Will drafting

Will drafting

Automated Wills

The Will and attorney maker (WAM) is designed to automate the following eight Lexis+® UK Wills Precedents:

•
to spouse absolutely, then to children absolutely
•
fully discretionary
•
to spouse on flexible life interest trust, remainder to children absolutely
•
to spouse absolutely, then on discretionary trust
•
nil rate band legacy on discretionary trust, residue to spouse on flexible life interest trust, remainder to own children absolutely
•
legacy of business property on discretionary trust, residue to spouse absolutely, then to children absolutely
•
individual, unmarried, no children
•
Will—unmarried, divorced, separated with children, no partner

For guidance on how to use the WAM, see Practice Note: WAM key features and FAQs.

Making a Will

When someone dies, it must be established whether they made a Will and whether that Will is valid.

Also, a Will is a key element of any individual's tax planning. Without a Will, the scope for mitigating inheritance tax (IHT) that would otherwise arise on death, is reduced.

While it is possible to alter the provisions of a Will or intestacy to improve

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Question of the week: If an executed deed of appointment under a trust is missing the name of the appointee (due to a clerical error) would the courts generally admit evidence of the intention of the appointors as an aid to construction of the document? Or would rectification be required?

This Q&A considers whether, if an executed deed of appointment under a trust is missing the name of the appointee (due to a clerical error) would the courts generally admit evidence of the intention of the appointors as an aid to construction of the document, or would rectification be required.

FTT considers late appeal applications (Stenhouse and another v HMRC; Abbey Healthcare (East Kilbride) Ltd and others v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Stenhouse and another v HMRC and Abbey Healthcare (East Kilbride) Ltd and others v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) allowed late appeal applications by the taxpayers against discovery assessments and closure notices, highlighting weaknesses in HMRC’s approach.

IHT not due on failed EBT Bonus scheme (Tonkin v HMRC)

Private Client analysis: This First-tier Tribunal case concerned whether an additional inheritance tax (IHT) charge arose under section 94 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) when a close company (wholly owned by the appellant, Ms Annette Tonkin) entered into an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangement designed to pay her a bonus. The Tribunal allowed Ms Tonkin's appeal. It held that s 94(2)(a) IHTA 1984 applied because the transfer was attributable to a payment taken into account for income tax purposes (ie employment income). Tax practitioners representing clients involved in historic EBTs or similar schemes should review this judgment closely when evaluating HMRC's grounds for imposing IHT liabilities. The decision may also be relevant in challenging other forms of hybrid enforcement where HMRC seeks to recover tax under multiple tax provisions for a single economic transaction. Written by Francis Hudson MA (Cantab), FCA, CTA, ATT (fellow), tax partner, MHA.

Contracts between family members—capacity—unjust enrichment (Rogers v Wills)

Private Client analysis: This case represents a rare example of the court finding that a contract existed between family members (in this case, an elderly mother and her adult daughter). By her claim, the claimant sought to be reimbursed from her mother’s estate for the care that she had provided to her mother during the last few years of her life. The judge provided guidance relating to capacity to enter into legal relations and commented on what, if any, impact the existence of a Lasting Power of Attorney may have on this issue. It was also a feature of the case that the claimant’s mother had been diagnosed with dementia, and so this is also featured in the court’s consideration of capacity. Finally, the claim was also advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment, and the judge provided detailed analysis of whether ‘free acceptance’ is a valid unjust factor. In this last respect, his decision departs from the recent decision of H&P Advisory Ltd v Barrick Gold (Holdings) Ltd in which Simon Gleeson (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) dismissed free acceptance as a free-standing unjust factor, as well as obiter observations of Lord Burrows in Barton v Morris. Written by Ben Haseldine, barrister at 4 King’s Bench Walk.