In message <vsbiod$1isqa$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:59:41 on Sun, 30 Mar
2025, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
On 3/30/25 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, I could ask the solicitor dealing with it, but I'll save £200/hr
if I can get a preliminary steer from the good folks of ulm.
 There's all sorts of rules about permitted (IHT exempt) gifts, with
overlapping limits for individuals, close family, xmas/birthday/
wedding and so on.
 But does the gift have to be sent directly to the recipient, or
could for example Mrs Mum send some money to her daughter, earmarked
as for a grandchild's wedding? Or would it have to be listed as an
[over-limit]Â gift to the daughter (who then has to re-gift it using
her own IHTÂ exemptions to the grandchild)?
AIUI, the annual gift limit is on the person giving (the deceased),
not the person receiving. So it is irrelevant if a gift is given
directly or indirectly.
No, there are some categories of gift which are exempted if paid to a
close family member (and below various published limits).
For example you can give £2500 to a grandchild who is getting married.
But what if you give it to your son (who isn't getting married!) to give
to the grandchild. Does that level of indirection invalidate the exemption?
Why problems?
Because the cash belongs to the estate, and only *after probate* are
*only executors* allowed to spend it - or at least that's the theory I
am enquiring about.
On 31/03/2025 06:32, Roland Perry wrote:
No, there are some categories of gift which are exempted if paid to a >>close family member (and below various published limits).
For example you can give £2500 to a grandchild who is getting
married. But what if you give it to your son (who isn't getting
married!) to give to the grandchild. Does that level of indirection >>invalidate the exemption?
You aren't providing nearly enough information. "Give it to your son"
implies a gift of some sort to the son,
but "give the letter to the postman" clearly doesn't.
You haven't said how old the grandson is, but the son may be acting as
bare trustee.
In message <vsdsgu$1fvr$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:58:38 on Mon, 31 Mar
2025, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> remarked:
On 31/03/2025 06:32, Roland Perry wrote:
No, there are some categories of gift which are exempted if paid to a
close family member (and below various published limits).
 For example you can give £2500 to a grandchild who is getting
married. But what if you give it to your son (who isn't getting
married!) to give to the grandchild. Does that level of indirection
invalidate the exemption?
You aren't providing nearly enough information. "Give it to your son"
implies a gift of some sort to the son,
The gift is intend for the grandson, but for unexplained reasons wasn't
paid direct to them, rather than sent to the son with instructions to
forward it.
but "give the letter to the postman" clearly doesn't.
Huh?
You haven't said how old the grandson is, but the son may be acting as
bare trustee.
Order of magnitude: Donor 90yrs old, son 60yrs old, grandson 30yrs old.
On 31/03/2025 21:28, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vsdsgu$1fvr$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:58:38 on Mon, 31 Mar
2025, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> remarked:
On 31/03/2025 06:32, Roland Perry wrote:
No, there are some categories of gift which are exempted if paid to
a close family member (and below various published limits).
For example you can give £2500 to a grandchild who is getting >>>>married. But what if you give it to your son (who isn't getting >>>>married!) to give to the grandchild. Does that level of indirection >>>>invalidate the exemption?
You aren't providing nearly enough information. "Give it to your
son" implies a gift of some sort to the son,
The gift is intend for the grandson, but for unexplained reasons
wasn't paid direct to them, rather than sent to the son with
instructions to forward it.
but "give the letter to the postman" clearly doesn't.Huh?
I'm making the distinction between different meanings of the word give.
When you give the postman your letter, you are asking him to act as
your delivery agent. You're not making a gift of the letter to the
postman.
I'm making the distinction between different meanings of the word
give. When you give the postman your letter, you are asking him to act
as your delivery agent. You're not making a gift of the letter to the
postman.
This analogy is completely broken because the postman is a licenced and regulated intermediary.
The son would be partway there if they had a registered Power of
Attorney, but in this instance they didn't.
On 02/04/2025 12:34, Roland Perry wrote:
The son would be partway there if they had a registered Power of
Attorney, but in this instance they didn't.
You have clearly convinced yourself that there is a problem, so I
suggest that you take it up with the solicitor.
In message <vsltr6$k9jn$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:10:13 on Thu, 3 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 02/04/2025 12:34, Roland Perry wrote:
The son would be partway there if they had a registered Power of
Attorney, but in this instance they didn't.
You have clearly convinced yourself that there is a problem, so I
suggest that you take it up with the solicitor.
I explained at the beginning why I wanted to ask here first.
On 06/04/2025 10:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vsltr6$k9jn$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:10:13 on Thu, 3 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 02/04/2025 12:34, Roland Perry wrote:
The son would be partway there if they had a registered Power of >>>>Attorney, but in this instance they didn't.
You have clearly convinced yourself that there is a problem, so I >>>suggest that you take it up with the solicitor.
I explained at the beginning why I wanted to ask here first.
Unfortunately, to get a sensible reply, you need to explain the >circumstances, which you seem reluctant to do in an open forum. I
sympathise, but it's an insuperable problem.
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension of the
role of intermediaries.
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension of the
role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different meanings
of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain which of the
various meanings you had in mind.
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension of
the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different meanings
of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain which of the
various meanings you had in mind.
On 7 Apr 2025 at 15:07:34 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension of the
role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different meanings
of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain which of the
various meanings you had in mind.
Indeed, it depends strongly on why it was given to the son rather than the >grandson. If, for instance, it was transferred to the son's account simply >because the grandson didn't have a suitable account,
with the intention that the son paid it to the grandson as soon as
possible then I would say it was definitely a gift to the grandson.
If the son was effectively a trustee for
the grandson then the legal position is way out of my league.
It might, for instance, depend whether it was a discretionary trust;
perhaps because the grandson was not good with money.
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7 Apr 2025,
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
 Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension of
the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different meanings
of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain which of the
various meanings you had in mind.
The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third person.
The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the intermediary
and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think about this".
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension of
the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different meanings
of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain which of the
various meanings you had in mind.
The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third person.
The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the intermediary
and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think about this".
On 7 Apr 2025 at 17:05:12 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension of
the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different meanings
of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain which of the
various meanings you had in mind.
The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third person.
The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the intermediary
and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think about this".
I am unclear which is better from the IHT POV, but the HMR official would want
to see:
a. Evidence as to whether the money was given to the grandson.
b. Testimony from the son as to whether the gift was to him and he decided to give it to the grandson or whether his father wanted it to go to the grandson
c. Written or hearsay evidence of the deceased's intentions.
If they all say the same thing I really doubt whether HMRC would dispute it, or not unless a very large amount of tax was at stake anyway.
On 7 Apr 2025 at 17:05:12 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension of
the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different meanings
of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain which of the
various meanings you had in mind.
The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third person.
The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the intermediary
and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think about this".
I am unclear which is better from the IHT POV,
but the HMR official would want
to see:
a. Evidence as to whether the money was given to the grandson.
b. Testimony from the son as to whether the gift was to him and he decided to >give it to the grandson or whether his father wanted it to go to the grandson
c. Written or hearsay evidence of the deceased's intentions.
If they all say the same thing I really doubt whether HMRC would dispute it, >or not unless a very large amount of tax was at stake anyway.
On 7 Apr 2025 at 18:54:50 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 7 Apr 2025 at 17:05:12 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension of >>>>> the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different meanings >>>> of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain which of the
various meanings you had in mind.
The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third person.
The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the intermediary >>> and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think about this".
I am unclear which is better from the IHT POV, but the HMR official
would want to see:
a. Evidence as to whether the money was given to the grandson.
b. Testimony from the son as to whether the gift was to him and he decided to
give it to the grandson or whether his father wanted it to go to the grandson
c. Written or hearsay evidence of the deceased's intentions.
If they all say the same thing I really doubt whether HMRC would dispute it, >> or not unless a very large amount of tax was at stake anyway.
As to why the deceased did it that way, could it be something as simple as >already having the son's bank details set up and approved for that size of >transfer?
Not so convincing if he paid it by cheque, but he might not have had
the grandson's full name to hand, and that can be a big problem nowadays.
On 07/04/2025 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about >>>>>giving something to a postman.
Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension
of the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different
meanings of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain
which of the various meanings you had in mind.
The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third
person.
The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the
intermediary and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think
about this".
"RTFM" and possibly "Refer ... to your manager"
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm14201
(Is there a bank statement showing a matching transfer from the intermediary?)
In message <vt0u10$35f7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:47 on Mon, 7 Apr 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about
giving something to a postman.
 Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension of >>>>> the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different
meanings of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain which >>>> of the various meanings you had in mind.
 The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third person.
 The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the
intermediary and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think
about this".
"RTFM" and possibly "Refer ... to your manager"
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm14201
Sorry, that's a haystack-error.
(Is there a bank statement showing a matching transfer from the
intermediary?)
Nobody knows, and the intermediary may not be minded to reveal them. Unless landed with a large bill they need to refute, of course.
On 08/04/2025 08:15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt0u10$35f7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:47 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment about >>>>>>> giving something to a postman.
 Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension >>>>>> of the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different
meanings of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain
which of the various meanings you had in mind.
 The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third
person.
 The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the
intermediary and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think
about this".
"RTFM" and possibly "Refer ... to your manager"
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/
ihtm14201
Sorry, that's a haystack-error.
(Is there a bank statement showing a matching transfer from the
intermediary?)
Nobody knows, and the intermediary may not be minded to reveal them.
Unless landed with a large bill they need to refute, of course.
 My reading is that if it can't be shown that the grandchild received
the money on or before the wedding, there will be a large bill.
On 4/8/25 09:00, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 08/04/2025 08:15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt0u10$35f7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:47 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7
Apr 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment
about giving something to a postman.
 Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension >>>>>>> of the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different
meanings of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain
which of the various meanings you had in mind.
 The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third
person.
 The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the
intermediary and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think >>>>> about this".
"RTFM" and possibly "Refer ... to your manager"
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/
ihtm14201
Sorry, that's a haystack-error.
(Is there a bank statement showing a matching transfer from the
intermediary?)
Nobody knows, and the intermediary may not be minded to reveal them.
Unless landed with a large bill they need to refute, of course.
  My reading is that if it can't be shown that the grandchild received
the money on or before the wedding, there will be a large bill.
My reading was that all that had to be shown was that the child was
promised the money before the wedding, i.e. it was offered as an
incentive to get married.
The fact it must be conditioned on the marriage occurring, suggests it
should not be paid before the marriage. Exactly the type of arrangement
that money would be held in escrow by a third party.
In reality, it is just waffle, as long as everyone gets their stories straight, they could claim the third party settled with cash.
AIUI any tax liability falls on the estate, not the person receiving the gift.
If the people involved are not willing to tell Roland the appropriate
story, I would not claim it as exempt.
On 08/04/2025 10:14, Pancho wrote:
On 4/8/25 09:00, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 08/04/2025 08:15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt0u10$35f7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:47 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7
Apr 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment
about giving something to a postman.
Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of comprehension >>>>>>>> of the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different
meanings of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain >>>>>>> which of the various meanings you had in mind.
The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third
person.
The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the
intermediary and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think >>>>>> about this".
"RTFM" and possibly "Refer ... to your manager"
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/
ihtm14201
Sorry, that's a haystack-error.
(Is there a bank statement showing a matching transfer from the
intermediary?)
Nobody knows, and the intermediary may not be minded to reveal them.
Unless landed with a large bill they need to refute, of course.
My reading is that if it can't be shown that the grandchild received
the money on or before the wedding, there will be a large bill.
My reading was that all that had to be shown was that the child was
promised the money before the wedding, i.e. it was offered as an
incentive to get married.
The fact it must be conditioned on the marriage occurring, suggests it
should not be paid before the marriage. Exactly the type of arrangement
that money would be held in escrow by a third party.
In reality, it is just waffle, as long as everyone gets their stories
straight, they could claim the third party settled with cash.
AIUI any tax liability falls on the estate, not the person receiving the
gift.
If the people involved are not willing to tell Roland the appropriate
story, I would not claim it as exempt.
This whole lengthy saga seems a perfect illustration to me of why enthusiastic and doubtless well-meaning amateurs should not be meddling
in matters of which they know very little. They overthink every
situation, don't know what they're doing, take ages over everything, get
in any number of muddles, and aren't sure they've done it right even at
the end. It's a false economy not to use a professional who knows the answers and how to deal with them quickly and efficiently.
It's plumbing with me. It's clearly legal matters with others.
On 08/04/2025 10:14, Pancho wrote:
On 4/8/25 09:00, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 08/04/2025 08:15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt0u10$35f7m$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:20:47 on Mon, 7 Apr
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vt0m76$3u0sc$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:34 on Mon, 7
Apr 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 07/04/2025 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
You also seem strangely fascinated by my throw-away comment
about giving something to a postman.
 Yes, because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of
comprehension of the role of intermediaries.
As I have said, it was purely used to illustrate the different
meanings of the word 'give'. You seem reluctant even to explain >>>>>>> which of the various meanings you had in mind.
 The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third
person.
 The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the
intermediary and my question is "what would an IHT inspector
think about this".
"RTFM" and possibly "Refer ... to your manager"
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/
ihtm14201
Sorry, that's a haystack-error.
(Is there a bank statement showing a matching transfer from the
intermediary?)
Nobody knows, and the intermediary may not be minded to reveal them.
Unless landed with a large bill they need to refute, of course.
  My reading is that if it can't be shown that the grandchild
received the money on or before the wedding, there will be a large bill. >>>
My reading was that all that had to be shown was that the child was
promised the money before the wedding, i.e. it was offered as an
incentive to get married.
The fact it must be conditioned on the marriage occurring, suggests it
should not be paid before the marriage. Exactly the type of
arrangement that money would be held in escrow by a third party.
In reality, it is just waffle, as long as everyone gets their stories
straight, they could claim the third party settled with cash.
AIUI any tax liability falls on the estate, not the person receiving
the gift.
If the people involved are not willing to tell Roland the appropriate
story, I would not claim it as exempt.
This whole lengthy saga seems a perfect illustration to me of why enthusiastic and doubtless well-meaning amateurs should not be meddling
in matters of which they know very little. They overthink every
situation, don't know what they're doing, take ages over everything, get
in any number of muddles, and aren't sure they've done it right even at
the end. It's a false economy not to use a professional who knows the answers and how to deal with them quickly and efficiently.
It's plumbing with me. It's clearly legal matters with others.
Actually, I just read it again. I don't think the transfer needs to be
to the grandchild at all. It could just be to the son, to take some
action to "facilitate" the marriage. .e.g. help the son pay for the
wedding. But Roland still needs the son to cooperate, tell him what the
money was for.
From a probate perspective, therefore, it's safe to start from the position that the gift was from father to grandson. It's only if HMRC decide toquestion the information they receive that it may be necessary to provide further documentation. But if I was in that position, I'd consider that a bridge to be crossed if I should happen to arrive at it.
The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third >>>>person.
The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the >>>>intermediary and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think >>>>about this".
"RTFM" and possibly "Refer ... to your manager"
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm14201
Sorry, that's a haystack-error.
(Is there a bank statement showing a matching transfer from the >>>intermediary?)
Nobody knows, and the intermediary may not be minded to reveal them. >>Unless landed with a large bill they need to refute, of course.
My reading is that if it can't be shown that the grandchild received
the money on or before the wedding, there will be a large bill.
My reading was that all that had to be shown was that the child was
promised the money before the wedding, i.e. it was offered as an
incentive to get married.
The fact it must be conditioned on the marriage occurring, suggests it
should not be paid before the marriage. Exactly the type of arrangement
that money would be held in escrow by a third party.
In reality, it is just waffle, as long as everyone gets their stories >straight, they could claim the third party settled with cash.
AIUI any tax liability falls on the estate, not the person receiving
the gift.
If the people involved are not willing to tell Roland the appropriate
story,
I would not claim it as exempt.
In message <vt2pe3$1t6i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:14:42 on Tue, 8 Apr
2025, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
My reading was that all that had to be shown was that the child was
promised the money before the wedding, i.e. it was offered as an
incentive to get married.
The fact it must be conditioned on the marriage occurring, suggests it
should not be paid before the marriage. Exactly the type of arrangement
that money would be held in escrow by a third party.
In reality, it is just waffle, as long as everyone gets their stories
straight, they could claim the third party settled with cash.
AIUI any tax liability falls on the estate, not the person receiving
the gift.
That's the deceased's estate, and whatever the destiny of the funds in
this instance, it's all under the umbrella limit. What I'm more
interested in is whether the son, if they died within 7yrs, would have a liability for IHT, because the funds in question would be a non-exempt
gift they made to the grandson.
If the people involved are not willing to tell Roland the appropriate
story,
I am not an executor, just someone observing from the sidelines.
I would not claim it as exempt.
On 8 Apr 2025 at 18:33:14 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vt2pe3$1t6i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:14:42 on Tue, 8 Apr
2025, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
My reading was that all that had to be shown was that the child was
promised the money before the wedding, i.e. it was offered as an
incentive to get married.
The fact it must be conditioned on the marriage occurring, suggests it
should not be paid before the marriage. Exactly the type of arrangement
that money would be held in escrow by a third party.
In reality, it is just waffle, as long as everyone gets their stories
straight, they could claim the third party settled with cash.
AIUI any tax liability falls on the estate, not the person receiving
the gift.
That's the deceased's estate, and whatever the destiny of the funds in
this instance, it's all under the umbrella limit. What I'm more
interested in is whether the son, if they died within 7yrs, would have a
liability for IHT, because the funds in question would be a non-exempt
gift they made to the grandson.
If HMRC accepted that he received a sum of money from his father with an obligation to transfer it to his son then it certainly wouldn't count as a gift from the father of the grandson, as he would never have been his money.
If the people involved are not willing to tell Roland the appropriate
story,
I am not an executor, just someone observing from the sidelines.
I would not claim it as exempt.
In message <vt2l2j$bo9k$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:00:18 on Tue, 8 Apr
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third >>>>>person.
The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the >>>>>intermediary and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think >>>>>about this".
"RTFM" and possibly "Refer ... to your manager"
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm14201
Sorry, that's a haystack-error.
(Is there a bank statement showing a matching transfer from the >>>>intermediary?)
Nobody knows, and the intermediary may not be minded to reveal them. >>>Unless landed with a large bill they need to refute, of course.
My reading is that if it can't be shown that the grandchild received
the money on or before the wedding, there will be a large bill.
Thanks. "On or before" is a useful parameter. Presumably this refers to
the date of the legal marriage, not the reception (which is the thing
which actually costs lots of money) and might be scheduled months later.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 13:44:12 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Actually, I just read it again. I don't think the transfer needs to be
to the grandchild at all. It could just be to the son, to take some
action to "facilitate" the marriage. .e.g. help the son pay for the
wedding. But Roland still needs the son to cooperate, tell him what the
money was for.
I'm not so sure. According to IHTM144211:
To qualify for exemption under IHTA84/S22(1), an outright gift has to be
to a party to the marriage or civil partnership.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm14211
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 18:27:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vt2l2j$bo9k$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:00:18 on Tue, 8 Apr
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
Sorry, that's a haystack-error.The money is being 'handed to' a person, to pass it on to third >>>>>>person.
The bank statement shows the money being transferred to the >>>>>>intermediary and my question is "what would an IHT inspector think >>>>>>about this".
"RTFM" and possibly "Refer ... to your manager"
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm14201 >>
(Is there a bank statement showing a matching transfer from the >>>>>intermediary?)
Nobody knows, and the intermediary may not be minded to reveal them. >>>>Unless landed with a large bill they need to refute, of course.
My reading is that if it can't be shown that the grandchild received
the money on or before the wedding, there will be a large bill.
Thanks. "On or before" is a useful parameter. Presumably this refers to
the date of the legal marriage, not the reception (which is the thing
which actually costs lots of money) and might be scheduled months later.
The payment can be after the event if the payment fulfils a binding promise >made before the event. That doesn't have to be binding in the contractual >sense (ie, it doesn't need a signed agreement), merely that the donor made >their decided intention clear to the recipient prior to the event without
any caveats. "I will give you the money" counts, "I'll think about giving
you the money" doesn't.
On 8 Apr 2025 at 18:33:14 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vt2pe3$1t6i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:14:42 on Tue, 8 Apr
2025, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
My reading was that all that had to be shown was that the child was
promised the money before the wedding, i.e. it was offered as an
incentive to get married.
The fact it must be conditioned on the marriage occurring, suggests it
should not be paid before the marriage. Exactly the type of arrangement
that money would be held in escrow by a third party.
In reality, it is just waffle, as long as everyone gets their stories
straight, they could claim the third party settled with cash.
AIUI any tax liability falls on the estate, not the person receiving
the gift.
That's the deceased's estate, and whatever the destiny of the funds in
this instance, it's all under the umbrella limit. What I'm more
interested in is whether the son, if they died within 7yrs, would have a
liability for IHT, because the funds in question would be a non-exempt
gift they made to the grandson.
If HMRC accepted that he received a sum of money from his father with an >obligation to transfer it to his son then it certainly wouldn't count as a >gift from the father of the grandson, as he would never have been his money.
In message <3799022612.4109dc87@uninhabited.net>, at 18:46:30 on Tue, 8
Apr 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
If HMRC accepted that he received a sum of money from his father with an >>obligation to transfer it to his son then it certainly wouldn't count as a >>gift from the father of the grandson, as he would never have been his money.
That is the essence of the issue, yes. But how formal/documented does
this "obligation" have to be?
It is not enough to give the money to the son and instruct the son to
further transfer it.
To quote the manual:
If the donor took steps towards making the transfer before the marriage or
civil partnership, [...] but the transfer is not completed until after the
marriage or civil partnership, it does not qualify for exemption unless
they told the donee about it before the marriage or civil partnership.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm14201
Ultimately, the grandson must be able to say that he knew, before the >wedding, that he was definitely going to get the gift. If he did know that, >then the route the money took to him is irrelevent, as is the timing. The >gift qualifies for the exemption by dint of being the fulfulment of a
promise made by the donor prior to the wedding. But, on the other hand, if
he didn't know until after the wedding, then the gift doesn't qualify. And, >again, the route it took to get to him is irrelevant.
TL;DR what matters is when the grandson was told about the gift, not how and >when it actually got to him.
Mark
In message <5iccvjhn2qei3hh65ss05a0bhb53l53igl@4ax.com>, at 09:49:17 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
It is not enough to give the money to the son and instruct the son to >>further transfer it.
That's a bit of a u-turn.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 13:26:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <5iccvjhn2qei3hh65ss05a0bhb53l53igl@4ax.com>, at 09:49:17 on >>Wed, 9 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
It is not enough to give the money to the son and instruct the son to >>>further transfer it.
That's a bit of a u-turn.
No, it's not. I'm not saying that there's a problem with using an >intermediary, because there isn't.
But the promise of the gift has to be made by the donor to the
recipient (father to grandson, in this case).
Otherwise, it isn't eligible for the IHT exemption.
It is an absolute requirement of the marriage exemption that the recipient
of the gift knows about the gift before the marriage. If they only find out >about the gift after the marriage, it isn't eligible for the exemption. >That's nothing to do with whether the gift comes via an intermediary or >direct from the donor. It's about when they knew about the gift.
In message <ufrcvjd2h63fp2smmla5lcp6jdqlvd8pa0@4ax.com>, at 14:07:07 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 13:26:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <5iccvjhn2qei3hh65ss05a0bhb53l53igl@4ax.com>, at 09:49:17 on >>>Wed, 9 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
It is not enough to give the money to the son and instruct the son to >>>>further transfer it.
That's a bit of a u-turn.
No, it's not. I'm not saying that there's a problem with using an >>intermediary, because there isn't.
OK.
But the promise of the gift has to be made by the donor to the
recipient (father to grandson, in this case).
That's a difficult thing to document, several years later.
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 13:32:14 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ufrcvjd2h63fp2smmla5lcp6jdqlvd8pa0@4ax.com>, at 14:07:07 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 13:26:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <5iccvjhn2qei3hh65ss05a0bhb53l53igl@4ax.com>, at 09:49:17 on >>>> Wed, 9 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
It is not enough to give the money to the son and instruct the son to >>>>> further transfer it.
That's a bit of a u-turn.
No, it's not. I'm not saying that there's a problem with using an
intermediary, because there isn't.
OK.
But the promise of the gift has to be made by the donor to the
recipient (father to grandson, in this case).
That's a difficult thing to document, several years later.
It doesn't need to be documented. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, HMRC will accept a statement from the grandson that he was promised the
money before the wedding.
Mark
I am utterly confused about Roland's position in all this. He says he is
just looking from the sidelines. Yet, he talks about involving
solicitors, and paying them. So, is he seriously considering employing
I am utterly confused about Roland's position in all this. He says he
is just looking from the sidelines. Yet, he talks about
involving solicitors, and paying them. So, is he seriously considering >employing
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 13:32:14 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ufrcvjd2h63fp2smmla5lcp6jdqlvd8pa0@4ax.com>, at 14:07:07 on >>Wed, 9 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 13:26:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <5iccvjhn2qei3hh65ss05a0bhb53l53igl@4ax.com>, at 09:49:17 on >>>>Wed, 9 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>remarked:
It is not enough to give the money to the son and instruct the son to >>>>>further transfer it.
That's a bit of a u-turn.
No, it's not. I'm not saying that there's a problem with using an >>>intermediary, because there isn't.
OK.
But the promise of the gift has to be made by the donor to the
recipient (father to grandson, in this case).
That's a difficult thing to document, several years later.
It doesn't need to be documented. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, >HMRC will accept a statement from the grandson that he was promised the
money before the wedding.
In message <vtbkv1$27b9r$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:38 on Fri, 11 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
I am utterly confused about Roland's position in all this. He says he
is just looking from the sidelines. Yet, he talks about
The executors
involving solicitors, and paying them. So, is he seriously considering
employing
I'm not, but the executors might; and before doing so have sought my unpaid-for advice (I've been involved in three other estate managements
the last couple of years, and they've never been).
In message <vtbkv1$27b9r$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:38 on Fri, 11 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
I am utterly confused about Roland's position in all this. He says he
is just looking from the sidelines. Yet, he talks about
The executors
involving solicitors, and paying them. So, is he seriously considering >>employing
I'm not, but the executors might; and before doing so have sought my >unpaid-for advice (I've been involved in three other estate managements
the last couple of years, and they've never been).
In message <hocivjhgl34ufgri4jmjlsnebkp38kvuou@4ax.com>, at 16:21:11 on
Fri, 11 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
It doesn't need to be documented. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, >>HMRC will accept a statement from the grandson that he was promised the >>money before the wedding.
The executors are not in contact with the grandson, partly because they >aren't a beneficiary. It all seems a bit open-loop.
On 12/04/2025 06:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vtbkv1$27b9r$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:38 on Fri, 11 Apr >>2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
I am utterly confused about Roland's position in all this. He saysThe executors
he is just looking from the sidelines. Yet, he talks about
involving solicitors, and paying them. So, is he seriously
considering employing
I'm not, but the executors might; and before doing so have sought my >>unpaid-for advice (I've been involved in three other estate
managements the last couple of years, and they've never been).
From what you have told us in the past, including the inordinate delays
that have occurred, maybe they should have been.
Estates should be settled within a year of the death of the person
concerned,
and they're best handled by those with experience and qualifications. A >reluctance to use professionals to do what they're professionally good
at is rarely advisable. It's why we have them, after all.
On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 06:16:52 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vtbkv1$27b9r$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:38 on Fri, 11 Apr
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
I am utterly confused about Roland's position in all this. He says he
is just looking from the sidelines. Yet, he talks about
The executors
involving solicitors, and paying them. So, is he seriously considering >>>employing
I'm not, but the executors might; and before doing so have sought my >>unpaid-for advice (I've been involved in three other estate managements
the last couple of years, and they've never been).
Have they phoned HMRC's IHT helpline to ask for advice?
If not, then they obviously need to do that before doing anything else, as >they may well get the answers they need straight away. If they have, but are >not satisfied with the advice they got, it would be helpful to know what the >response was and why they aren't happy with it.
In message <2utkvjhsbumreelgphmroienr53o19k191@4ax.com>, at 15:31:15 on
Sat, 12 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Have they phoned HMRC's IHT helpline to ask for advice?
I'll suggest that to them, but they are a bit wary of HMRC's
unhelpful-lines. One of them having spent a great deal of time on hold >recently, regarding their personal tax "We are exceptionally busy at the >moment, so why don't you just go away, you annoying taxpayer that we owe >money to, but for some reason don't appear to want to pay".
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 06:56:47 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <2utkvjhsbumreelgphmroienr53o19k191@4ax.com>, at 15:31:15 on >>Sat, 12 Apr 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Have they phoned HMRC's IHT helpline to ask for advice?
I'll suggest that to them, but they are a bit wary of HMRC's >>unhelpful-lines. One of them having spent a great deal of time on hold >>recently, regarding their personal tax "We are exceptionally busy at the >>moment, so why don't you just go away, you annoying taxpayer that we owe >>money to, but for some reason don't appear to want to pay".
That's a different department, though, and a different helpdesk, and a >different number to call. And the worst that can happen is that it turns out >to be a waste of time. They're not paying for that advice. And, as
executors, it's their job to do that kind of thing if necessary. If they're >that reluctant to put any effort into it, then maybe they should step down >and let someone else do it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:47:26 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |