Immediate steps following death

For helpful checklists dealing with the administration of estates, see Checklists: Estate administration—file checklist and Estate assets, liabilities and personal details—checklist.

For a precedent guide to give to clients explaining the immediate steps following a death, see Precedent: Immediate steps following a death—client guide.

Initial client meeting

The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) Standards and Regulations came into force on 25 November 2019.

The SRA Standards and Regulations set out the fundamental ethical and professional standards expected of all firms.

The SRA Standards and Regulations is available on the SRA’s website.

Additionally the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/692 require the practitioner to conduct preliminary checks on prospective new clients. These can be broken down as follows:

  1. conflicts of interest

  2. anti-money laundering

  3. client vulnerabilities

  4. credit checks

For further guidance, see:

  1. Practice Notes:

    1. Preparing for initial client meeting with personal representatives, and

    2. Preliminary checks on prospective new clients

  2. Precedents:

    1. Authority for firm to deal with creditors

    2. Beneficiary ID form, and

    3. Monthly Independent Review Form

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