Problems during the administration

Death abroad

Where an individual has died on a service vessel offshore or among service personnel or their families overseas, the death should be registered by the relevant service department and then with the relevant local authorities.

Otherwise, where a death has occurred abroad:

  1. the death must be registered in the country and area concerned

  2. the doctor’s medical certificate of the cause of death obtained, and

  3. a legal death certificate must be obtained

There are also various specific requirements where the deceased’s body is to be repatriated.

For more information, see Practice Note: Death abroad.

Checking the validity of a Will

There are some common scenarios where a practitioner will be asked to check the validity of a Will after the testator’s death: often when instructed by the executors to prepare the application for probate and act in the estate administration, when acting for an individual who may seek to challenge the validity of the Will or when acting for a beneficiary who simply seeks confirmation as to the Will’s effect (assuming they have access to a copy). Even where the

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