Silly question about a solicitor writing a bad will
Discussion
The reason I think it's a silly question is because obviously the will was written on behalf of somebody who is no longer here and therefore cannot be asked why the will was written this way.
The issue with the will is that it does literally nothing to mitigate against inheritance tax, which I realise is probably not illegal/unlawful for want of a better word, but on more than one occasion the person who's will it is said they would do as much as possible to reduce any inheritance tax bill, yet, here we are with a will that does no such thing.
I'm not silly enough to believe that's anything like enough to make an official complaint over however, when combined with the fact that shortly after the death, a general conversation about the will was had with the solicitor that wrote it.
Around half this estate was formed from an inheritance received some 2 and a bit years earlier, upon which some inheritance tax was due. Now, the solicitor in this general conversation said there is nothing to be done about the inheritance tax amount, that 100% of the state is exposed and that was that.
However, since the executors are doing all the probate work themselves, it's come to light that because the 2 deaths were less than 3 years apart, you get a 60% rebate on the PREVIOUS inheritance tax bill. Again, not illegal or unlawful not to know that but it's a rather pertinent point given what they said about the whole IHT thing when asked and does rather cast doubt on the proficency of said solicitor to write a will reducing the inheritance tax bill if that's what they had been asked to do.
Pretty sure it's a case of "well, we weren't asked to minimise the IHT bill" and as I said, the person in question isn't here to refute that.
The issue with the will is that it does literally nothing to mitigate against inheritance tax, which I realise is probably not illegal/unlawful for want of a better word, but on more than one occasion the person who's will it is said they would do as much as possible to reduce any inheritance tax bill, yet, here we are with a will that does no such thing.
I'm not silly enough to believe that's anything like enough to make an official complaint over however, when combined with the fact that shortly after the death, a general conversation about the will was had with the solicitor that wrote it.
Around half this estate was formed from an inheritance received some 2 and a bit years earlier, upon which some inheritance tax was due. Now, the solicitor in this general conversation said there is nothing to be done about the inheritance tax amount, that 100% of the state is exposed and that was that.
However, since the executors are doing all the probate work themselves, it's come to light that because the 2 deaths were less than 3 years apart, you get a 60% rebate on the PREVIOUS inheritance tax bill. Again, not illegal or unlawful not to know that but it's a rather pertinent point given what they said about the whole IHT thing when asked and does rather cast doubt on the proficency of said solicitor to write a will reducing the inheritance tax bill if that's what they had been asked to do.
Pretty sure it's a case of "well, we weren't asked to minimise the IHT bill" and as I said, the person in question isn't here to refute that.
tenpenceshort said:
Serious question and not a dig; is it the job of a solicitor to reduce tax liabilities through design of the will, or the client and their own financial advice?
I genuinely don't know. I had assumed both, with maybe the solicitor taking the majority of the burden. This is why I've asked. 
I am sorting out wills and IHT 'awareness' right now for two relations of mine.
I've spoken to several solicitors about the wills. None of them even mentioned IHT and I didn't expect them to.
My accountant has given me some good IHT advice and I have done plenty of research myself.
I don't see why you think it's the Solicitor's job to advise you about IHT, particularly if they don't specialise in that area (and many don't).
The only reason a will could be described as "bad" is if it is poorly written so the wishes of the deceased are ambiguous or not stated.
I've spoken to several solicitors about the wills. None of them even mentioned IHT and I didn't expect them to.
My accountant has given me some good IHT advice and I have done plenty of research myself.
I don't see why you think it's the Solicitor's job to advise you about IHT, particularly if they don't specialise in that area (and many don't).
The only reason a will could be described as "bad" is if it is poorly written so the wishes of the deceased are ambiguous or not stated.
FurtiveFreddy said:
I am sorting out wills and IHT 'awareness' right now for two relations of mine.
I've spoken to several solicitors about the wills. None of them even mentioned IHT and I didn't expect them to.
My accountant has given me some good IHT advice and I have done plenty of research myself.
I don't see why you think it's the Solicitor's job to advise you about IHT, particularly if they don't specialise in that area (and many don't).
The only reason a will could be described as "bad" is if it is poorly written so the wishes of the deceased are ambiguous or not stated.
Well the deceased, like many people I suspect, didn't have an accountant or an IFA and probably thought the legal professional writing the will would maybe mention something about it, even if it were only along the lines of "you need to get some financial advice about this and then we'll write the will".I've spoken to several solicitors about the wills. None of them even mentioned IHT and I didn't expect them to.
My accountant has given me some good IHT advice and I have done plenty of research myself.
I don't see why you think it's the Solicitor's job to advise you about IHT, particularly if they don't specialise in that area (and many don't).
The only reason a will could be described as "bad" is if it is poorly written so the wishes of the deceased are ambiguous or not stated.
It depends what the deceased's instructions were: (a) write we a will to effect these dispositions; vs (b) give me tax planning advice and implement the advice in a will.
Plenty of solicitors who hold themselves out as competent to do (a) will baulk at (b), because (b) is a lot more specialised, and often requires that the will be reviewed annually to make sure it continues to do its job. Usually (b) will be undertaken by a solicitor and an accountant working together.
The issue arises if the client asks for (b) and the solicitor performs (a), without disclosing the limitations of his own ability/service.
The executors can always ask for the solicitor's file of correspondence etc with the deceased. Let them get to the bottom of what was asked for.
Plenty of solicitors who hold themselves out as competent to do (a) will baulk at (b), because (b) is a lot more specialised, and often requires that the will be reviewed annually to make sure it continues to do its job. Usually (b) will be undertaken by a solicitor and an accountant working together.
The issue arises if the client asks for (b) and the solicitor performs (a), without disclosing the limitations of his own ability/service.
The executors can always ask for the solicitor's file of correspondence etc with the deceased. Let them get to the bottom of what was asked for.
FurtiveFreddy said:
I am sorting out wills and IHT 'awareness' right now for two relations of mine.
I've spoken to several solicitors about the wills. None of them even mentioned IHT and I didn't expect them to.
My accountant has given me some good IHT advice and I have done plenty of research myself.
I don't see why you think it's the Solicitor's job to advise you about IHT, particularly if they don't specialise in that area (and many don't).
The only reason a will could be described as "bad" is if it is poorly written so the wishes of the deceased are ambiguous or not stated.
I think this falls in two parts - there are things solicitors should do regarding IHT - perhaps the prime example is to include outlive clauses between husband and wife so that in the event of both passing in say a car crash, one doesn't inherit from the other, only for that larger estate to then be subject to additional and subsequent IHT.I've spoken to several solicitors about the wills. None of them even mentioned IHT and I didn't expect them to.
My accountant has given me some good IHT advice and I have done plenty of research myself.
I don't see why you think it's the Solicitor's job to advise you about IHT, particularly if they don't specialise in that area (and many don't).
The only reason a will could be described as "bad" is if it is poorly written so the wishes of the deceased are ambiguous or not stated.
I think it should therefore be incumbent on a solicitor to understand the potential size of the estate and refer the client to professional advice as a duty of care if required. If its not their specialist area or beyond their usual scope they should qualify the advice needed and advise as part of their duty of care
Centurion07 said:
Well the deceased, like many people I suspect, didn't have an accountant or an IFA and probably thought the legal professional writing the will would maybe mention something about it, even if it were only along the lines of "you need to get some financial advice about this and then we'll write the will".
Yes, it is sadly true that a lot of people don't plan for IHT and/or don't check that proper wills are in place and regret it later.My relations would have made some big mistakes if I hadn't recently intervened and started helping them out. At least I can do something to ensure there will be some money left to care for them when it's required.
The current IHT system is pretty appalling IMO. The sooner it's overhauled the better. If it ever will be.
FurtiveFreddy said:
Yes, it is sadly true that a lot of people don't plan for IHT and/or don't check that proper wills are in place and regret it later.
My relations would have made some big mistakes if I hadn't recently intervened and started helping them out. At least I can do something to ensure there will be some money left to care for them when it's required.
The current IHT system is pretty appalling IMO. The sooner it's overhauled the better. If it ever will be.
Can you explain further? Why would IHT reduce the funds available for their care, it wouldn't be due until they die?My relations would have made some big mistakes if I hadn't recently intervened and started helping them out. At least I can do something to ensure there will be some money left to care for them when it's required.
The current IHT system is pretty appalling IMO. The sooner it's overhauled the better. If it ever will be.
REALIST123 said:
FurtiveFreddy said:
Yes, it is sadly true that a lot of people don't plan for IHT and/or don't check that proper wills are in place and regret it later.
My relations would have made some big mistakes if I hadn't recently intervened and started helping them out. At least I can do something to ensure there will be some money left to care for them when it's required.
The current IHT system is pretty appalling IMO. The sooner it's overhauled the better. If it ever will be.
Can you explain further? Why would IHT reduce the funds available for their care, it wouldn't be due until they die?My relations would have made some big mistakes if I hadn't recently intervened and started helping them out. At least I can do something to ensure there will be some money left to care for them when it's required.
The current IHT system is pretty appalling IMO. The sooner it's overhauled the better. If it ever will be.
FurtiveFreddy said:
REALIST123 said:
FurtiveFreddy said:
Yes, it is sadly true that a lot of people don't plan for IHT and/or don't check that proper wills are in place and regret it later.
My relations would have made some big mistakes if I hadn't recently intervened and started helping them out. At least I can do something to ensure there will be some money left to care for them when it's required.
The current IHT system is pretty appalling IMO. The sooner it's overhauled the better. If it ever will be.
Can you explain further? Why would IHT reduce the funds available for their care, it wouldn't be due until they die?My relations would have made some big mistakes if I hadn't recently intervened and started helping them out. At least I can do something to ensure there will be some money left to care for them when it's required.
The current IHT system is pretty appalling IMO. The sooner it's overhauled the better. If it ever will be.
I do agree that IHT is the most iniquitous tax. But, as you know there is lot that can be done to avoid it.
My situation may be unusual but I think as a general principle, as long as you understand what can and cannot be given away as gifts etc. and know about conditions such as the '7 year rule', you can make informed decisions now instead of reacting when the inevitable happens and then feeling short-changed by the unfair system we have to put up with.
FurtiveFreddy said:
My situation may be unusual but I think as a general principle, as long as you understand what can and cannot be given away as gifts etc. and know about conditions such as the '7 year rule', you can make informed decisions now instead of reacting when the inevitable happens and then feeling short-changed by the unfair system we have to put up with.
I would agree that that about sums it up. All the other 'schemes' that people talk about are all covered by the legislation, as far as I can see, and result in nothing more than evasion. Truth is, it's not that complex a piece of regulation, it just needs to be thought through and action taken.
OP, absent evidence of a failure by the solicitor carefully to follow instructions given by the client, there is nothing that can be done.
My own take on inheritance in all forms is that expecting to receive benefits from people dying is weird, and distorts our society a bit. Thus is a minority view, but I find the idea of fretting over what I might have been given by someone but wasn't given a bit odd. I recently advised on part of a case in which siblings have litigated in twelve separate jurisdictions for the last two decades over the estate left by their father (who wanted to leave it all to charity, anyway, but forgot to perfect his will before dying).
My own take on inheritance in all forms is that expecting to receive benefits from people dying is weird, and distorts our society a bit. Thus is a minority view, but I find the idea of fretting over what I might have been given by someone but wasn't given a bit odd. I recently advised on part of a case in which siblings have litigated in twelve separate jurisdictions for the last two decades over the estate left by their father (who wanted to leave it all to charity, anyway, but forgot to perfect his will before dying).
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 18th August 12:59
There are quite a few misunderstanding in things posted here, or at least things that no longer apply.
Firstly there is now the provision that the IHT allowance can transfer between spouses. So it is no longer necessary for wills to be complex between married couples to minimise IHT. Essentially if one leaves everything to the other the allowance (£325k right now) goes to them as well so their allowance becomes £650k on their death. So that's one whole area of IHT planning no longer needed.
Trusts are also misconstrued, their only real purpose is to prevent the beneficiaries having full access to them until conditions, usually age, are met. So the only real purpose is to bring forward the time at which you can give them the money to make it more likely the 7 year rule comes in. For example, set up a trust for a 10 year old, give that a chunk of money and the clock starts ticking such that if you survive 7 years it's out of your estate for IHT purposes. Generally better than giving a lot of money direct to a 10 year old or, depending on your health, waiting until they are 21 or whatever.
But donation to trusts, just like any donation, if they are to mean anything for IHT can't carry reservation of benefit. So you can't give your house to a trust, for example, keep living there rent free and expect that to be IHT free.
So essentially it isn't an avoidable tax unless you think that in the last 7 years of your life (and hopefully much longer) £325k (single) or £650k (married couple) is enough to live on, including the value of your house but excluding anything like annuities that will not pass on to others.
Firstly there is now the provision that the IHT allowance can transfer between spouses. So it is no longer necessary for wills to be complex between married couples to minimise IHT. Essentially if one leaves everything to the other the allowance (£325k right now) goes to them as well so their allowance becomes £650k on their death. So that's one whole area of IHT planning no longer needed.
Trusts are also misconstrued, their only real purpose is to prevent the beneficiaries having full access to them until conditions, usually age, are met. So the only real purpose is to bring forward the time at which you can give them the money to make it more likely the 7 year rule comes in. For example, set up a trust for a 10 year old, give that a chunk of money and the clock starts ticking such that if you survive 7 years it's out of your estate for IHT purposes. Generally better than giving a lot of money direct to a 10 year old or, depending on your health, waiting until they are 21 or whatever.
But donation to trusts, just like any donation, if they are to mean anything for IHT can't carry reservation of benefit. So you can't give your house to a trust, for example, keep living there rent free and expect that to be IHT free.
So essentially it isn't an avoidable tax unless you think that in the last 7 years of your life (and hopefully much longer) £325k (single) or £650k (married couple) is enough to live on, including the value of your house but excluding anything like annuities that will not pass on to others.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff