ago my father added me to his current account because he was going
blind, and it was better if I was able to sign cheques. and also doing his
shopping was simplified as I had a debit card.
When he died the account became mine.
But that isn't altogether helpful because I, the only child, inherited
everything anyway,

He might have had a will leaving it all to Battersea Dogs Home.

He might have done, but as it happens he didn't, and we knew that.

Post by kat
the whole being well below any tax level.

But you still need the numbers, to fill in the IHT forms.

It was all done, probate granted, etc etc, and said current account had about
£1700 in it as I recall. Pretty irrelevant given a savings account of under £20k
and a house that sold eventually for £120k, so no "gain" in leaving it out
anyway! We (my husband was the executor) used the cash to pay bills and
towards the funeral anyway.

But the point was, the account merely became mine, his name was taken off.

--
kat

Post by Roland Perry
^..^<

Roger Hayter

2024-12-26 00:00:47 UTC

Post by Martin Brown
It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be worth
much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true of IHT
rules for complex international holdings with dual nationality involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability insurance
for their client on them being right in law but there are still plenty
of edge cases where the consumer is severely disadvantaged.

Same here. I often post questions which have resulted in a blank stare
from a paralegal or junior solicitor. And what I'm after is a way to
phrase a question which they can't ignore and need to escalate.
Here's a new one: A daughter has been looking after her aged mother, and
by verbal agreement only, there's a joint bank account which gets topped
up with "housekeeping money" to be spent on the mother (and her bills).
The mother dies (not unexpectedly) and there's about £4k in that joint
account. Who does it belong to... Should it for example be turned over
to the solicitors to add to the estate, should it be frozen, can the
daughter continue to draw funds to pay some of the bills now owing to
the estate? Rinse and repeat when the dust has settled and there's
perhaps £3k in that account.

That's pretty much what I was expecting. I think the funeral has been
paid for from money released by the bank from the mother's sole account.
The daughter, however, might not realise that this isn't £3-4k which she
"found down the back of her sofa" and is nothing to do with the estate.
The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and down
demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday until perhaps
6th January, which is par for the course these days.

Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

According to bank administrative rules they do. That does not establish
ownership, however. If the bank account contains only the deceased person's
money then whatever administrative arrangements the bank makes the money
belongs to the deceased's estate.

--
Roger Hayter

Norman Wells

2024-12-26 08:51:41 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Sorry, but monies in joint accounts generally pass automatically to the
survivor.

Do you have a reliable reference for that please? Or is it just your
assumption stated as fact?

Simon Parker

2025-01-03 18:51:21 UTC

Post by Martin Brown
It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be worth
much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true of IHT
rules for complex international holdings with dual nationality involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability insurance
for their client on them being right in law but there are still plenty
of edge cases where the consumer is severely disadvantaged.

Same here. I often post questions which have resulted in a blank stare
from a paralegal or junior solicitor. And what I'm after is a way to
phrase a question which they can't ignore and need to escalate.
Here's a new one: A daughter has been looking after her aged mother, and
by verbal agreement only, there's a joint bank account which gets topped
up with "housekeeping money" to be spent on the mother (and her bills).
The mother dies (not unexpectedly) and there's about £4k in that joint
account. Who does it belong to... Should it for example be turned over
to the solicitors to add to the estate, should it be frozen, can the
daughter continue to draw funds to pay some of the bills now owing to
the estate? Rinse and repeat when the dust has settled and there's
perhaps £3k in that account.

That's pretty much what I was expecting. I think the funeral has been
paid for from money released by the bank from the mother's sole account.
The daughter, however, might not realise that this isn't £3-4k which she
"found down the back of her sofa" and is nothing to do with the estate.
The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and down
demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday until perhaps
6th January, which is par for the course these days.

I do not see the need for your comment, "which is par for the course
these days."

Are you suggesting that it is a recent development that lawyers only
attend to urgent matters in the period between Christmas and New Year
but you have known this not to be the case in the past, if so where,
when and how widespread?

Alternatively, what are you suggesting by that comment?

For context, this is a matter related to probate. It is likely to take
many months, depending on the complexity of the estate. The fact that
nobody will be looking at the matter for the period of the Christmas and
New Year shutdown is not going to make much difference in the grand
scheme of things.

Or would you prefer that the solicitor handling the probate continues
working on the matter but with a suitable uplift applied to their fees
to cover the fact the work was done during the firm's annual close down?

Regards

S.P.

