CGT

[Andy Burns]

Not directly related to any potential budget changes, but ...

A owned some agricultural land (believed to have been gifted by an
unknown friend U in their will)

A leaves it equally in his will to three offspring B, C and D

Value of land at time of A receiving it, or at time of A's death is
unknown (though I suspect tables of historical values per acre for the
grade of land could be referred to).

The land was on an agricultural tenancy to T, because of which, the land
was not sold during the lifetimes of B, C and D, instead they each
received 1/3 of the annual rental income.

Land was valued at time of D's death, and at time of B's death

Successor firm to A's solicitor still holds the deeds for the land

Upon T's death, 12 months notice to end the tenancy was given to T's
estate.

T has two offspring U and V, they did not claim any succession of the
tenancy, U wishes to buy the land.

B has two offspring G and H
C has two offspring I and J
D has one offspring K

G-K agree to sell the land to U

G-J are each entitled to 1/6 share
K is entitled to 1/3 share of the proceeds

How far back does CGT go?
Just to the G-K generation, also to the B-D generation, or all the way to A?

[Andy Burns]

an unknown friend U
T has two offspring U and V

bugger, the first "U" and second "U" are not the same person.

[David]

Post by Andy Burns
Not directly related to any potential budget changes, but ...
A owned some agricultural land (believed to have been gifted by an
unknown friend U in their will)
A leaves it equally in his will to three offspring B, C and D
Value of land at time of A receiving it, or at time of A's death is
unknown (though I suspect tables of historical values per acre for the
grade of land could be referred to).
The land was on an agricultural tenancy to T, because of which, the land
was not sold during the lifetimes of B, C and D, instead they each
received 1/3 of the annual rental income.
Land was valued at time of D's death, and at time of B's death
Successor firm to A's solicitor still holds the deeds for the land
Upon T's death, 12 months notice to end the tenancy was given to T's
estate.
T has two offspring U and V, they did not claim any succession of the
tenancy, U wishes to buy the land.
B has two offspring G and H
C has two offspring I and J
D has one offspring K
G-K agree to sell the land to U
G-J are each entitled to 1/6 share
K is entitled to 1/3 share of the proceeds
How far back does CGT go?
Just to the G-K generation, also to the B-D generation, or all the way to A?

This is more of an IHT question rather than CGT.

[Andy Burns]

Not directly related to any potential budget changes, but ...>>
A owned some agricultural land
This is more of an IHT question rather than CGT.

No, all below IHT threshold of each estate involved.

I'm worried about the timescale involved (nearly 30 years between A's
death and sale of the land) causing it to "bypass" the intervening
generation who were intended to inherit it. Is there any liability
there? I think there's no taxable gain for assets not sold during their
lifetime, but there is a taxable gain to each of the estates after their
deaths to when the sale takes place?

The gain in the current generation should be low as there hasn't been
much time between each of their parents' deaths and the sale, so likely
not much gain.

[David]

Post by Andy Burns

Not directly related to any potential budget changes, but ...>>
A owned some agricultural land This is more of an IHT question rather
than CGT.

No, all below IHT threshold of each estate involved.
I'm worried about the timescale involved (nearly 30 years between A's
death and sale of the land) causing it to "bypass" the intervening
generation who were intended to inherit it.  Is there any liability
there?  I think there's no taxable gain for assets not sold during their
lifetime, but there is a taxable gain to each of the estates after their
deaths to when the sale takes place?
The gain in the current generation should be low as there hasn't been
much time between each of their parents' deaths and the sale, so likely
not much gain.
I think there's no taxable gain for assets not sold during their
lifetime,

It would be part of the estate(s) and IHT would be liable.

Post by Andy Burns
but there is a taxable gain to each of the estates after their
deaths to when the sale takes place?

If the sale takes place during the life of the current owner then CGT
applies.

[Andy Burns]

Post by David

Post by Andy Burns
I think there's no taxable gain for assets not sold during their
lifetime,

It would be part of the estate(s) and IHT would be liable.

As I've said, one of the estates are above the IHT threshold.

Post by David

Post by Andy Burns
but there is a taxable gain to each of the estates after their
deaths to when the sale takes place?

If the sale takes place during the life of the current owner then CGT
applies.

The land is still owned by the estate of "A", it hasn't been sold or
assented since 1995.

If it's sold now, there could be considerable gain, but "B" who was the
executor for "A" is dead, and no paperwork other than he will and grant
of probate remains ... although I do have a grant de bonis non for "B",
so perhaps I can act as "executor part two" for A after all ...

[Andy Burns]

Post by David
It would be part of the estate(s) and IHT would be liable.

As I've said, of the estates are above the IHT threshold.

^^^^
none

[David]

Post by Andy Burns

 > I think there's no taxable gain for assets not sold during their
 > lifetime,
It would be part of the estate(s) and IHT would be liable.

As I've said, one of the estates are above the IHT threshold.

 > but there is a taxable gain to each of the estates after their
 > deaths to when the sale takes place?
If the sale takes place during the life of the current owner then CGT
applies.

The land is still owned by the estate of "A", it hasn't been sold or
assented since 1995.
If it's sold now, there could be considerable gain, but "B" who was the
executor for "A" is dead, and no paperwork other than he will and grant
of probate remains ... although I do have a grant de bonis non for "B",
so perhaps I can act as "executor part two" for A after all ...

So who now actually owns the property in the eyes of Land Registry
and/or HMRC?

Given that the title/deeds are still in the hands of the successor
solicitor of "A", shouldn't your first call be to that solicitor?

[Andy Burns]

Post by David

Post by Andy Burns
The land is still owned by the estate of "A", it hasn't been sold or
assented since 1995.

So who now actually owns the property in the eyes of Land Registry

It's unregistered, so the LR don't know anything of the owner.

Post by David
and/or HMRC?

As far as I know, still A's estate, possession of the deeds equates to
ownership?

Post by David
Given that the title/deeds are still in the hands of the successor
solicitor of "A", shouldn't your first call be to that solicitor?

I've been speaking to them for a few years, ready for when this time
comes, since I am now "the elder" of the family (ha!) I don't want to
kick this can another generation down the road.

I've asked the solicitor holding the deeds if I can pay for an advice
session, but they don't want to, indeed from previous probate property
sales by them, their closing letters have the stock paragraph

"From the information provided I have identified that this could
be a sale where the new rules on reporting and paying CGT on
the sale of a residential property within 60 days of completion
might apply. Generally we do not advise on Capital Gains Tax
issues so if you need any more information please speak to your
accountant."

[David]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by David

Post by Andy Burns
The land is still owned by the estate of "A", it hasn't been sold or
assented since 1995.

So who now actually owns the property in the eyes of Land Registry

It's unregistered, so the LR don't know anything of the owner.

Post by David
and/or HMRC?

As far as I know, still A's estate, possession of the deeds equates to
ownership?

So what documents exist to prove that "A"s successors actually own the land?

Post by Andy Burns
 > Given that the title/deeds are still in the hands of the successor

Post by David
solicitor of "A", shouldn't your first call be to that solicitor?

I've been speaking to them for a few years, ready for when this time
comes, since I am now "the elder" of the family (ha!) I don't want to
kick this can another generation down the road.
I've asked the solicitor holding the deeds if I can pay for an advice
session, but they don't want to, indeed from previous probate property
sales by them, their closing letters have the stock paragraph
    "From the information provided I have identified that this could
    be a sale where the new rules on reporting and paying CGT on
    the sale of a residential property within 60 days of completion
    might apply. Generally we do not advise on Capital Gains Tax
    issues so if you need any more information please speak to your
    accountant."

Most solicitors will have an arrangement with an accountant or an
accountancy to provide advice on tax matters.

[Andy Burns]

Post by David
So what documents exist to prove that "A"s successors actually own the land?

Very little, other than the possessory Deeds which by their existence
and the lack of a land registry entry demonstrate no change of ownership
of the land.

A's Will which specifies all possessions to be sold and divided equally
to A's children but the existence of an agricultural tenancy* resulted
in non-sale of the land, there is a trail of rent payments to A's
successors.

Post by David
Most solicitors will have an arrangement with an accountant or an
accountancy to provide advice on tax matters.

I'm sure they will, they're not necessarily going to be convenient for
me to use, rather than a local one ... "A" used the traditional farmer's
method of bung loads of receipts in a shoebox and then dump it on the
accountant's reception desk.



[*] Pre-1995 agricultural tenancies hamstring the free-holder; if you
read one, they are phrased so you think you can give 12 months notice on
the anniversary date each year, but in practice you can't, you have to
wait until the tenant dies, and then see if their children (and in turn
grandchildren) exercise their right of succession.

<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/agricultural-tenancies#act-agricultural-tenancies>

[David]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by David
So what documents exist to prove that "A"s successors actually own the land?

Very little, other than the possessory Deeds which by their existence
and the lack of a land registry entry demonstrate no change of ownership
of the land.
A's Will which specifies all possessions to be sold and divided equally
to A's children but the existence of an agricultural tenancy* resulted
in non-sale of the land, there is a trail of rent payments to A's
successors.

You need to get the ownership documents regularised and registered with
the Land Registry. Without proof of ownership attributable to the
current owners, no solicitor will want to touch the sale of the
property. There have been a number of cases where individuals have tried
to sell a property which they didn't own, and the solicitor will want to
perform a due-diligence exercise.

Given that it now spans three generations, the solicitor probably want
want to do a genealogy trace to ensure all offspring (and possibly their
offspring) are included in the original "to be sold and divided equally
between all "A's" children".

It's going to be expensive and very time consuming.

Post by Andy Burns

Post by David
Most solicitors will have an arrangement with an accountant or an
accountancy to provide advice on tax matters.

I'm sure they will, they're not necessarily going to be convenient for
me to use, rather than a local one ... "A" used the traditional farmer's
method of bung loads of receipts in a shoebox and then dump it on the
accountant's reception desk.
[*] Pre-1995 agricultural tenancies hamstring the free-holder;  if you
read one, they are phrased so you think you can give 12 months notice on
the anniversary date each year, but in practice you can't, you have to
wait until the tenant dies, and then see if their children (and in turn
grandchildren) exercise their right of succession.
<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/agricultural-tenancies#act-agricultural-
tenancies>

[Andy Burns]

Post by David
You need to get the ownership documents regularised and registered with
the Land Registry.

I'd rather do that as part of selling the land, not as a precursor to
it, besides I expect there is no further source of information available
anywhere.

Post by David
Without proof of ownership attributable to the current owners, no
solicitor will want to touch the sale of the property.

I'd expect that from any solicitor *other* than the one (or the
successor thereof) that wrote and held the will and has the deeds.

The purchaser is the daughter of the tenant who was in place for more
that the 30 years that have been mentioned.

Post by David
There have been a number of cases where individuals have tried
to sell a property which they didn't own, and the solicitor will want to
perform a due-diligence exercise.
Given that it now spans three generations

I can't do anything about that.

Post by David
the solicitor probably want
want to do a genealogy trace to ensure all offspring (and possibly their
offspring) are included in the original "to be sold and divided equally
between all "A's" children".

The actual will names the three offspring, rather than saying "all of
them", and it used the expected mumbo-jumbo about what should happen if
certain people pre-decease "A".

Post by David
It's going to be expensive and very time consuming.

The existing solicitor have quoted £2.5-3k plus VAT and disbursements of
£30.

Nevertheless, I don't want to continue the "head in the sand" attitude
until the next generation starts dying off ...

It does feel as though it would be easier to meet the tenant's daughter
in a pub car-park and swap an envelope of deeds for an envelope of £50
notes.

[SH]

Post by Andy Burns

Not directly related to any potential budget changes, but ...>>
A owned some agricultural land This is more of an IHT question rather
than CGT.

No, all below IHT threshold of each estate involved.

I find that surprising given the explosive growth in the value of land
over the 30 years....

Applying for planning permission on agricultural land will boost its
value even more :-)

[Andy Burns]

Post by SH

Post by Andy Burns
below IHT threshold of each estate involved.

I find that surprising given the explosive growth in the value of land
over the 30 years....

It's a little over 6 acres, current value ~£35k
I don't know when it was gifted to "A", a look at the deeds ought to
tell when, there are several periods which would mean it had made a
loss, or relatively little gain.

<https://e.infogram.com/bb6a7806-2474-4ce2-8b93-730719232574?src=embed>

Post by SH
Applying for planning permission on agricultural land will boost its
value even more :-)

It's outside of residential development zones, but an uplift clause will
form part of the sale.

[SH]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by SH

Post by Andy Burns
below IHT threshold of each estate involved.

I find that surprising given the explosive growth in the value of land
over the 30 years....

It's a little over 6 acres, current value ~£35k
I don't know when it was gifted to "A", a look at the deeds ought to
tell when, there are several periods which would mean it had made a
loss, or relatively little gain.
<https://e.infogram.com/bb6a7806-2474-4ce2-8b93-730719232574?src=embed>

Post by SH
Applying for planning permission on agricultural land will boost its
value even more :-)

It's outside of residential development zones, but an uplift clause will
form part of the sale.

Aha, you've mentioned agricultural land.

If I understand CGT and IHT rules correctly:

1. Agricultural land that is passed on at death to heirs is exempt from
IHT as part of business relief rules.

2. When a death occurs, the Capital Gain from when that person
bought/acquired land to the date of death is wiped clean and so no CGT
arises. Otherwise double taxation would occur. The Captial gain is then
reset back to 0 for the next owner until they sell or it escapes CGT if
they die... IHT would also not be due either if passed on to heirs due
to rule 1 above.

So you might might there is no taxation to worry about?

However, that uplift clause could well attract a CGT as its profit made
at the point of sale?

[Andy Burns]

Post by SH
Aha, you've mentioned agricultural land.

I did from the initial post, but I accept that it's easy to overlook or
forget the odd word ...

Post by SH
1. Agricultural land that is passed on at death to heirs is exempt from
IHT as part of business relief rules.

I think you're correct, but IHT is not a concern as the values involved
are below thresholds.

Post by SH
2. When a death occurs, the Capital Gain from when that person bought/
acquired land to the date of death is wiped clean

That's also my understanding, it has the advantage that I don't need to
know when the land was gifted to "A", and obviously I do know when "A" died.

Post by SH
and so no CGT arises.
Otherwise double taxation would occur. The Captial gain is then reset
back to 0 for the next owner

And if the land had been sold at that point, none of the current hassle
would exist, my parents and aunts/uncles would have inherited extra
cash, but see agricultural tenancy info in my earlier reply to David.

I don't have any value for the land at the time of A's death, all I know
is the gross/net value of the whole estate from the grant of probate.
No other paperwork from sale of house, cash at bank etc exists.

Post by SH
until they sell or it escapes CGT if they die...

All three of A's children have died over the course of the past six years.

Post by SH
IHT would also not be due either if passed on to heirs due to
rule 1 above.
So you might might there is no taxation to worry about?

Certainly no IHT, but what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, is there
any CGT, and if so, where does that liability fall? On A's estate, the
estates of his children (all dead) or on his grandchildren (all living).

Post by SH
However, that uplift clause could well attract a CGT as its profit made
at the point of sale?

It will only bring any income if planning permission is granted in
future for residential/industrial development, CGT due at that point
would be fair game, and something of a windfall, but I doubt it will happen.

[LionelEdwards]

As a complete aside to all of this: few people (present
company excepted) are less organised than solicitors.
The idea that a solicitor (much less his successors),
might have archived 30yr old documents and still have
them to hand is optimistic. Archiving is expensive and
excuses (like talk), especially to people who are not
your clients, is cheap.

[Andy Burns]

Post by LionelEdwards
As a complete aside to all of this: few people (present
company excepted) are less organised than solicitors.
The idea that a solicitor (much less his successors),
might have archived 30yr old documents and still have
them to hand is optimistic.

True enough, having used a solicitor for conveyancing in 1990, I went
back to them in 2018 to get a quote for conveyancing ... the people had
changed, but the towering heaps of paper, probably even the carpets and
wallpaper looked unchanged!

Post by LionelEdwards
Archiving is expensive and
excuses (like talk), especially to people who are not
your clients, is cheap.

I haven't seen any actual papers yet, just confirmation of an entry with
the correct name in their index of documents they "should have" ...

[LionelEdwards]

Post by Andy Burns
Not directly related to any potential budget changes, but ...
A owned some agricultural land (believed to have been gifted by an
unknown friend U in their will)
A leaves it equally in his will to three offspring B, C and D
Value of land at time of A receiving it, or at time of A's death is
unknown (though I suspect tables of historical values per acre for the
grade of land could be referred to).
The land was on an agricultural tenancy to T, because of which, the land
was not sold during the lifetimes of B, C and D, instead they each
received 1/3 of the annual rental income.
Land was valued at time of D's death, and at time of B's death
Successor firm to A's solicitor still holds the deeds for the land
Upon T's death, 12 months notice to end the tenancy was given to T's
estate.
T has two offspring U and V, they did not claim any succession of the
tenancy, U wishes to buy the land.
B has two offspring G and H
C has two offspring I and J
D has one offspring K
G-K agree to sell the land to U
G-J are each entitled to 1/6 share
K is entitled to 1/3 share of the proceeds
How far back does CGT go?
Just to the G-K generation, also to the B-D generation, or all the way to A?

You have written "Successor firm to A's solicitor still
holds the deeds for the land". All deeds are nowadays
held by the Land Registry (whoever else believes they
might have the originals), so start by obtaining a copy
of the deeds - £18 or so?

[Andy Burns]

Post by LionelEdwards
You have written "Successor firm to A's solicitor still
holds the deeds for the land". All deeds are nowadays
held by the Land Registry (whoever else believes they
might have the originals), so start by obtaining a copy
of the deeds - £18 or so?

They're only held by the Land Registry if the property has been sold (or
voluntarily registered) in recent decades. My parents' house (purchased
in 1969 and sold this year) was also not registered.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Andy Burns

You have written "Successor firm to A's solicitor still holds the deeds
for the land". All deeds are nowadays held by the Land Registry
(whoever else believes they might have the originals), so start by
obtaining a copy of the deeds - £18 or so?

They're only held by the Land Registry if the property has been sold (or
voluntarily registered) in recent decades. My parents' house (purchased
in 1969 and sold this year) was also not registered.

AIUI there is a *lot* of land that the LR don't "know" about. If you can
arrange fpr it to be held in trust and never actually sell it, then it's
almost impossible to know who owns it.

Private Eye have long been noting that this is how a lot of shady money
is moved around.

[Andy Burns]

start by obtaining a copy of the deeds

The solicitors have confirmed they hold them, but I have not yet seen
them, getting a copy is on my list.

[Jethro_uk]

All deeds are nowadays held by the Land Registry

*All* deeds ? Or just the deeds the LR holds ?

[Peter Walker]

Post by Andy Burns
Not directly related to any potential budget changes, but ...
A owned some agricultural land (believed to have been gifted by an
unknown friend U in their will)
A leaves it equally in his will to three offspring B, C and D
Value of land at time of A receiving it, or at time of A's death is
unknown (though I suspect tables of historical values per acre for the
grade of land could be referred to).
The land was on an agricultural tenancy to T, because of which, the
land was not sold during the lifetimes of B, C and D, instead they
each received 1/3 of the annual rental income.
Land was valued at time of D's death, and at time of B's death
Successor firm to A's solicitor still holds the deeds for the land
Upon T's death, 12 months notice to end the tenancy was given to T's
estate.
T has two offspring U and V, they did not claim any succession of the
tenancy, U wishes to buy the land.
B has two offspring G and H
C has two offspring I and J
D has one offspring K
G-K agree to sell the land to U
G-J are each entitled to 1/6 share
K is entitled to 1/3 share of the proceeds
How far back does CGT go?
Just to the G-K generation, also to the B-D generation, or all the way to A?

Based on CGT becoming liable on realisable gains within an individual's
lifetime I can't see any liability to 'A' or their estate with any gain
being wound up by the estate which you have already confirmed as being
under the IHT threshold.

Without disposal in 'B' or 'D''s lifetime I can't see any further CGT
liability alhough you don't state whether 'C' is a current survivor.

The only realisable gain I can see is that between the estate valuations
at the death of 'B' & 'D' when the ownership passed to 'G'&'H' and 'K',
and potentially 'I'&'J' if 'C' is not a survivor. Any gains since the
valuations at death would give rise to a potential CGT liability which
the recipients will need to account for.

This is entirely an amateur view of the situation which I'm sure you have
already investigated, hopefully some postive reinforcement will aid you
in your search.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Peter Walker
Based on CGT becoming liable on realisable gains within an individual's
lifetime I can't see any liability to 'A' or their estate with any gain
being wound up by the estate

But can the estate be thought of as wound-up, given the land wasn't sold
or transferred?

Post by Peter Walker
which you have already confirmed as being
under the IHT threshold.
Without disposal in 'B' or 'D''s lifetime I can't see any further CGT
liability alhough you don't state whether 'C' is a current survivor.

All of B, C and D have died in recent years.

Post by Peter Walker
The only realisable gain I can see is that between the estate valuations
at the death of 'B' & 'D' when the ownership passed to 'G'&'H' and 'K',
and potentially 'I'&'J' if 'C' is not a survivor. Any gains since the
valuations at death would give rise to a potential CGT liability which
the recipients will need to account for.

If that's the way it works out, then at least there will be five lots of
CGT allowance

Post by Peter Walker
This is entirely an amateur view of the situation which I'm sure you have
already investigated, hopefully some postive reinforcement will aid you
in your search.

Thanks for your thoughts on it

[LionelEdwards]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Peter Walker
Based on CGT becoming liable on realisable gains within an individual's
lifetime I can't see any liability to 'A' or their estate with any gain
being wound up by the estate

But can the estate be thought of as wound-up, given the land wasn't sold
or transferred?

Post by Peter Walker
which you have already confirmed as being
under the IHT threshold.
Without disposal in 'B' or 'D''s lifetime I can't see any further CGT
liability alhough you don't state whether 'C' is a current survivor.

All of B, C and D have died in recent years.

Post by Peter Walker
The only realisable gain I can see is that between the estate valuations
at the death of 'B' & 'D' when the ownership passed to 'G'&'H' and 'K',
and potentially 'I'&'J' if 'C' is not a survivor. Any gains since the
valuations at death would give rise to a potential CGT liability which
the recipients will need to account for.

If that's the way it works out, then at least there will be five lots
of CGT allowance

There won't be any CGT - why would there be. Any IHT
will have been swallowed up by the six years time limit.

But how are they going to sell the land? What title can
they prove they have?

[Andy Burns]

Post by LionelEdwards
There won't be any CGT - why would there be. Any IHT
will have been swallowed up by the six years time limit.

Good thought, even if it's deemed "deliberate" there's a 20 year limit

<https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/compliance-handbook/ch51300>

Post by LionelEdwards
But how are they going to sell the land? What title can
they prove they have?

The Title Deeds; as far as I know for unregistered property they are all
the proof that exists?

[David]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Peter Walker
Based on CGT becoming liable on realisable gains within an individual's
lifetime I can't see any liability to 'A' or their estate with any gain
being wound up by the estate

But can the estate be thought of as wound-up, given the land wasn't sold
or transferred?

The estate hasn't been wound-up, the land still exists and hasn't been
sold or transferred.

You could argue that "A's" descendants simply administered "A's" estate.

[Andy Burns]

Post by David
The estate hasn't been wound-up, the land still exists and hasn't been
sold or transferred.
You could argue that "A's" descendants simply administered "A's" estate.

That is how I've always regarded it (well, since I became aware of the
situation.

For other reasons, I am the Administrator (by a Grant de Bonis Non) for
the person who was A's Executor, which I think provides me a route to
administer A's residual estate?

[David]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by David
The estate hasn't been wound-up, the land still exists and hasn't been
sold or transferred.
You could argue that "A's" descendants simply administered "A's" estate.

That is how I've always regarded it (well, since I became aware of the
situation.
For other reasons, I am the Administrator (by a Grant de Bonis Non) for
the person who was A's Executor, which I think provides me a route to
administer A's residual estate?

Do you have any document from the Probate Registry / Court of Probate to
substantiate that you are the Administrator and as such, have the
authority to transact the sale?

[Andy Burns]

Post by David
Do you have any document from the Probate Registry / Court of Probate to
substantiate that you are the Administrator and as such, have the
authority to transact the sale?

AIUI, a Grant of Probate is "inheritable" to an Administrator (but
Letters of Administration are not "inheritable" to an Administrator).

Because the spouse of "B" died during the administration of B's estate,
therefore I (as "G") applied for and received De Bonis Non Grant Letters
of Administration for "B".

Since "B" was the only Executor for "A", I think I have the right to
administer A's estate using the Grant of Probate issued to "B" for "A",
in conjunction with the Letters of Administration issued to me for "B".

The land in question (or more accurately 1/3 of it) was specifically
itemised on the Cap A5c form

[Andy Burns]

"A" owned some agricultural land (believed to have been gifted by an
unknown friend U in their will)

[...]

Post by Andy Burns
Successor firm to A's solicitor still holds the deeds for the land

I visited the solicitors today and copied all the related documents
going back to 1886

"U" died in 1962 and named "A" as his executor, probate was granted

As well as the agricultural land, the estate included two houses, of was
U's residence and sold in 1966, the other had a tenant and was sold in 1976.

The land was valued in 1962 at £470 for estate duty by the same estate
agent who still collects the rent today.

In 1982 "A" vested the land to himself