Administration actions

Administration actions—personal representatives and the deceased's liabilities

During their lifetime a testator will enter into any number of obligations to third parties. As it is not usually possible to know precisely when you are going to die it is generally the case that a number of those obligations remain to be performed after death. The personal representatives will take the positive assets of the estate but these will be subject to the negative obligations. However, not all those obligations will fall to be concluded by the personal representatives.

Commonly found obligations are:

  1. personal contracts—these will generally cease on the death of one of the parties but there are exceptions to this rule

  2. taxation liabilities

  3. Will contracts and promises—while the promise of a gift is not effective unless made by deed, or delivered, the absence of either or both of these conditions may not be fatal

  4. partnerships obligations

There may be additional hidden liabilities such as personal guarantees, subsisting claims, company obligations and obligations as a result of Lloyds syndicate membership.

See Practice Note: Administration actions—personal representatives and the deceased's liabilities.

Administration actions—personal representatives

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents