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. 
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.
HenryJM said:
Most taxes are on taxed income, VAT is a tax on earned income, Stamp Duty is a tax on earned income etc. etc.
IHT is on money you have been given and haven't earned. If you have to sell some of the assets within it - so what? They are still getting things they haven't earned.
Spoken by somebody who clearly has never had to pay IHT.IHT is on money you have been given and haven't earned. If you have to sell some of the assets within it - so what? They are still getting things they haven't earned.
Wait until you're faced with paying a 5 or 6 figure sum and then see how you feel about it. I guarantee you'll care then.
HenryJM said:
Centurion07 said:
HenryJM said:
Most taxes are on taxed income, VAT is a tax on earned income, Stamp Duty is a tax on earned income etc. etc.
IHT is on money you have been given and haven't earned. If you have to sell some of the assets within it - so what? They are still getting things they haven't earned.
Spoken by somebody who clearly has never had to pay IHT.IHT is on money you have been given and haven't earned. If you have to sell some of the assets within it - so what? They are still getting things they haven't earned.
Wait until you're faced with paying a 5 or 6 figure sum and then see how you feel about it. I guarantee you'll care then.
Where I differ from many is that, like my father, I have grown a business from scratch and am wealthy in my own right. That money is money I feel I deserve and I resent people saying that I should pay more of the money I've earned in tax. What I've done means a lot of people are employed and paying tax.
I distinguish between earned money/deserved money and inherited/undeserved money. I value money I've earned, I don't value money I've been given. If taxes are to be changed then tax the undeserved money, my parents having that money isn't down to me, I don't particularly want to see any of it.
That aside, the bit in bold is the real point. An inheritance has already been taxed when it was accruing over the deceased's lifetime, and now the government feel they can help themselves to another 40% (over £325K) just so they can piss it up against the nearest immigrant/welfare scrounger/nhs IT project?
HenryJM said:
My current focus is on ensuring that their money is spent on them particularly making sure that my father has the best possible care in the best possible location. Unfortunately he has to be in a nursing home, so it's about making sure it's the best we can find. For my mother we've moved her to a flat in a retirement block with care services and she is much happier as a result.
It's their money to be spent on giving them the best they can get at this time of their lives.
That's fair enough and just how it should be, but like I said, wait until it comes time to pay that IHT bill and let me know if you still feel the same about paying it.It's their money to be spent on giving them the best they can get at this time of their lives.
HenryJM said:
I'm happy to pay the IHT when it's due, I'm used to paying 40% of my income to HMRC, it's very visible to me and resented given the effort put in to earning it. Paying 40% of money I've not earned will be a breeze in comparison.
You might not have earned it but your parents did. My point still stands; wait and see what it feels like when it comes time to write that cheque.HenryJM said:
I'm used to paying tax bills, corporation tax, VAT, NI, PAYE, my own income tax and CGT. I've done six figure payments numerous occasions, I really don't think it will be a new experience for me. And as I've said before, making a large tax payment on money I've earned is much harder than this will be.
It's a different kettle of fish regardless of whether or not you're used to making payments of that quantity.Breadvan72 said:
Doncha love it when someone who has never met you claims to know exactly how you think or feel or will think or feel? Or, to put it another way, when someone is so incapable of comprehending that not everyone thinks/feels as he or she does that he or she insists all must think/feel the same way.
Just because you feel and behave one way today, it does not necessarily follow you will feel the same way when actually faced with the reality of the situation we're talking about.HenryJM said:
Think of it another way. We have person A and person B. Person A ten years ago started a business, remortgaged his house, borrowed from wherever he could, went through several years with no money. Months went by where he paid himself nothing because paying his handful of employees came first.
Over time things got better, his 70-80 hour weeks started to work, he started to be able to pay himself the same as his employees then more. By the end of ten years his business was able to support 100 employees and he was paying himself maybe £250k a year with nice house, car etc. Had to turn a deaf ear to the bleating about rich people, the introduction of a higher rate tax and so on but hey, could anyone really say he hadn't earned it?
Over ten years he took from the company maybe £900k almost all of it in the second half of the ten years. Of course maybe £350k of that went in tax but he's kept maybe £550k of it himself. Rich b
d, right?
