The higher rates will apply to the purchase of a major interest in a single dwelling by an individual, if at the end of the day of purchase, Conditions A to D are met : • Condition A—the chargeable consideration is £40,000 or more • Condition B—the dwelling is not subject to a lease which has more than 21 years to run on the date of purchase • Condition C—the purchaser owns an interest in another dwelling which has a market value of £40,000 or more and is not subject to a lease which has more than 21 years to run at the date of purchase of the new dwelling, and • Condition D—the dwelling being purchased is not replacing the purchaser’s only or main residence (Paragraph 3 of Schedule

Under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833, during any period of statutory holiday a worker is entitled to be paid at the rate of a ‘week’s pay’ for each week of holiday. WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833, reg 16 provides that sections 221–224 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), apply for the purposes of calculating a week’s pay for each week of holiday. For further information about holiday pay, generally, see Practice Note: Holiday pay. The provisions of ERA 1996 in this regard, although referring to ‘employee’, must be read as also applying to anyone with the status of ‘worker’ (WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833, regs 16(3)(a)–(b)), and, obviously, no statutory cap applies. These provisions stipulate that different methods of calculating a week’s pay apply, depending on the pattern of the working hours of the employee concerned—in particular, whether the employee

The residence nil rate band The residence nil rate band (RNRB) is a main residence nil rate band which is additional to the nil rate band of £325,000. It applies if the deceased’s interest in a residential property, which is included in their estate and has been their residence at some point, is left to one or more direct descendants on death. Direct descendants means children (including adopted, foster or step-children) or their lineal descendants and includes the spouses of those persons. See generally Practice Note: IHT—residence nil rate band. The current RNRB threshold is £175,000, which has remained fixed since the tax year 2020–21 and is set to remain fixed until at least the tax year 2029–30. Following this,

Conditions for the residence nil rate band to apply The residence nil rate band (RNRB) is an addition to the basic nil rate band (NRB), which further reduces the inheritance tax (IHT) payable on death. It is applied to the taxable value of the estate, but differs from the basic NRB in that it is restricted to: • the value of a residential property interest • the estate on death, and • the inheritance of lineal descendants Sections 8H(2)–(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) defines a 'qualifying residential interest' (QRI). The main condition is that the deceased must have had an interest in a property which was occupied as that person's residence when they owned it and which would have been part of their estate. Note that it is not necessary for the property to be a residence of the

Landowners will sometimes enter into an agreement with a promoter under which the promoter will apply for planning permission for development of a site and find a buyer for the site. The promoter may pay an up front fee to the landowner as consideration for the landowner entering into the agreement. The purpose of this fee is to secure the landowner’s commitment to the arrangement. The promoter is often paid a percentage of any sale proceeds once the land

While inheritance tax (IHT) on death generally becomes due six months after the end of the month in which the individual died, certain property may qualify for the ‘instalment option’ under sections 227 and 228 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984). This includes land of any description and more generally, any assets shown in Form IHT400, column B on pages 7 and 8, provided they have not been sold. These provisions have the effect that the IHT attributable to the qualifying property can be deferred and paid in ten equal annual instalments.

The general position is that, unless there is a specific agreement to the contrary, an employer will own any intellectual property (IP) that an employee creates: • in the course of the normal duties of their employment or when undertaking duties that have been specifically assigned to them • as long as an invention might reasonably be expected to result from carrying out the duties Where the nature of the employee's job puts them under a special obligation to further their employer's interests, the employer will own any IP the employee creates in the course of their duties at work, regardless of whether it might reasonably have been expected to result from the work. Where the employee is senior, the duty of fidelity means that they should disclose the existence of such material to the employer in order to allow

As a general rule, transfers of assets, in a tax year, between spouses or civil partners who are living together in any part of that year are regarded as made on a 'no gain/no loss' basis (section 58 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992)). Where either spouse or civil partner is non-UK resident, but they are still considered to be 'living together', it appears that the no gain/no loss treatment is still available. See: HMRC Capital

Private Client analysis: Section 35 Administration of Estates Act 1925 (AEA 1925) provides that where property is charged with the payment of money then, subject to any contrary intention, the deceased’s interest is primarily liable for payment of the charge, so payment of the debt does not fall upon the residue of the estate. What, though, if the property charged is held as joint tenants? Does AEA 1925, section 35 operate to place the obligation to discharge the charge on the survivor? In Audrey Flowers v Bria Scavella the Privy Council decided, with reference to an essentially identical provision in the Bahamas, that AEA 1925, s 35 does not apply. The consequence is that the liability will fall on the residue, subject to any agreement or other obligation as between the two joint tenants. Written by Richard Dew, Barrister at Ten Old Square.

Where a dispute or claim arises in respect of an employee who works wholly or partly abroad and/or has a foreign employer, two questions will need to be determined: • what are the employee’s rights? • where should any litigation that may ultimately arise be adjudicated? In determining these questions, three main issues arise: • applicable law, ie which system of law is applicable to the contract of employment under consideration? • international jurisdiction, ie whose courts and/or tribunals should decide the case? • the territorial scope of relevant applicable or mandatory law, ie how the courts and employment tribunals decide what statutory rights (if any) the employee has The tests for determining applicable law, mandatory law and jurisdiction are different. For information: • on which system of law is applicable to the contract of employment or employment relationship under consideration,

Leaseholders of flats, where the lease is for a term of more than 21 years when it is first granted, usually have a right to request a lease extension for an additional 90 years at a peppercorn rent under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993). Where a new (extended) lease has been granted under LRHUDA 1993, s 56, the landlord

By mixed use, it is understood that the lease is one where the greater part of the premises is adapted or at any rate intended to be used for the purposes of a business, while a smaller part has a residential flat or similar arrangement. The exact answer will depend on the specific terms of the lease. The starting point is that at common law, there is not even a duty to ensure that unfurnished premises are fit for human habitation. In Cavalier v Pope, the House of Lords decided that: A landlord who lets a house in a dangerous state is not liable to the tenant's customers or guests for accidents happening during the term: for, fraud apart, there is no law against letting a tumble-down house; and the tenant's remedy is upon his contract, if any. As the Court of Appeal noted in McNerny v Lambeth LBC,