Roland Perry

2025-01-05 10:08:12 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and
down demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday until
perhaps 6th January, which is par for the course these days.

I do not see the need for your comment, "which is par for the course
these days."

It's just general frustration that nothing seems to be able to be done
(in any administrative process, not just lawyers) between about 20th
December and 6th January.

Post by Simon Parker
Are you suggesting that it is a recent development that lawyers only
attend to urgent matters in the period between Christmas and New Year
but you have known this not to be the case in the past, if so where,
when and how widespread?
Alternatively, what are you suggesting by that comment?
For context, this is a matter related to probate. It is likely to take
many months, depending on the complexity of the estate. The fact that
nobody will be looking at the matter for the period of the Christmas
and New Year shutdown is not going to make much difference in the grand
scheme of things.

I agree, for the process in the round; but with some executors rapidly
taking matters into their own hands, it's frustrating not to be able to
at least ask for fifteen minute's advice.

Post by Simon Parker
Or would you prefer that the solicitor handling the probate continues
working on the matter but with a suitable uplift applied to their fees
to cover the fact the work was done during the firm's annual close down?

There's "working on" and "working on". Yes, the ordinary process will
pause and there's no harm in that, but if in the mean time executors are
making decisions they probably aren't entitled to, it would be good to
have someone say "hold on a minute...".

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2025-01-05 10:45:06 UTC

The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and
down demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday
until perhaps 6th January, which is par for the course these days.

I do not see the need for your comment, "which is par for the course
these days."

It's just general frustration that nothing seems to be able to be done
(in any administrative process, not just lawyers) between about 20th
December and 6th January.

I think you said much the same this time last year on a different matter.

Others are entitled to their holidays, during which everyone has to
accept some services will not be available.

Post by Simon Parker
Are you suggesting that it is a recent development that lawyers only
attend to urgent matters in the period between Christmas and New Year
but you have known this not to be the case in the past, if so where,
when and how widespread?
Alternatively, what are you suggesting by that comment?
For context, this is a matter related to probate. It is likely to
take many months, depending on the complexity of the estate. The fact
that nobody will be looking at the matter for the period of the
Christmas and New Year shutdown is not going to make much difference
in the grand scheme of things.

I agree, for the process in the round; but with some executors rapidly
taking matters into their own hands, it's frustrating not to be able to
at least ask for fifteen minute's advice.

Hold on yourself. How many executors are there, and what are you saying
they're doing? According to the above and previous remarks here,
there's just one, namely the solicitor. No-one else has any legal
authority to act, do anything or make any decisions.

Roland Perry

2025-01-05 12:53:48 UTC

The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and
down demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday
until perhaps 6th January, which is par for the course these days.

I do not see the need for your comment, "which is par for the course
these days."

It's just general frustration that nothing seems to be able to be
done (in any administrative process, not just lawyers) between about
20th December and 6th January.

I think you said much the same this time last year on a different matter.
Others are entitled to their holidays, during which everyone has to
accept some services will not be available.

Accepting that "some service will not be available" is becoming beyond a
joke. What if all the banks closed, Amazon shut down, no trains ran - oh
wait!

Post by Roland Perry
I agree, for the process in the round; but with some executors
rapidly taking matters into their own hands, it's frustrating not to
be able to at least ask for fifteen minute's advice.

Post by Simon Parker
Or would you prefer that the solicitor handling the probate
continues working on the matter but with a suitable uplift applied
to their fees to cover the fact the work was done during the firm's
annual close down?

There's "working on" and "working on". Yes, the ordinary process
will pause and there's no harm in that, but if in the mean time
executors are making decisions they probably aren't entitled to, it
would be good to have someone say "hold on a minute...".

Hold on yourself. How many executors are there, and what are you
saying they're doing? According to the above and previous remarks
here, there's just one, namely the solicitor.

Three siblings are executors, and agreed to appoint a solicitor to do
the paperwork.

Post by Norman Wells
No-one else has any legal authority to act, do anything or make any
decisions.

But two of the executors, are. eg Despite no provision in the will for
executors to determine the fate of the chattels (which should therefore,
as far as I'm aware, be inventoried, valued, and disposed of at market
value in an orderly fashion), they are wading in.

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2025-01-05 14:01:59 UTC

The solicitor-executor, however, doesn't seem to be jumping up and
down demanding the funds. And of course has now gone on holiday
until perhaps 6th January, which is par for the course these days.

I do not see the need for your comment, "which is par for the course
these days."

It's just general frustration that nothing seems to be able to be
done (in any administrative process, not just lawyers) between about
20th December and 6th January.

I think you said much the same this time last year on a different matter.
Others are entitled to their holidays, during which everyone has to
accept some services will not be available.

Accepting that "some service will not be available" is becoming beyond a
joke. What if all the banks closed, Amazon shut down, no trains ran - oh
wait!

I agree, for the process in the round; but with some executors
rapidly taking matters into their own hands, it's frustrating not to
be able to at least ask for fifteen minute's advice.

Post by Simon Parker
Or would you prefer that the solicitor handling the probate
continues working on the matter but with a suitable uplift applied
to their fees to cover the fact the work was done during the firm's
annual close down?

There's "working on" and "working on". Yes, the ordinary process
will pause and there's no harm in that, but if in the mean time
executors are making decisions they probably aren't entitled to, it
would be good to have someone say "hold on a minute...".

Hold on yourself. How many executors are there, and what are you
saying they're doing? According to the above and previous remarks
here, there's just one, namely the solicitor.

Three siblings are executors, and agreed to appoint a solicitor to do
the paperwork.

So, the solicitor is neither an executor or even a 'solicitor executor'
as you described him above.

Glad to have cleared that up.

Post by Norman Wells
No-one else has any legal authority to act, do anything or make any
decisions.

The three executors jointly own the estate. Two of them alone do not not.

The three executors hold the entire estate in trust for the intended
beneficiaries. They have to act in the beneficiaries' best interests,
including of course making sure they get what they are entitled to.

Chattels, unless specifically gifted in the Will, form part of the
residue of the estate and must be held in the residue beneficiaries'
best interests. So, it depends who the residue beneficiaries are. If
they include the third executor, as seems likely, she must have an equal
say with the other two executors what happens to any chattels, and all
three must agree on any distribution of them. Otherwise it's
misappropriation from and maladministration of the estate.

Chattels need not be sold. They can with the agreement of all of the
executors be passed on as they are to those entitled to them.

Roland Perry

2025-01-05 15:16:08 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
The three executors hold the entire estate in trust for the intended
beneficiaries. They have to act in the beneficiaries' best interests,
including of course making sure they get what they are entitled to.
Chattels, unless specifically gifted in the Will, form part of the
residue of the estate and must be held in the residue beneficiaries'
best interests. So, it depends who the residue beneficiaries are.

Three executors, and others.

Post by Norman Wells
If they include the third executor, as seems likely, she must have an
equal say with the other two executors what happens to any chattels,
and all three must agree on any distribution of them. Otherwise it's
misappropriation from and maladministration of the estate.

But what do you do if one (or two) of the executors are
distributing/disposing chattels without that agreement?

Post by Norman Wells
Chattels need not be sold. They can with the agreement of all of the
executors be passed on as they are to those entitled to them.

I think they should be valued, so that each beneficiary gets their fair
share (even if only money and none of the actual chattels).

--
Roland Perry

Martin Brown

2025-01-05 16:00:57 UTC

Three executors, and others.

But what do you do if one (or two) of the executors are
distributing/disposing chattels without that agreement?

Remind them that as executors they are personally liable for any
misappropriation of funds from the estate.

Post by Norman Wells
Chattels need not be sold. They can with the agreement of all of the
executors be passed on as they are to those entitled to them.

I think they should be valued, so that each beneficiary gets their fair
share (even if only money and none of the actual chattels).

It depends a lot on the value of the estate and the chattels.

If they are mostly items of sentimental value to someone (like slides,
photos or ornaments) then that someone might as well have them (provided
that the beneficiaries can agree amongst themselves who gets what).

It is harder with jewellery if some of it is high value and most paste.

Liquidating everything back to cash generally loses value. Especially
for something bought recently like a brand new car for example.
(probably the *most* extreme example of second hand value loss)

--
Martin Brown

Roland Perry

2025-01-05 16:53:15 UTC

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Norman Wells
The three executors hold the entire estate in trust for the intended
beneficiaries. They have to act in the beneficiaries' best
interests, including of course making sure they get what they are
entitled to.
Chattels, unless specifically gifted in the Will, form part of the
residue of the estate and must be held in the residue beneficiaries'
best interests. So, it depends who the residue beneficiaries are.

Three executors, and others.

Post by Norman Wells
If they include the third executor, as seems likely, she must have
an equal say with the other two executors what happens to any
chattels, and all three must agree on any distribution of them.
Otherwise it's misappropriation from and maladministration of the estate.

But what do you do if one (or two) of the executors are
distributing/disposing chattels without that agreement?

Remind them that as executors they are personally liable for any
misappropriation of funds from the estate.

They deny that's the case, although eventually it may come home to
roost. Better in the short term for a 3rd party to have a quiet word
with them.

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Norman Wells
Chattels need not be sold. They can with the agreement of all of
the executors be passed on as they are to those entitled to them.

I think they should be valued, so that each beneficiary gets their
fair share (even if only money and none of the actual chattels).

It depends a lot on the value of the estate and the chattels.

My car is worth say £10k, and if it was spirited away and my will said
25% each to four beneficiaries, there's £2500 each to be arguing about.

Post by Martin Brown
If they are mostly items of sentimental value to someone (like slides,
photos or ornaments) then that someone might as well have them
(provided that the beneficiaries can agree amongst themselves who gets
what).
It is harder with jewellery if some of it is high value and most paste.

A valuer can sort out one from the other in minutes.

Post by Martin Brown
Liquidating everything back to cash generally loses value. Especially
for something bought recently like a brand new car for example.
(probably the *most* extreme example of second hand value loss)

The scrap value of a new diamond ring could be less than half the retail
price - don't get confused by insurance quotes for replacement value.

I wasn't suggesting all items be liquidated, just valued. So if one
executor/beneficiary is getting the car, another the diamond rings and
pearl necklaces, and another the £4k/4k resolution flatscreen TV, then
balance it up so that you know how much to apportion from the
savings/investments etc for the other beneficiaries, according to their
allotted percentages.

(You can't saw off 10% of a car or TV, even if 10% of the jewellery
might be possible)

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2025-01-05 17:19:04 UTC

Three executors, and others.

But what do you do if one (or two) of the executors are distributing/
disposing chattels without that agreement?

You send them to executor school where hopefully they will learn their
legal responsibilities. If they won't or can't, then they can be
removed from their executorship by the court.

Prior to that, you can point out that it's maladministration, try to
persuade them of the error of their ways and demand restoration of what
they have actually stolen from the estate. If they won't listen to a
personal approach, a stiff solicitors' letter might do the trick.

Post by Norman Wells
Chattels need not be sold. They can with the agreement of all of the
executors be passed on as they are to those entitled to them.

I think they should be valued, so that each beneficiary gets their fair
share (even if only money and none of the actual chattels).

If the residue beneficiaries aren't objecting or don't think it's
worthwhile, then things should be left as they are, letting them all
argue about it and upset each other in private.

Normally, chattels are of relatively low value, and the best resolution
is for the residue beneficiaries to agree amongst themselves, even with
a bit of resentment, who should have what. The expense of valuation or
sale of the items or of any legal action to resolve matters will come
out of the residue of the estate, so they'll all be paying ultimately if
that's the line any of them chooses to follow. And such measures may
exceed the value of the items themselves, which of course is not in
their best interests.

If they're determined to be silly about it, they will pay the price.

Roland Perry

2025-01-06 10:14:01 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
The three executors hold the entire estate in trust for the intended
beneficiaries. They have to act in the beneficiaries' best
interests, including of course making sure they get what they are
entitled to.
Chattels, unless specifically gifted in the Will, form part of the
residue of the estate and must be held in the residue beneficiaries'
best interests. So, it depends who the residue beneficiaries are.

Three executors, and others.

Post by Norman Wells
If they include the third executor, as seems likely, she must have
an equal say with the other two executors what happens to any
chattels, and all three must agree on any distribution of them.
Otherwise it's misappropriation from and maladministration of the estate.

But what do you do if one (or two) of the executors are
distributing/ disposing chattels without that agreement?

You send them to executor school

That's sort of what I was expecting the solicitor on Xmas break to be
doing when he gets back.

Post by Norman Wells
where hopefully they will learn their legal responsibilities. If they
won't or can't, then they can be removed from their executorship by the
court.

Apparently that costs ~20k

Post by Norman Wells
Prior to that, you can point out that it's maladministration, try to
persuade them of the error of their ways and demand restoration of what
they have actually stolen from the estate.

I'm told they don't believe that it's maladministration, and the third
executor should STFU.

Post by Norman Wells
If they won't listen to a personal approach, a stiff solicitors' letter
might do the trick.

Just a chat perhaps, but he's been on holiday, dear Liza.

Post by Norman Wells
Chattels need not be sold. They can with the agreement of all of
the executors be passed on as they are to those entitled to them.

I think they should be valued, so that each beneficiary gets their
fair share (even if only money and none of the actual chattels).

If the residue beneficiaries aren't objecting or don't think it's
worthwhile, then things should be left as they are, letting them all
argue about it and upset each other in private.

That might be an idea, if some of them handn't been sold or thrown away
by now.

Post by Norman Wells
Normally, chattels are of relatively low value, and the best resolution
is for the residue beneficiaries to agree amongst themselves, even with
a bit of resentment, who should have what.

I agree, as long as the chattels are still present.

Post by Norman Wells
The expense of valuation

You can get a free valuation of a car from multiple sources, and as for
jewellery a friend got (in different circumstances) an engagement ring
professionally valued for about £150, and the answer was £5,500, so not
a huge outlay in comparison. Keeps the insurance company happy, too.

Post by Norman Wells
or sale of the items or of any legal action to resolve matters will
come out of the residue of the estate, so they'll all be paying
ultimately if that's the line any of them chooses to follow.

Yes, but how to convince them of that this week, when their position is
"it's none of anyone's business what we are doing".

Post by Norman Wells
And such measures may exceed the value of the items themselves, which
of course is not in their best interests.

That's unlikely.

Post by Norman Wells
If they're determined to be silly about it, they will pay the price.

I'd rather they backed down, and there was no "price".

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2025-01-06 12:07:14 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
The three executors hold the entire estate in trust for the intended
beneficiaries. They have to act in the beneficiaries' best
interests, including of course making sure they get what they are
entitled to.
Chattels, unless specifically gifted in the Will, form part of the
residue of the estate and must be held in the residue beneficiaries'
best interests. So, it depends who the residue beneficiaries are.

Three executors, and others.

Post by Norman Wells
If they include the third executor, as seems likely, she must have
an equal say with the other two executors what happens to any
chattels, and all three must agree on any distribution of them.
Otherwise it's misappropriation from and maladministration of the
estate.

But what do you do if one (or two) of the executors are
distributing/ disposing chattels without that agreement?

You send them to executor school

That's sort of what I was expecting the solicitor on Xmas break to be
doing when he gets back.

Post by Norman Wells
where hopefully they will learn their legal responsibilities. If they
won't or can't, then they can be removed from their executorship by
the court.

Apparently that costs ~20k

They might be persuaded to back out in favour of just one, which would
be far more manageable, for far less than that, even for free. But
that's a matter for a relationship guidance counsellor, not for me.

I'm told they don't believe that it's maladministration, and the third
executor should STFU.

The third executor is also a residue beneficiary. Why should she just
shut up if she or the other residue beneficiaries are not getting their
fair shares? In that case, it's her legal duty not to shut up but
ensure things are done correctly.

Post by Norman Wells
If they won't listen to a personal approach, a stiff solicitors'
letter might do the trick.

Just a chat perhaps, but he's been on holiday, dear Liza.

According to a previous post of yours, he was only retained 'to do the
paperwork', not advise generally or actually run the show which perhaps
he should, given the incompetence of those who are. So, why shouldn't
he be sunning himself somewhere nice?

Post by Norman Wells
Chattels need not be sold. They can with the agreement of all of
the executors be passed on as they are to those entitled to them.

I think they should be valued, so that each beneficiary gets their
fair share (even if only money and none of the actual chattels).

If the residue beneficiaries aren't objecting or don't think it's
worthwhile, then things should be left as they are, letting them all
argue about it and upset each other in private.

That might be an idea, if some of them handn't been sold or thrown away
by now.

If some have been sold, the proceeds undoubtedly belong to the estate,
and those who sold them need to be held to account.

Throwing some away is acceptable provided all the executors agree and
are acting in the best interests of the residue beneficiaries.

Post by Norman Wells
Normally, chattels are of relatively low value, and the best
resolution is for the residue beneficiaries to agree amongst
themselves, even with a bit of resentment, who should have what.

I agree, as long as the chattels are still present.

Post by Norman Wells
The expense of valuation

What sort of values are we talking about *here*, not in any other case?

Yes, but how to convince them of that this week, when their position is
"it's none of anyone's business what we are doing".

Post by Norman Wells
And such measures may exceed the value of the items themselves, which
of course is not in their best interests.

That's unlikely.

Post by Norman Wells
If they're determined to be silly about it, they will pay the price.

I'd rather they backed down, and there was no "price".

Then they have to be persuaded of the error of their ways, maybe by
expanding the solicitor's 'just paperwork' brief to include telling them
what's what.

What you're implying is that two of the executors are conspiring to
defraud the estate and the residue beneficiaries of monies to which they
are entitled. That's completely unacceptable, and the third executor
must not join that illegal conspiracy or she too will be guilty of that
criminal offence.

If the two executors who are doing this can't be convinced of their
misdemeanours, maybe legal action is the only option.

Roland Perry

2025-01-06 13:32:18 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
The three executors hold the entire estate in trust for the
intended beneficiaries. They have to act in the beneficiaries'
best interests, including of course making sure they get what
they are entitled to.
Chattels, unless specifically gifted in the Will, form part of the
residue of the estate and must be held in the residue
beneficiaries' best interests. So, it depends who the residue
beneficiaries are.

Three executors, and others.

Post by Norman Wells
If they include the third executor, as seems likely, she must have
an equal say with the other two executors what happens to any
chattels, and all three must agree on any distribution of them.
Otherwise it's misappropriation from and maladministration of the estate.

But what do you do if one (or two) of the executors are
distributing/ disposing chattels without that agreement?

You send them to executor school

That's sort of what I was expecting the solicitor on Xmas break to
be doing when he gets back.

Post by Norman Wells
where hopefully they will learn their legal responsibilities. If
they won't or can't, then they can be removed from their
executorship by the court.

Apparently that costs ~20k

The problem is the relationships have reportedly already broken down.

I'm told they don't believe that it's maladministration, and the
third executor should STFU.

The third executor is also a residue beneficiary. Why should she just
shut up if she or the other residue beneficiaries are not getting their
fair shares?

In the short term because it inflames the relationship with the first
and second executors.

Post by Norman Wells
In that case, it's her legal duty not to shut up but ensure things are
done correctly.

I agree, but short of, for example, double-locking the premises (which
will inflame things even more) in the short term it's better to use
whatever avenues are still available for peaceful persuasion.

Post by Norman Wells
If they won't listen to a personal approach, a stiff solicitors'
letter might do the trick.

Just a chat perhaps, but he's been on holiday, dear Liza.

According to a previous post of yours, he was only retained 'to do the
paperwork', not advise generally or actually run the show which perhaps
he should, given the incompetence of those who are.

He could advise #3 on how best to deal with #1 and #2

Post by Norman Wells
So, why shouldn't he be sunning himself somewhere nice?

Because of the things happening on a daily basis while away.

Post by Norman Wells
Chattels need not be sold. They can with the agreement of all of
the executors be passed on as they are to those entitled to them.

I think they should be valued, so that each beneficiary gets their
fair share (even if only money and none of the actual chattels).

If the residue beneficiaries aren't objecting or don't think it's
worthwhile, then things should be left as they are, letting them all
argue about it and upset each other in private.

That might be an idea, if some of them handn't been sold or thrown
away by now.

If some have been sold, the proceeds undoubtedly belong to the estate,
and those who sold them need to be held to account.

But how do you hold someone to account for things you don't even know
have been disposed of, or if you do know weren't valued first.

Post by Norman Wells
Throwing some away is acceptable provided all the executors agree and
are acting in the best interests of the residue beneficiaries.

Agreed, but we are miles away from any such consensus.

Post by Norman Wells
Normally, chattels are of relatively low value, and the best
resolution is for the residue beneficiaries to agree amongst
themselves, even with a bit of resentment, who should have what.

I agree, as long as the chattels are still present.

Post by Norman Wells
The expense of valuation

You can get a free valuation of a car from multiple sources, and as
for jewellery a friend got (in different circumstances) an engagement
ring professionally valued for about £150, and the answer was £5,500,
so not a huge outlay in comparison. Keeps the insurance company happy, too.

What sort of values are we talking about *here*, not in any other case?

Without a proper inventory, how can we tell? I suspect that for chattels
and contents of bank accounts and easily accessible investments, maybe
£40k.

Yes, but how to convince them of that this week, when their position
is "it's none of anyone's business what we are doing".

Post by Norman Wells
And such measures may exceed the value of the items themselves,
which of course is not in their best interests.

That's unlikely.

Post by Norman Wells
If they're determined to be silly about it, they will pay the price.

I'd rather they backed down, and there was no "price".

They don't see it as defrauding, they apparently believe it's their
right to act in the way they are.

Post by Norman Wells
That's completely unacceptable, and the third executor must not join
that illegal conspiracy or she too will be guilty of that criminal
offence.
If the two executors who are doing this can't be convinced of their
misdemeanours, maybe legal action is the only option.

--
Roland Perry

Norman Wells

2025-01-06 16:23:07 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
The three executors hold the entire estate in trust for the
intended beneficiaries. They have to act in the beneficiaries'
best interests, including of course making sure they get what
they are entitled to.
Chattels, unless specifically gifted in the Will, form part of the
residue of the estate and must be held in the residue
beneficiaries' best interests. So, it depends who the residue
beneficiaries are.

Three executors, and others.

Post by Norman Wells
If they include the third executor, as seems likely, she must have
an equal say with the other two executors what happens to any
chattels, and all three must agree on any distribution of them.
Otherwise it's misappropriation from and maladministration of the estate.

But what do you do if one (or two) of the executors are
distributing/ disposing chattels without that agreement?

You send them to executor school

That's sort of what I was expecting the solicitor on Xmas break to
be doing when he gets back.

Post by Norman Wells
where hopefully they will learn their legal responsibilities. If
they won't or can't, then they can be removed from their
executorship by the court.

Apparently that costs ~20k

The problem is the relationships have reportedly already broken down.

I'm told they don't believe that it's maladministration, and the
third executor should STFU.

The third executor is also a residue beneficiary. Why should she just
shut up if she or the other residue beneficiaries are not getting
their fair shares?

In the short term because it inflames the relationship with the first
and second executors.

Post by Norman Wells
In that case, it's her legal duty not to shut up but ensure things are
done correctly.

I agree, but short of, for example, double-locking the premises (which
will inflame things even more)

But which I think she is entitled, and maybe obliged, to do to secure
the estate against the fraud of which she has evidence.

The bullying of the other two has to be countered.

Post by Roland Perry
in the short term it's better to use
whatever avenues are still available for peaceful persuasion.

Which are? You just seem to ignore any suggestions.

Post by Norman Wells
If they won't listen to a personal approach, a stiff solicitors'
letter might do the trick.

Just a chat perhaps, but he's been on holiday, dear Liza.

According to a previous post of yours, he was only retained 'to do the
paperwork', not advise generally or actually run the show which
perhaps he should, given the incompetence of those who are.

He could advise #3 on how best to deal with #1 and #2

Post by Norman Wells
So, why shouldn't he be sunning himself somewhere nice?

Because of the things happening on a daily basis while away.

They're not his responsibility. His, as you've said, is to 'deal with
the paperwork'.

Post by Norman Wells
Chattels need not be sold. They can with the agreement of all of
the executors be passed on as they are to those entitled to them.

I think they should be valued, so that each beneficiary gets their
fair share (even if only money and none of the actual chattels).

If the residue beneficiaries aren't objecting or don't think it's
worthwhile, then things should be left as they are, letting them all
argue about it and upset each other in private.

That might be an idea, if some of them handn't been sold or thrown
away by now.

If some have been sold, the proceeds undoubtedly belong to the estate,
and those who sold them need to be held to account.

But how do you hold someone to account for things you don't even know
have been disposed of, or if you do know weren't valued first.

The third executor must have a good idea, I'd have thought. Otherwise,
why is she so suspicious?

Are we talking about valuables or just things of minimal, though
possibly sentimental, value?

Post by Norman Wells
Throwing some away is acceptable provided all the executors agree and
are acting in the best interests of the residue beneficiaries.

Agreed, but we are miles away from any such consensus.

Junk is trivial, and not worth dealing with except by house clearance or
throwing it away. The third executor should have been involved, but
does it really matter, apart from her hurt pride or unfulfilled
animosity towards the others, if she wasn't?

Post by Norman Wells
Normally, chattels are of relatively low value, and the best
resolution is for the residue beneficiaries to agree amongst
themselves, even with a bit of resentment, who should have what.

I agree, as long as the chattels are still present.

Post by Norman Wells
The expense of valuation

You can get a free valuation of a car from multiple sources, and as
for jewellery a friend got (in different circumstances) an
engagement ring professionally valued for about £150, and the answer
was £5,500, so not a huge outlay in comparison. Keeps the insurance
company happy, too.

What sort of values are we talking about *here*, not in any other case?

Without a proper inventory, how can we tell? I suspect that for chattels
and contents of bank accounts and easily accessible investments, maybe
£40k.

Well, we're not talking about the bank accounts or investments which
have presumably been frozen or passed on to any legitimate survivors,
and can't have been plundered. They are easily dealt with even if they
fraudulently have been because there will be paper trails. What we're
concerned with here are chattels. How much are they worth roughly, and
how much is suspected to have been purloined? What specifics are known?

Yes, but how to convince them of that this week, when their position
is "it's none of anyone's business what we are doing".

Post by Norman Wells
And such measures may exceed the value of the items themselves,
which of course is not in their best interests.

That's unlikely.

Post by Norman Wells
If they're determined to be silly about it, they will pay the price.

I'd rather they backed down, and there was no "price".

They don't see it as defrauding, they apparently believe it's their
right to act in the way they are.

Then it's the legal duty and responsibility of the only honest executor
to put a stop to it and obtain retribution, if necessary by recourse to
law. It's not acceptable just to turn a blind eye and thus become
complicit.

Peter Walker

2024-12-25 22:06:40 UTC

Post by Martin Brown
It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be
worth much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true
of IHT rules for complex international holdings with dual
nationality involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability
insurance for their client on them being right in law but there are
still plenty of edge cases where the consumer is severely
disadvantaged.

It is valid to point this out, but persons such as myself often post
legal issues here for interest and the possibility of something being
missed, even when we are also paying for legal advice on the same
question.

I wouldn't dream of consulting a so-called professional without carrying
out my own thorough research on the subject first from whatever sources.
It wouldn't be the first time I've had to explain the concept of various
pieces of legislation to a 'pro' that would have affected my personal
circumstances and the estates of others. In my own field and those of
others I've found some very 'average' pros.

To others (for trades or pros) I suggest creating a preferred shortlist
and contacting those on the list in reverse order of preference with a
view to approaching the favoutite last and in the most knowledgeable
position.

Post by Roland Perry
Here's a new one: A daughter has been looking after her aged mother,
and by verbal agreement only, there's a joint bank account which gets
topped up with "housekeeping money" to be spent on the mother (and her
bills).
The mother dies (not unexpectedly) and there's about £4k in that joint
account. Who does it belong to... Should it for example be turned over
to the solicitors to add to the estate, should it be frozen, can the
daughter continue to draw funds to pay some of the bills now owing to
the estate? Rinse and repeat when the dust has settled and there's
perhaps £3k in that account.

Non-resident and non-contributing daughter then it's clearly the property
of the estate. The joint account is in place only to aid the
administration of the household, not for the benefit of the daughter.

Roland Perry

2024-12-26 06:22:53 UTC

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Martin Brown
It is worth pointing out that free advice on the internet could be
worth much less than you have paid for it. This is particularly true
of IHT rules for complex international holdings with dual
nationality involved.
Paid for solicitors advice comes with professional liability
insurance for their client on them being right in law but there are
still plenty of edge cases where the consumer is severely
disadvantaged.

It is valid to point this out, but persons such as myself often post
legal issues here for interest and the possibility of something being
missed, even when we are also paying for legal advice on the same
question.

I wouldn't dream of consulting a so-called professional without carrying
out my own thorough research on the subject first from whatever sources.

That's right, and for many subjects this newsgroup is a better source of
inspiration than "random bloggers".

Post by Peter Walker
It wouldn't be the first time I've had to explain the concept of various
pieces of legislation to a 'pro' that would have affected my personal
circumstances and the estates of others. In my own field and those of
others I've found some very 'average' pros.

It's not just paper-pushing professionals. Someone I know had their
boiler serviced (which as we know can only be done by 'professionals')
and they bodged it, resulting in their heating failing completely the
following day. I'd have done a better job myself to begin with, except
I'm not allowed to.

Post by Peter Walker
To others (for trades or pros) I suggest creating a preferred shortlist
and contacting those on the list in reverse order of preference with a
view to approaching the favoutite last and in the most knowledgeable
position.

Non-resident and non-contributing

two very useful keywords

Post by Peter Walker
daughter then it's clearly the property of the estate. The joint
account is in place only to aid the administration of the household,
not for the benefit of the daughter.

Thanks for that insight. There might be a small hiccup if it turns out
the daughter was buying herself 'presents' with some of the money, but
once again that's arguably the administration of the present-giving role
of the household.

--
Roland Perry

Brian

2024-12-26 14:40:42 UTC