Entitlement to the estate

Entitlement under a Will

Where the deceased left a valid Will, the executors must identify which beneficiaries are entitled to any specific property. Unless there is a contrary intention in the Will, then as to:

  1. identifying the property, the Will speaks and takes effect as if it had been executed immediately before the death of the testator

  2. identifying the beneficiaries, the Will speaks from the date of execution

A person may be disqualified from taking under a Will if:

  1. they have induced by undue influence or fraud the making of the gift to them

  2. by their criminal act they have caused the death of the testator

  3. they or their spouse or civil partner have witnessed the Will (subject to exceptions)

If a person lacks or is suspected to lack the capacity to deal with a legacy under a Will it might be wise to consider applying to the Court of Protection for the appointment of a deputy.

A beneficiary must survive the testator or fulfil a condition, if appropriate, in order to take a gift under that testator’s Will. If they

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 FA 2003, s 75A 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