From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Wed Mar 18 00:27:00 2026 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Lodger with deceased intestate landlord References: <8383440112.d2422ea2@uninhabited.net> <23b2JvKjE+ppFADJ@perry.uk> <9xjUI9jNbSqpFA7R@perry.uk> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [177375976824377] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:27:00 +0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Mar 17 15:02:48 2026 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uni-berlin.de; dkim=pass header.d=uni-berlin.de header.s=fub01 header.a=rsa-sha256 > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:From: Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:In-Reply-To: References; bh=aYlcTp9R89koznOQCOQL6d/meGP2LR/2oWNMysrVGDs=; t=1773759761; x=1774364561; b=eTmPZM7LPhhCOJk5Vk03mN5lyB8Ohmn+tIntZsIV1S2Mufr1FxwSHcHyhjueQ yUpthXX6XB4dUc > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Lodger with deceased intestate landlord > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:02:37 +0000 > Message-ID: > References: > > <8383440112.d2422ea2@uninhabited.net> > <23b2JvKjE+ppFADJ@perry.uk> > > <9xjUI9jNbSqpFA7R@perry.uk> > > > > > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net QtSvcxIMr5adHEtEAZEJ9Az5/2FUXmPvsm2WNcaE/JBz15N4ca > Cancel-Lock: sha1:9R17pONycc81glkurtLRha/w7Tg= sha256:2QUwm22B8UyTzCYyRK4tK4ns6y4rxz/L3rwMIZ6evLc= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 54 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.4 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Authentication-Results: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 17/03/2026 12:58, Simon Parker wrote: > > On 16/03/2026 17:39, Norman Wells wrote: > >> On 16/03/2026 15:50, Simon Parker wrote: > >>> On 13/03/2026 12:34, Norman Wells wrote: > > > >>>> It may be marginally 'large' according to HMRC's own rules, but it > >>>> certainly does not seem 'complex'.  It's therefore one of those easy > >>>> cases which can be dealt with simply and expeditiously. > >>> > >>> I do not consider that exceeding a limit by 20% can accurately be > >>> described as "marginally". > >>> > >>> Furthermore, as this is a large estate, it is classified as "complex" > >>> by HMRC.  That is their term for estates of this size and nothing you > >>> say can change that. > >> > >> Actually, there is. > >> > >> HMRC are not daft. > > > > That is open to debate, especially by those that have regular contact > > with them. :-) > > > >> Where no inheritance tax will be due, as with any estate that passes > >> entirely to a spouse, HMRC recognises that it is just make-work to > >> require pointless form filling and examination.  It therefore has a > >> simplified procedure for 'excepted estates' that does not require the > >> tedious and time-consuming formality of the IHT400 procedures.  The > >> estate value limit for that is £3 million. > > > > Congratulations on your use of search engines and AI to discover > > "excepted estate" status. > > About which you clearly knew very little, especially in respect of > estates the size of the one we're considering. > > It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were. > > > However, as might be expected from information hastily found in an > > attempt to save face, your understanding is incomplete and inaccurate > > and your conclusions therefore misleading. > > Of course. You always think that when faced with inconvenient facts. > > But I'm quite used by now to your entirely unwarranted and frankly > abusive ad homs. > > > With excepted estates, it is true that one does not need to submit an > > IHT400.  However, one must instead submit the 'necessary estate > > information' online (which happens to be very similar to the information > > contained in the old IHT205 form the online portal replaced) > > 'replaced' by something even simpler than the 'simpler' IHT205. Why? > To make it even easier for self-certification and avoidance of the > make-work so beloved of solicitors who doubtless profited enormously > from such pointless activity. > > > plus, (and > > I recommend paying attention to this next part because it is important > > in the context of this discussion regarding complexity of estates), a > > detailed schedule of assets and liabilities. > > So, despite the best efforts of HMRC, you're making it out to be just as > complicated as it ever was? > > I think not. > > > I'm going to repeat that point to allow it to sink it and to allow you > > to compare and contrast with phrases you've used above. > > > > Excepted estates must still file 'necessary estate information', similar > > to the old IHT205 form (c.f. "pointless form filling") plus submit a > > detailed schedule of the estate's assets and liabilities (c.f. "tedious > > and time-consuming formality"). > > > > Search engines and AI seem to have conspired to mislead you into > > believing that "excepted" means "no paperwork" when it most certainly > > does not, especially in the instant case where there is real estate held > > solely in the name of the deceased. > > Why are you so reluctant to give a reference? > > >> With suitable accounting and estimation, I'm sure the estate we've > >> been discussing could have been brought within that, with consequent > >> considerations of whether the estate is large and/or complex being > >> irrelevant and sensibly avoided. > > > > I thank you for demonstrating, perhaps more suitably than I could have > > done with a mere explanation, why HMRC demand that excepted estates > > still submit necessary estate information, which includes a detailed > > schedule of assets and liabilities to ensure PRs are not employing > > "suitable accounting" to reduce the value of the estate thereby enabling > > it to avail of the provisions for excepted estates. > > To what end, when no inheritance tax will be payable regardless? > > > *IME*, for estates that are as close to the limit as this one seems to > > be. it is likely that HMRC will scrutinise the property valuations to > > ensure that the valuations are accurate and will also be looking quite > > closely at the valuations submitted for chattels and belongings, (e.g. > > the infamous wine collection). > > To what end? > > > In an example have in mind for an excepted estate, HMRC demanded copies > > of the previous 7 years worth of bank statements and scrutinised any and > > all transactions over £3,000 to ensure it wasn't a gift which may have > > resulted in the estate falling outside the scope of excepted status. > > > > I assume that the search engines and AI neglected to inform you that a > > single gift over the IHT threshold is all that is required to disqualify > > use of excepted estate status? > > A single gift over £325,000? Some 'gift'! > > >>> If you were able to say, "I have dealt with an estate of similar size > >>> to this and found it easy, and dealt with it simply and > >>> expeditiously", that might be of some assistance to the OP.  But you > >>> cannot because you have not and it is clear that your numerous > >>> repetitions of your original claim is nothing but a technique to > >>> avoid admitting you were wrong which is unhelpful in the extreme as > >>> it is entirely misleading. > >>> > >>> Especially when it has been stated by those with experience in > >>> dealing with complex estates like this one that delays at HMRC and > >>> the Probate Registry will amount to almost a year, making it > >>> impossible to deal with such estates "expeditiously", despite how > >>> many times you repeat this erroneous claim. > >>> > >>> It is a large estate.  That makes it complex.  It is virtually > >>> impossible to obtain probate on such estates in under a year and HMRC > >>> are well aware of this, which is why they insist that complex estates > >>> complete a tax return for each tax year from the date of death until > >>> distribution. > >> > >> But not for excepted estates. > > > > Oh dear.  I fear AI and Google searches have led you astray again, > > Norman. :-( > > > > Excepted estate status applies only to inheritance tax reporting. > > Which is all that we have been concerned with. > > > As this is a "complex estate", (owing to being valued in excess of £2.5m > > at the date of death), it must still register for and report Income Tax > > and Capital Gains Tax which means, as I stated above, it must "complete > > a tax return for each year from the date of death until distribution". > > > > Excepted estate status has no effect on this. > > Nor does HMRC-designated 'complex' estates. Income and capital gains > (if any) have to be reported anyway regardless of the size of the estate. > > >>> Nothing you can say here can change these facts.  Please stop trying > >>> to do so as it erroneous and misleading to do so. > >> > >> It is odd (if in fact it is the case) that a 'complex' estate of over > >> £2.5 million can nevertheless be an excepted estate all the way up to > >> £3 million.  One might have thought that the two figures should be > >> identical.  Maybe, indeed, they have been amended to be, but I can't > >> be bothered to look. > > > > Why don't you ask AI and the search engines again?  Actually, seeing how > > woefully they have misled you, perhaps you're better dropping > > breadcrumbs here hoping someone will clarify your understanding for you. > > Thank you for your deep concern. > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmm58VQACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x4Rrwf/Uv6h3sjrfNOaqkjCl6vx6csA/yCnJLNm/48eOvNSnrLaXlNr9Exifega C5RQnuoSuCoTAsDfhBp2QEvG0GreoAunxdoXunmLqCgoRgiSfoP1VEnlL7ZMK5Fa ESqUxcwgzlcANgTBLT8U3OAjguf99xq8Ixkw73MpQ938jd4xL5Vxi9TZPREAiS4n RYs/e/I2usZGVNRBiciVtD+A5HFVNqgoCtAUs8gY6icFbmUWBQs46VT9j44+pgYu GtXcOQ4C4VsnKdrCxRrQrnwzkHcDfap2XjwlG2Fr1bQLocLwwsUqUquufHRUJq4Y rQFctZnYAndHX4l6BG+I2VFX8bzjdQ== =2M26 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----