Failure of gifts

Gifts left by Will can fail for a number of reasons, such as the asset being gifted no longer belonging to the testator at the date of death or where a recipient predeceases a testator.

Failure of gifts—ademption

A specific legacy in a Will fails (adeems) if the testator no longer owns the particular asset when they die. The personal representatives (PRs) must consider whether any of the gifts in the testator's Will have adeemed. This may be:

  1. by a subsequent disposition by the testator of the subject matter of the gift

  2. by a change in the ownership or nature of the property

  3. by the presumption that the testator does not intend to provide double portions for their children or other persons to whom they stand in loco parentis.

A distinction is drawn between specific, demonstrative and general legacies. A specific gift may be adeemed by its subject matter:

  1. ceasing to be part of the testator's estate

  2. ceasing to be subject to their right of disposition

A gift may be adeemed by the testator's own disposition of it,

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