Meanwhile one of his employees, drives a van for his company, he's ok, nothing special, works his hours, nothing more. His aunt dies, he's only seen her once a year at Christmas but due to lack of other relatives she leaves him £900k. But you know - £100k of that has to go in IHT!! Shocking, or what?
So which of these really has the right to question the system? The bloke who has worked every waking minute, provided employment to a lot of people, earned exprt revenue for the company and country, is now paying £100k a year in personal tax and into the millions in other taxes through his company. Is it that one or the one who has mainly sat on his arse all his life doing as little as he can get away with but has had to pay a shocking total, in this example, of 11% on the total of a windfall he'd done nothing to achieve?
The guy in your example is not paying £100K IHT. He's being robbed of £230K!Over time things got better, his 70-80 hour weeks started to work, he started to be able to pay himself the same as his employees then more. By the end of ten years his business was able to support 100 employees and he was paying himself maybe £250k a year with nice house, car etc. Had to turn a deaf ear to the bleating about rich people, the introduction of a higher rate tax and so on but hey, could anyone really say he hadn't earned it?
Over ten years he took from the company maybe £900k almost all of it in the second half of the ten years. Of course maybe £350k of that went in tax but he's kept maybe £550k of it himself. Rich b
d, right? Meanwhile one of his employees, drives a van for his company, he's ok, nothing special, works his hours, nothing more. His aunt dies, he's only seen her once a year at Christmas but due to lack of other relatives she leaves him £900k. But you know - £100k of that has to go in IHT!! Shocking, or what?
So which of these really has the right to question the system? The bloke who has worked every waking minute, provided employment to a lot of people, earned exprt revenue for the company and country, is now paying £100k a year in personal tax and into the millions in other taxes through his company. Is it that one or the one who has mainly sat on his arse all his life doing as little as he can get away with but has had to pay a shocking total, in this example, of 11% on the total of a windfall he'd done nothing to achieve?
Yes, you're right that he's done nothing to earn it. However, if your self-made man had to pay an additional £200K in tax ON TOP OF WHAT HE'S ALREADY PAID you'd think that wrong surely, because that's essentially what's happening. The estate is being taxed AGAIN on money that has already been taxed during the deceased's lifetime.
Plus, why are you comparing one person's situation with another? It's not about what one person deserves over another, it's about what the government "deserves".
I think a better analogy would be fuel prices. You pay tax on tax when buying fuel for your car. You surely can't agree that that's ok?
For what it's worth, I don't think Person A in your example should be taxed at 40%+ either. It should be less.
HenryJM said:
Why should money going to an individual that they have worked hard to achieve require them to pay substantially more in tax than money received from a windfall that they have done nothing to acquire?
Firstly you never mentioned the Uncle/Aunt double allowance thing. 
To address this last point though; what about the lottery?
To align it with your analogy of the self-made man & the guy who inherits, nobody has had to work for a lottery win and yet some people are winning millions of pounds tax-free! At least with an inheritance SOMEONE has worked and earned and already paid tax on that money yet a large chunk of it disappears through IHT, you win the lottery though and have to pay nothing. I would imagine that's because the number of people playing would fall through the floor if you had to give 40% straight to the government and they know this i.e. people would see it as pretty unfair.
HenryJM said:
Well the problem is that the government has to raise money somehow. Of course it should reduce it's spending and so on but at the end of the day money still has to be raised somehow.
So if we look at it from the perspective of one person. That person pays in lots of ways during their life and then more on death. Are you suggesting that it would be better for them to have to pay more during their life and less/nothing on death?
If there has to be a balance, and obviously there does - scrap IHT and other taxes have to go up to compensate, I'd rather pay more taxes on death than during life. It seems more logical than saying I'll pay more on my earnings when I earn them so that someone else can have without tax what I leave to them when I die.
Alternatively, they could stop pissing what they do raise in taxes up the wall?So if we look at it from the perspective of one person. That person pays in lots of ways during their life and then more on death. Are you suggesting that it would be better for them to have to pay more during their life and less/nothing on death?
If there has to be a balance, and obviously there does - scrap IHT and other taxes have to go up to compensate, I'd rather pay more taxes on death than during life. It seems more logical than saying I'll pay more on my earnings when I earn them so that someone else can have without tax what I leave to them when I die.
I know it's from 1998 but it stuck in my mind because of the sheer arrogance and ridiculousness involved. Think about this when you come to hand over that 40%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/61665.stm
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff