Mrs A dies leaving Mrs B £10,000 in her will (they are unrelated). Mrs B dies not knowing about this inheritance. Mrs A's executors pay £10,000 to Mrs B's executors.
For IHT purposes does the £10,000 form part of Mrs A's estate?
Why would it not?
I think he meant Mrs B's, not Mrs A's. The doubt arising due to B in effect not inheriting it until after she was already dead. I'd have thought the answer would still be the same. It's the same too if Mrs B had in fact predeceased Mrs A, isn't it?
Yup sorry! Our solicitor has returned the IHT 200 and I'm working through it, several surprises but that isn't one of them, the bequest is in fact included under "Interest in another estate".
Biggest surprise Ronald (if you can remember back to Mary, Al, Bern and Cand):
1) The current value of the house is subject to an aggressive 15% "tenant in common discount"...but...
2) The gift of half the house to Al in 1999 is unadjusted at 50% of its value!The gift was at the purchase date of the house and there was never the remotest possibility of Mary being able to live in the house by herself so perhaps there is no additional "tenant in common" cost to the estate to add-in?
In message , Troy Steadman writes
I may be wrong, but AIUI the 15% is a 'discount' not a 'premium' and reduces the value of the deceased's share of the property held in common. So it is not a 'cost to the estate to add on', but a reduction to take off.
How could I forget the ice maidens.
Aggressive? Don't you mean "generous"? That's indeed a surprise.
Why would you expect differently? I take it you're referring to 50% of its *1999* value. The gift of half the house at the time is in effect indistinguishable from a gift of half the money to buy it.
Indeed that seems to be the correct way of looking at things, £10k of tax saved!
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.