Distribution of the estate

Estate administration

For information about the administration of an estate leading up to the distribution assets (which is also part of the estate administration), see Overview: Estate administration—overview.

Probate involving vulnerable or disabled individuals

There are a number of scenarios in which a probate practitioner should consider making adjustments for disabled or vulnerable individuals who are involved in the administration of an estate, either as personal representatives (PRs) or beneficiaries, perhaps due to visual, communication or mobility issues. Such adjustments might include providing written advice in larger print, ensuring access and suitable parking for meetings, making home visits or arranging for a suitable translator.

As well as acting sensitively when dealing with, or having some responsibility for, a vulnerable person in relation to the administration of an estate, common sense is also required. It is not always simple to ascertain who may or may not be a vulnerable person. Nor are all disabilities visible. It is clear that a person may have a disability but not be classed as (nor wish to be treated as) vulnerable. Equally a vulnerable person may not have a recognised

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