Will drafting

Automated Wills

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

  1. to spouse absolutely, then to children absolutely

  2. fully discretionary

  3. to spouse on flexible life interest trust, remainder to children absolutely

  4. to spouse absolutely, then on discretionary trust

  5. nil rate band legacy on discretionary trust, residue to spouse on flexible life interest trust, remainder to own children absolutely

  6. legacy of business property on discretionary trust, residue to spouse absolutely, then to children absolutely

  7. individual, unmarried, no children

  8. 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.

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