Contents of Wills

Executors, trustees and guardians—who are they?

An executor is the person appointed by the Will to administer the property of the testator. Failing to appoint one or more executors does not invalidate a Will; however, such an omission is inadvisable as it would result in a period after the death when no one is in control of the testator's estate and affairs. A testator may appoint any number of executors but probate will not be granted to more than four in respect of the same part of the deceased's estate.

When a client is considering appointing a solicitor or firm as executor(s) they must be provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision about the appointment and its related costs.

The court has power, if necessary, to remove a personal representative (PR) or all of the PRs and to appoint a person to act in their stead, either before or following the grant of representation.

Where a Will trust is to be created, it is, in general, convenient to appoint the same persons as both executors and trustees. The functions of executors and trustees are different

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