Cross-border estates

Death abroad

Where an individual has a connection with England and Wales, perhaps through nationality, residence, domicile or simply having assets here, but has died abroad such that it is a cross-border estate, practitioners may be asked to advise on the formalities regarding the registration of death and repatriation of the body. For information about the formalities that may be required where an individual has died abroad and the body is to be repatriated to the UK, see Practice Note: Death abroad.

Succession and administration

English law distinguishes between:

  1. the law governing the administration of a deceased individual's estate, and

  2. the law governing succession to the estate

In most civil law jurisdictions no such distinction exists between administration and succession of estates.

The English laws governing the administration of estates and matters of succession are concerned with whether or not the English court has jurisdiction and if it has, which country's law applies. For information about the English private international law as applicable to Private Client matters, see: Private client and private international law—overview.

English conflicts of law rules make a distinction between

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