Personal representatives

Definition of a personal representative

Executors and administrators of deceased estates are collectively referred to as personal representatives (PRs).

An executor is a person appointed by a valid Will or codicil to administer the testator’s property and carry out the provisions of the Will. If the deceased left a Will but there is no executor able or willing to act then an administrator may take a grant of letters of administration with Will annexed. A simple grant of letters of administration is required where the deceased did not leave a Will, often where they died fully intestate. Again it will be an administrator who is appointed as PR in that case.

A testator is free to appoint anyone as an executor in their Will. If there is no valid appointment of an executor then any person who is entitled under rules 20 or 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, SI 1987/2024 (NCPR 1987) may apply for a grant of letters of administration (with Will annexed) or if there is no Will, a simple grant of letters of administration.

Where a person deals with matters relating to a deceased

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