Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/content/37/9659337/html/burtonprobate/index.php:2) in /home/content/37/9659337/html/burtonprobate/wp-content/themes/suffusion/functions.php on line 1372
Burton Probate Solicitors

Burton Probate SolicitorsBurton Probate Solicitors

Mc Intosh Fleming provide cheap but high quality probate services in Burton , and have been practising law locally for 20 years. Their offices are easily accessible and they are also happy to visit you at your home during both normal working hours and at more unsociable hours such as evenings and weekends. Confidentiality , a top class service , empathy ,and discretion are all assured. Our probate prices are fixed and clear, and are not based on the value of the estate or the time we spend on the service.

A woman (B) was born in the UK, of an English father and a Japanese mother. In 1991/92 B’s maternal grandfather (G), who was a Japanese citizen, transferred a large sum of money to the UK for the purpose of benefiting B. On the advice of a solicitor, and in order to avoid liability to IHT, G subsequently (in June 1992) established a discretionary settlement in Jersey and transferred the money from the UK to this settlement.

In October 1996 a married couple took out three life assurance policies coupled with three annuities, and executed three ‘declarations of trust’ in favour of their children. The wife died in 2000 and the husband died in February 2003.

The Revenue issued a determination on the basis that the value of the lease for CTT purposes was £52,000 (after taking into account the potential obligation to make a payment to the landlords if the flat were sold before March 1988).

In 1968 the Earl of Balfour inherited a liferent interest in a family estate, much of which was used for farming. In November 2002 he entered into a farming partnership with his nephew (who was his heir and intended successor).

On 10 June 2004 the defendant faced four charges of carrying out projects on land she owned without obtaining a screening decision or the grant of consent by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs contrary to Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-Natural Areas)(England) Regs 2001,  s 19.

The Special Commissioner accepted the executors’ evidence and allowed their appeal, holding that the funds were ‘partnership funds in origin and remained such. Placing them in an account in the deceased’s sole name did not make him the sole beneficial owner.

There was ‘nothing inconsistent with an elderly Scottish gentleman acquiring a residence in the south of England at his retirement without having any intention to acquire a domicile in England’.

The Inland Revenue appealed to the Ch D, contending that the Commissioner had exceeded her jurisdiction and that the case should be referred to the Lands Tribunal. The Ch D accepted this contention.

The Commissioner observed that the farming activities were carried on by contractors who were managed by a land agent in a nearby town.

Rather, the claimant has demonstrated a specific common intention as to how the parties’ fiscal objectives were to be achieved; and he has established that, owing to a mistake in the way in which that intention was expressed in the deed of variation, effect has not been given to that intention.

The Court Order (by consent) provided, inter alia, for the taxpayer’s half share of the property to be transferred to his wife, while she undertook to give an irrevocable order to her personal representatives that, should she die before 10 December 1984 and before her husband, a sum equal to half the equity in the property was to be paid to him out of her estate.

The executors appealed. The First-Tier Tribunal allowed their appeal, on the basis that ‘occupation by the partnership continued until (W’s) death, and it was occupation for the purposes of agriculture in the relevant sense because the bungalow was still used to accommodate the diminishing needs of the senior partner.