Enduring powers of attorney

Although the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) effectively replaced the enduring power of attorney (EPA) with the lasting power of attorney (LPA), many EPAs still exist, a large number of which remain unused. They are still legal and effective documents and practitioners will need to use and register them for some time yet. For an introduction to EPAs, see Practice Note: EPAs—introduction.

Capacity to create or revoke an EPA

An EPA will only be valid if the donor had the requisite mental capacity at the date of execution of the power. If the donor did not have the requisite capacity at the time that the EPA was created, an objection may be entered to the registration of the EPA on the ground that the power is not valid as an EPA.

Capacity is not defined in the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 (EPAA 1985) but the leading case on the degree of capacity required to create an EPA is Re K; Re F [1988] 1 All ER 358, in which it was held that the following should

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

All in? Court confirms when a settlement is 'made' for the purposes of excluded property (Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA v The Commissioners for HMRC)

Private Client analysis: This case considered the meaning of 'relevant property' under the settlements regime of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) and, in particular, the time at which this definition is to be tested. The question arose as to whether the trustees of an offshore trust established by a non-UK domiciled settlor were subject to the UK settlements regime in respect of property added to the trust after the settlor became deemed domiciled in the UK, or whether they were exempt from such charges as the trust consisted solely of excluded property. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that whether trust property is excluded property is based on the status of the trust at the time that it was established, not at the time that the property in question was added to the settlement. As a result, the trust in this case did consist solely of excluded property and no inheritance tax (IHT) charges arose as a result of either the ten-year anniversary or capital distributions. The FTT was also asked to consider whether their jurisdiction was appellate, or supervisory only. The FTT held that, while their jurisdiction was supervisory, the questions raised by the trustees were relevant in establishing whether HMRC had acted reasonably and that the outcome (ie that the paid IHT should be refunded and that no further IHT was due) would be the same in either case. Written by Katherine Willmott, senior associate solicitor at Foot Anstey LLP.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents