Missing persons and presumption of death

According to the charity Missing People, around 170,000 people are reported missing in the UK each year. A person who disappears is presumed to be alive until the contrary is declared. While the majority of those reported missing are located within days, approximately 3% of missing adults remain missing after a week.

Since October 2014, it has been possible to obtain a declaration of presumed death under the Presumption of Death Act 2013 (PDA 2013) once a person has not been known to be alive for a period of at least seven years. However, in the intervening period, in circumstances where the person is still believed to be alive or before they can be presumed to have died, there may be nobody with authority to deal with their property and financial affairs, which can have serious implications for the missing person and their dependents.

To resolve this problem, the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 (G(MP)A 2017) provides a statutory framework within England and Wales for a guardian to be appointed to deal with the missing person’s property and financial affairs.

This

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