Will overuled by judge
Discussion
I am currently dealing with my late Fathers estate. Not an easy process, if you have not done it before. Its interesting however, that applying for probate (to administer the estate and carry out the wishes in the will) is a couploe of pages. The tax papers, more than double that.
The state clearly takes its roll as potential thief, very seriously.
I have already taken the decision that over the coming years, my assets other than property will be converted into fluid non traceable forms. Including tranferring £3000 every year , into bank accounts in their names.
I also intend to investigate trusts and other methods to protect assets that I will leave which cannot be diguised. I worked like a
to build a successful life, and a comfortable financial scenario .
There is no way any pointy nosed freak is going to steal from my kids, or overturn my wishes after decease. As for those who do not beleive in inheritances, then thats your kids problem, but fk off and leave mine out of your stupid ideas.
The state clearly takes its roll as potential thief, very seriously.
I have already taken the decision that over the coming years, my assets other than property will be converted into fluid non traceable forms. Including tranferring £3000 every year , into bank accounts in their names.
I also intend to investigate trusts and other methods to protect assets that I will leave which cannot be diguised. I worked like a
to build a successful life, and a comfortable financial scenario .There is no way any pointy nosed freak is going to steal from my kids, or overturn my wishes after decease. As for those who do not beleive in inheritances, then thats your kids problem, but f
k off and leave mine out of your stupid ideas. REALIST123 said:
....
Just another case of the law interfering with a person's rights, rather than supporting them, for no better reason than "it's the law". No real surprise there, though.
I think this sums it up IMO.Just another case of the law interfering with a person's rights, rather than supporting them, for no better reason than "it's the law". No real surprise there, though.
Challenge is fine, but if no undue influence was placed on the person making the will, then the will should stand and the courts should keep out of it beyond that.
Whether it would/would not benefit the rest of the tax paying community matters not. Many people do many daft things with their money. If we start saying that they should all be prevented from doing so and instead that money should go to alleviating the benefits bill, or otherwise dispersed according to a judge's wishes, then we are on a very slippery slope.
In general - and not wishing to insult any parties who wish to be insulted regardless.
Decent families and decent offspring will meet the requirements of a pro-forma will where all assets of deceased parents will be distriuted pro-rata.
Only in extremis, will parents determine their will alternatively - and in these cases the 'law' may intervene to make amends where necessary.
End of.
Decent families and decent offspring will meet the requirements of a pro-forma will where all assets of deceased parents will be distriuted pro-rata.
Only in extremis, will parents determine their will alternatively - and in these cases the 'law' may intervene to make amends where necessary.
End of.
Cheese Mechanic said:
I have already taken the decision that over the coming years, my assets other than property will be converted into fluid non traceable forms. Including tranferring £3000 every year , into bank accounts in their names.
No need to pi55 about with the 3k, if you intend to live more than another 7 years you can gift them an unlimited amount IHT free.I can't understand why people don't understand that what's mine is none of theirs, or anyone else's, business. It's mine, and if I want to leave it to the royal lets fk off to Jupiter society and not my kids, then that's the way it's going to be.
As for inheritance tax, ps off, you had your cut, what's left is mine to do with as I please - see above.
k off to Jupiter society and not my kids, then that's the way it's going to be.As for inheritance tax, p
s off, you had your cut, what's left is mine to do with as I please - see above.mondeoman said:
I can't understand why people don't understand that what's mine is none of theirs, or anyone else's, business. It's mine, and if I want to leave it to the royal lets fk off to Jupiter society and not my kids, then that's the way it's going to be.
As for inheritance tax, ps off, you had your cut, what's left is mine to do with as I please - see above.
Single then? k off to Jupiter society and not my kids, then that's the way it's going to be.As for inheritance tax, p
s off, you had your cut, what's left is mine to do with as I please - see above.No offspring?
I understand - it's all yours!
Eric Mc said:
And did you see the reason why the mother disinherited the daughter?
She didn't marry a "suitable" husband.
The mother then left a large part of her estate to charities she had never supported in her life.
It does seem that spite was a major factor in how the mother allocated her estate.
Judges make judgments - it's their job.
But the fact of the matter is that the woman's wishes - however callous or spiteful they may seem - were ignored after her death. She chose not to bail her daughter out whilst alive, she chose not to bail her out when she was dead. If the will was written in sound mind then it should be executed as she desired.She didn't marry a "suitable" husband.
The mother then left a large part of her estate to charities she had never supported in her life.
It does seem that spite was a major factor in how the mother allocated her estate.
Judges make judgments - it's their job.
What happens when people find that their wills are likely to be ignored? What's the point in making one if a random judge who has no idea about you, your circumstances, family relations etc gets to decide where your money goes?
No matter what the woman's reasons, they were her reasons and it was her decision to make. She didn't give the money alive and didn't want to give it in death.
RobinOakapple said:
They aren't. It's the people who they leave the money to who are taxed, sorry, thought I had made that clear.
No they aren't. It's the estate that is taxed. You can split the estate between any number of people but it still only gets one IHT threshold. There's something to be said for getting rid of IHT all together and everyone in receipt of any inheritance just adding it to their income for tax purposes but that's a whole other can of worms...Funk said:
But the fact of the matter is that the woman's wishes - however callous or spiteful they may seem - were ignored after her death. She chose not to bail her daughter out whilst alive, she chose not to bail her out when she was dead. If the will was written in sound mind then it should be executed as she desired.
What happens when people find that their wills are likely to be ignored? What's the point in making one if a random judge who has no idea about you, your circumstances, family relations etc gets to decide where your money goes?
No matter what the woman's reasons, they were her reasons and it was her decision to make. She didn't give the money alive and didn't want to give it in death.
Do you honestly think it's as simple as that? What happens when people find that their wills are likely to be ignored? What's the point in making one if a random judge who has no idea about you, your circumstances, family relations etc gets to decide where your money goes?
No matter what the woman's reasons, they were her reasons and it was her decision to make. She didn't give the money alive and didn't want to give it in death.
Earlier in the thread it was pointed out that the father died while the daughter was still in the womb and the mother had a large payout from his employer. It seems to me that the information the court was privy to, and we aren't, might suggest that the father's wishes for his legacy were not being carried out by the mother.
Funk said:
But the fact of the matter is that the woman's wishes - however callous or spiteful they may seem - were ignored after her death. She chose not to bail her daughter out whilst alive, she chose not to bail her out when she was dead. If the will was written in sound mind then it should be executed as she desired.
What happens when people find that their wills are likely to be ignored? What's the point in making one if a random judge who has no idea about you, your circumstances, family relations etc gets to decide where your money goes?
No matter what the woman's reasons, they were her reasons and it was her decision to make. She didn't give the money alive and didn't want to give it in death.
Those are my thoughts. Also the judge only gets to hear the daughters side of the story.What happens when people find that their wills are likely to be ignored? What's the point in making one if a random judge who has no idea about you, your circumstances, family relations etc gets to decide where your money goes?
No matter what the woman's reasons, they were her reasons and it was her decision to make. She didn't give the money alive and didn't want to give it in death.
fblm said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
I have already taken the decision that over the coming years, my assets other than property will be converted into fluid non traceable forms. Including tranferring £3000 every year , into bank accounts in their names.
No need to pi55 about with the 3k, if you intend to live more than another 7 years you can gift them an unlimited amount IHT free.fblm said:
RobinOakapple said:
They aren't. It's the people who they leave the money to who are taxed, sorry, thought I had made that clear.
No they aren't. It's the estate that is taxed. You can split the estate between any number of people but it still only gets one IHT threshold. There's something to be said for getting rid of IHT all together and everyone in receipt of any inheritance just adding it to their income for tax purposes but that's a whole other can of worms...The money is being moved on, and whenever money passes from one person to another, unless it's a gift, the taxman is there wanting his share. So if you don't want the taxman to get his cut, either spend it or give it away well before you die.
Eric Mc said:
fblm said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
I have already taken the decision that over the coming years, my assets other than property will be converted into fluid non traceable forms. Including tranferring £3000 every year , into bank accounts in their names.
No need to pi55 about with the 3k, if you intend to live more than another 7 years you can gift them an unlimited amount IHT free.Ali G said:
In general - and not wishing to insult any parties who wish to be insulted regardless.
Decent families and decent offspring will meet the requirements of a pro-forma will where all assets of deceased parents will be distriuted pro-rata.
Only in extremis, will parents determine their will alternatively - and in these cases the 'law' may intervene to make amends where necessary.
End of.
in extremis generally means at the point of death, which is a bit late to be changing a will.Decent families and decent offspring will meet the requirements of a pro-forma will where all assets of deceased parents will be distriuted pro-rata.
Only in extremis, will parents determine their will alternatively - and in these cases the 'law' may intervene to make amends where necessary.
End of.
eccles said:
Eric Mc said:
fblm said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
I have already taken the decision that over the coming years, my assets other than property will be converted into fluid non traceable forms. Including tranferring £3000 every year , into bank accounts in their names.
No need to pi55 about with the 3k, if you intend to live more than another 7 years you can gift them an unlimited amount IHT free.If you are just hoarding it because you like looking at big numbers on your bank statements, well, then you are not being very proactive in your tax affairs.
toohangry said:
It seems to me that the information the court was privy to, and we aren't, might suggest that the father's wishes for his legacy were not being carried out by the mother.
Insane logic. We've all read the snippets of news and I think we're qualified to angrily say whether the judge was wrong or not.REALIST123 said:
....
Just another case of the law interfering with a person's rights, rather than supporting them, for no better reason than "it's the law". No real surprise there, though.
For someone called "Realist", that's not, I suggest, a very realistic observation. Have a look at the judgment. There's a link to it on page 1 of this thread. The judgment is not very long and is written in plain English. There were specific reasons, particular to the case, for the decision. It was nothing to do with "just because". It is rare for a court to alter a will, but it happens in a few cases which people who are trained and paid to decide (amongst other things) what is and is not exceptional decide to be exceptional. Just another case of the law interfering with a person's rights, rather than supporting them, for no better reason than "it's the law". No real surprise there, though.
Right, I read the judgement (as well as all of this thread so far) and I still don't get it.
I have some questions that may be easy for someone fluent in legalese unlike myself. I woundn't agree with a previous PHer who said it's in 'plain' english!
1. Why is it 'maintenance' and not 'inheritance' and what does maintenance mean in this instance?
2. The way I understand it is that the court will only award the daughter enough so that her various benefits are not stopped due to her suddenly having 'too much' money. Looking at it from another angle, what if there was no estrangement and she got all the estate as would usually happen? Presumably her benefits would stop then, and I doubt she'd be throwing the money back saying "No, no, I only want a little bit of it, take some back"
So, why is the fact that the daughter is on benefits even a consideration?
3. Why does the father's death money (for want of a nicer term) make a difference? Mrs Jackson continued to bring up her daughter until she left home at 17. I can kind of get my head around the court awarding her some money for that single year until she turned an adult, but not after that point. After that, Mrs Jackson's responsibility to her daughter ended, so why must provision be made for her once she became an adult?
I have some questions that may be easy for someone fluent in legalese unlike myself. I woundn't agree with a previous PHer who said it's in 'plain' english!
1. Why is it 'maintenance' and not 'inheritance' and what does maintenance mean in this instance?
2. The way I understand it is that the court will only award the daughter enough so that her various benefits are not stopped due to her suddenly having 'too much' money. Looking at it from another angle, what if there was no estrangement and she got all the estate as would usually happen? Presumably her benefits would stop then, and I doubt she'd be throwing the money back saying "No, no, I only want a little bit of it, take some back"
So, why is the fact that the daughter is on benefits even a consideration?
3. Why does the father's death money (for want of a nicer term) make a difference? Mrs Jackson continued to bring up her daughter until she left home at 17. I can kind of get my head around the court awarding her some money for that single year until she turned an adult, but not after that point. After that, Mrs Jackson's responsibility to her daughter ended, so why must provision be made for her once she became an adult?
As a taxpayer it's the right decision.
A nice chunk of benefits will be removed, the housing association gets some capital to re-invest in another house (I hope).
quote from the judgement - "the appellant received tax credits and benefits of £13,204 per year consisting of £8,112 tax credit, plus £5,092 housing and council tax benefit"
Taxpayer 1 - 0 Spiteful Mother
A nice chunk of benefits will be removed, the housing association gets some capital to re-invest in another house (I hope).
quote from the judgement - "the appellant received tax credits and benefits of £13,204 per year consisting of £8,112 tax credit, plus £5,092 housing and council tax benefit"
Taxpayer 1 - 0 Spiteful Mother
sugerbear said:
As a taxpayer it's the right decision.
A nice chunk of benefits will be removed, the housing association gets some capital to re-invest in another house (I hope).
quote from the judgement - "the appellant received tax credits and benefits of £13,204 per year consisting of £8,112 tax credit, plus £5,092 housing and council tax benefit"
Taxpayer 1 - 0 Spiteful Mother
You assume she will come off benefits I bet she doesnt. She has spent most of her lief on benefits from how I read it which is part of the reason here mother disowned her as she felt her husband was a waste of space who had no desire to work or earn what he has.A nice chunk of benefits will be removed, the housing association gets some capital to re-invest in another house (I hope).
quote from the judgement - "the appellant received tax credits and benefits of £13,204 per year consisting of £8,112 tax credit, plus £5,092 housing and council tax benefit"
Taxpayer 1 - 0 Spiteful Mother
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff