Refine By
Clear all filter
About 90774 results for "*"
A development company has sold 21 units on a development by granting long leases and is to retain six further units on the development. The development company will transfer the six units to a connected company for a nominal amount and then transfer the freehold of all units to a management company that is also connected to it. Is stamp duty land tax charged on the market value of the units and will the transactions be linked transactions?
Q&As
When a company acquires property from a connected person, stamp duty land tax (SDLT) is generally charged by reference to the market value of the property acquired (rather than the chargeable consideration) unless an exception or a relief applies. Where there is: • a land transaction between a vendor and a purchaser which is a company • the vendor and purchaser are connected (connected for these purposes is set out in section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (CTA 2010)), or • all or part of the consideration for the land transaction
A development site is made up of two parts—one larger part where the main development (for example a block of flats) will take place and a second smaller adjoining piece of land where a single garage will be built. The larger piece of land is owned by the developer and the smaller piece of land is owned by a third party. If the developer accepts responsibility for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liability for the whole development, what would happen if the developer became insolvent and had not paid the CIL liability? Is there a risk that the third party could become liable for the whole of the CIL liability on the developer's insolvency?
Q&As
Stop press:The Levelling up and Regeneration Act 2023 received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. This content is currently being reviewed in accordance with the Act. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced by section 205 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) and came into force in 2010. It allows local authorities to raise a charge
A died 10 years ago. His executors are only now dealing with his estate. A’s Will leaves legacies of £4,000 to each executor. The residue passes to A’s surviving spouse. The legacies to the executors have not been paid and the executors have now decided to disclaim the legacies. Had the executors made written disclaimers within two years of A’s death, we note that the legacies would have fallen into residue and spouse exemption would have been available given that the residue passes to A’s spouse. However, as more than two years have passed since A’s death, we note that the disclaimed legacies will be treated as potentially exempt transfers by the executors. Is this correct? Will the disclaimed legacies still use up some of A’s nil rate band?
Q&As
Is a disclaimer ten years after the deceased’s death by the executor/beneficiaries treated as a potentially exempt transfer and do the disclaimed legacies still use up some of the deceased’s nil rate band? The question This Q&A deals with the tax consequences of a disclaimer. The factual situation is that
A died and left a nil rate band discretionary trust within their Will. Their surviving spouse, B is the main residuary beneficiary to the estate. B would like the personal representatives of A's estate to constitute the nil rate band discretionary trust (NRBDT) by adding half the value of one of the couple's rental properties into the trust together with a third of the value of their other rental property, thereafter appointing out the NRBDT to their child, C. The properties were owned as tenants in common. The total value to be transferred into the NRBDT is £325,000. What are the relevant considerations? Does the transfer of the properties to the trustees attract stamp duty land tax? Is there chargeable consideration? What documentation would be required to transfer the property from the NRBDT to C?
Q&As
It is not clear what is the background to the ownership of the two properties nor whether it is proposed that the full value of A's interests in the two properties be transferred to the trustees of the nil rate band discretionary trust (NRBDT). The
A died appointing B as executor. A's beneficiaries are B and C in equal shares. C is a minor. B dies 18 months after A without administering A's estate or taking a Grant. D is the executor and sole beneficiary of B's estate. Can D administer A's estate as well as B's estate and if so, what type of grant will it be for A's estate? If not, who should administer A's estate?
Q&As
A has left a will appointing B as an executor, but B has died after A, but before taking a grant of probate in A’s estate. Therefore the chain of representation provided by section 7(1) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (AEA 1925) does not apply, but is broken by the failure of B to obtain a grant: see AEA 1925, s 7(3)(c), and Commentary: Chain or transmission of executorship: Tristram & Coote [4.70] and Circumstances in which chain is broken: Tristram & Coote [4.82]. Assuming B was the only executor appointed by A’s will, representation is therefore granted by way of letters
A died in 2011 leaving an estate worth £1.5m upon a life interest trust for his spouse B. B died in 2020 leaving a free estate worth £1.7m and with the life interest trust worth £1.7m. The total value of B’s taxable estate is therefore £3.4m. The life interest trust included a property which now passes to A’s direct descendants. Is the value of the life interest trust aggregated with the value of B’s free estate for the purposes of calculating the value of B’s estate for residential nil rate band (RNRB) purposes? If so, as the value exceeds £2.7m, we assume RNRB will not be available.
Q&As
We refer you to Practice Notes: IHT—residence nil rate band (see, in particular, section ‘Tapering provisions’) and IHT—residence nil rate band Q&As (see, in particular, section ‘Taper threshold’), which explain how the tapering provisions operate to reduce the available residential nil rate band (RNRB) for estates that exceed a threshold of £2m. You will see from these notes that, by virtue of sections 8D(1)(d)(5) and 49(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, the
A died leaving a right to reside in their property for three years for the benefit of their spouse, B. On the termination of the right to reside, the property is to pass to A's children, X and Y. B, X and Y are now entering into a deed of variation so that X and Y will each receive £150,000 and A's property will be transferred outright to B. There is insufficient cash in the estate to pay the £150,000 each to X and Y and so B will be paying most of these sums personally. Will section 142(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) still apply or is this caught by IHTA 1984, s 142(3)?
Q&As
The applicability of section 142(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) will be a matter of looking at all the facts and circumstances of the variation. IHTA 1984, s 142(3) states that, in order to qualify for relief under IHTA 1984, s 142(1), the variation must not be made for any consideration in money or money's worth, other than
A dies and leaves their estate to his children. A is the sole beneficiary of B's estate which is yet to be distributed. A’s estate is subject to inheritance tax and their executors would like to enter into a deed of variation for B’s estate so that the inheritance due to A does not fall into their estate but instead passes from B’s estate direct to A’s children. Can A’s executors enter into this deed of variation or would they need court approval on behalf of the minor’s as they are the ultimate beneficiaries of A’s estate?
Q&As
We have assumed that: • A and B were not married and so the transferable nil rate band is not available • B died less than two years ago Before answering the question, it is worth exploring how the proposed Deed of Variation will save IHT—if A and B were married then spouse exemption will apply and B’s available nil rate band will transfer to A’s estate in any event. Only if they were not married or there are transferable
A dies leaving a legacy of an investment portfolio to B. B subsequently dies before A's estate is administered. A's executors have now sold the investment portfolio and have transferred the net proceeds of sale to B's executors. A's executors have indicated to B's executors that B's estate will need to account for any capital gains arising on the investment portfolio from the date of A's death to the date of sale. Our view is that any capital gains relating to B's estate should only be calculated from the date of B's death, as B had a vested interest in the portfolio and so there would have been a tax free uplift on B's death. What is the CGT position?
Q&As
In the event of death, the property of a deceased person does not pass directly to the legatees or to the persons entitled thereto under the law of intestacy. It vests, along with the liabilities and obligations of the deceased which do not cease on death, in personal representatives (PRs) whose duty it is to administer the estate by collecting
A dies, appointing B and C as joint executors. Can B’s attorney under a lasting power of attorney (LPA) for property and financial affairs administer the estate of A on behalf of B, acting jointly with C? B is frail but still has capacity and the LPA is registered and active from the point of registration, not just on loss of capacity.
Q&As
As Practice Note: Definition of a personal representative explains, a Grant of Probate can only issue to an executor named in a Will. A Grant of Letters of Administration (with Will annexed) issues to someone who is not named an executor but who has a right to administer an estate, whether or not there is a Will. Both types of Grant cannot exist at the same time, unless the authority given by the two Grants is limited and exclusive. It seems unlikely this would happen without a court order which would require good reasons for splitting
A director, if not by name…(Aston Risk Management v Jones (Rev 1))
NEWS
Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has held that a director of a holding company became a de facto director of its subsidiary, with all the liability of a director, when they became significantly involved in the subsidiary’s affairs. Richard Burrows, partner, and Dominic Sedghi, head of knowledge, Macfarlanes, examine the case.
A director’s duty to account (Official Receiver v Haq)
NEWS
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held a director liable to account for various sums taken out of the company in the years preceding its compulsory liquidation. Given the absence of financial records and of evidence supporting the director’s explanation for the withdrawal of the funds, the court was entitled to infer that they had not been applied for a proper purpose. As to the director’s explanation that some of the payments represented remuneration, the court held that he was not entitled to rely on the Duomatic principle for the purpose of approving remuneration, as two of the bars to the application of the principle applied. Written by Bridget Williamson, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.