In answering this Q&A, research has been limited to the issue of whether the property referred to in the query can benefit from a second uplift for capital gains tax purposes on the death of W. It has also been assumed that W was the sole beneficiary of H’s estate, including the property. On the facts provided, the executors of H will not be able to benefit from a second capital gains tax (CGT) uplift

In this Q&A it has been assumed that the property is the principal private residence of the life tenant of the trust. Principal private residence relief Both the trustees and the life tenant may be able to claim principal private residence (PPR) relief in respect of gains arising from the sale of the property. In the case of the

In this case it appears as if the decision has been taken to appoint an additional trustee to ensure that overreaching of the beneficiary’s interest occurs on a sale of the land to a third party. This will occur when the proceeds of sale are paid to two trustees. It is not clear from the question whether or not this is in anticipation of a sale to a third party. In such a case, a buyer of land from trustees will not be affected by any of the trusts on which the land is held if the purchase price is paid to all the trustees (of whom there must be at least two)

While an estate is being administered, the ownership of the deceased's unadministered assets lies with the personal representatives (PRs) for the purposes of administration. No beneficiary in the meantime, whether under the deceased's Will or intestacy, has any proprietary interest in any particular asset comprised in the unadministered estate. However, in collecting in and realising the assets in the estate, the PRs should have regard to the wishes and needs of the beneficiaries and should consult with the beneficiaries

The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) affords the court wide powers to deal with trusts of land, including to make a declaration as to the beneficial ownership of the property, to regulate its occupation, to order a sale, and to conduct an equitable account of the dealings of the parties. The court’s powers are primarily contained in TOLATA 1996, s 14, with the court having regard in particular to the factors set out in TOLATA 1996, s 15 when determining whether to make an order. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) apply to TOLATA 1996 proceedings. There is a

Powers of the wife as attorney An attorney under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) has the authority to sell the property of the incapacitated person if the following conditions are satisfied: • the LPA for financial decisions has been registered with the Office of the Public Guardian • there is no restriction in the LPA indicating that the donor did not want his spouse to exercise the trustee functions in relation to the property • the sale is in the best interests of the incapacitated co-owner in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and the guidance contained in the MCA 2005 Code of Practice. See, generally: Lasting powers of attorney—overview The

Acquisition or appropriation of remainderman's interest Under the life interest trust, the life tenant would either be entitled to live in the property or receive the income from it. The first question envisages that the life tenant could acquire the remainderman’s interest in the property and so acquire an absolute interest. The remainderman will receive cash in exchange for their reversionary interest. If there is no express power in the Will trust for the trustees to alter the beneficial interests, the life tenant and remainderman can agree to vary their interests under the rule in Saunders v Vautier. This is possible if they are both of full age and have capacity. It is not possible if there are any minors

This Q&A has assumed that: • the husband and wife are the registered proprietors of the landlord’s title • the husband and wife hold the legal title on trust for themselves as beneficial joint tenants and there is no Form A restriction on the landlord’s registered title Where a deceased person had a claim but can no longer personally pursue it as a result of their death, their executors (or administrators after a grant of letters of administration) can bring proceedings in that capacity without adding as parties any of the beneficiaries of the Estate (CPR 19.10). Therefore,

This Q&A raises the problems which can arise when a relationship has broken down and the ownership of the couple’s jointly owned property needs to be resolved. What in theory should be a straightforward matter can quickly become complicated as each party adopts entrenched positions in respect of what may be the most valuable asset owned by the couple and which must now be divided to provide separate accommodation for each of them. Often the only way to resolve the matter is to sell the property on the open market so that

Loft extension In the absence of an express provision in the lease (which is rare), a landlord has an absolute right to refuse consent to alterations outside the demise. There are various remedies for the unauthorised loft extension which, may be available to the landlord and/or neighbouring leaseholder, including potentially trespass and/or nuisance—in respect of which, see: • Q&A: What remedies are available for a tenant whose neighbour

This Q&A raises the distinction between a company and its directors and the effect of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). The starting point is that a company has a separate identity and personality from its directors. A contract may be made by a company under its common seal or on its behalf by a person acting under its authority (CA 2006, s 43(1)). While it can only act through the decisions of its directors, they do so as agents for the company. The corollary of this is that the company rather than the directors have the liability under any contract into which it enters. While the directors may be called upon to enter into guarantees in respect of the company’s performance of those obligations, their liability will only flow from that separate contract rather than

In this Q&A, the husband and wife own the property 100% as between themselves and are UK resident. The company does not presently have a share in the property. SDLT If a loan was made by the company to the husband and wife, and that loan is satisfied by the company in return for receiving an undivided share of the property (effected by the husband and wife declaring a trust in respect of the property in favour of themselves and the company in specified undivided shares), then the acquisition of that interest by the company would be a land transaction for the purposes of stamp duty land tax (SDLT). There is no doubt that the interest