From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Wed Mar 18 00:26:44 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: [177375976924646] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:26:42 +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 15:02:49 2026 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-hex-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=HPN3IRXzkH4QiinGs7Rv80f35voU8BmGsM4mr9J0oOU=; t=1773759768; x=1774364568; b=Y/nEo00jyKG0IBuJ2MOVsN1HuCXKK6FfKGjbYOPQbznnqXpaMRXE7Tqrb/P6C mdOBtW52c3LKQB > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Lodger with deceased intestate landlord > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:02:44 +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 VtXOuZr05YENyVb462j3dQ+0tALaWzg3Jij0k87n7Nu5Wagcq5 > Cancel-Lock: sha1:EOR6eCE3oDvYKg3YzOFq+UTfHB4= sha256:cHBjIhSy+XgsMGhw5gIyNhvjfHXKtAvGZBTArSC7K0g= > 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: 29 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 > 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 13:08, Simon Parker wrote: > > On 16/03/2026 17:39, Norman Wells wrote: > >> On 16/03/2026 16:23, Simon Parker wrote: > >>> On 13/03/2026 12:28, Norman Wells wrote: > > > >>>> No, not so.  Please do try to keep up, as they say.  In what > >>>> category does the other real estate fall?  We've been told he owned > >>>> two 'substantial' properties.  If they're both 'about half the > >>>> estate's total value' it doesn't leave an awful lot of value in > >>>> anything else. > >>> > >>> The precise composition of the estate doesn't matter in the grand > >>> scheme of things.  It is over £2.5m so it is automatically classified > >>> as "complex". > >> > >> Unless it's 'excepted', which I'm sure it could be or should have been. > > > > The search engines and AI are leading you astray again, Norman. > > > > An estate is "simple" or it is "complex".  In addition to this, it may > > be an excepted estate.  That is in addition to. not instead of. > > > > It isn't "simple", "complex" or "excepted estate".  Rather, an estate is > > either "simple", "simple excepted", "complex" or "Complex excepted". > > > > This is, and remains, a "complex" estate as it was valued in excess of > > £2.5m at the date of death.  It is possible it may be an "excepted > > estate" but we would need an awful lot more information to make that > > determination. > > Why are you so confused? An estate is either excepted or it isn't, > regardless of what HMRC may call it besides. > > >>> The OP has clarified that there is a second BTL property with a > >>> sitting tenant and approximately £250K worth of chattels and belongings. > >>> > >>> None of those facts make the estate simple or easy to administer. > >> > >> Of course it does.  The more money that is tied up in any individual > >> asset that can be valued singly, of course makes it much simpler. > >> > >> Indeed, your whole point was how difficult it is to value £1.5 million > >> of miscellaneous goods and chattels. > > > > Sadly, but unsurprisingly, it appears you have missed the point > > (again!). > > No, I think not. You set great store by how difficult it would be to > value £1.5 million of assorted chattels. Which you got completely wrong. > > > The basis for this sub-thread is your repeated claims that > > this is a simple estate which should have been dealt with in a matter or > > weeks.  Whereas I have said it is a complex estate and supported this > > with reference to HMRC's documentation. > > The only point that matters is whether the estate is excepted or could be. > > >>>> Which we haven't been told. > >>> > >>> It must be large enough and valuable enough for the OP to have > >>> referenced it.  A couple dozen of bottles valued at £20 each would > >>> not have merited mentioning.  Contrariwise, HMRC recommend that as > >>> few as 50 bottles valued at £30 each is a sufficiently large enough > >>> collection to merit declaring as a separate entry on the IHT400. > >>> > >>> And given the size of the estate and its likelihood of being subject > >>> to scrutiny, > >> > >> To what end?  No IHT will be due anyway.  It would be jobsworth pedantry. > > > > I can see that you have no experience in dealing directly with HMRC - > > "jobsworth pedantry" is their stock-in-trade. > > Then you clearly haven't been treating them right. > > > Or, perhaps more > > accurately, their rules are so labyrinthine that it is virtually > > impossible for the inexperienced and unqualified not to make an error > > somewhere.  In the instant case, the precise value of the properties on > > date of death may give rise to a subsequent CGT liability. > > 'Subsequent' and 'may'. Not 'current' and 'do'. > > > The value of > > any stocks and shares the estate holds my give rise to income tax > > labilities too, quite separate to the absence of any IHT being due. > > Yes, they may do. But income tax and CGT are different animals from > IHT, and have to be accounted for separately. > > >>> it would require a brave administrator to ignore HMRC's 'guidance'. > >> > >> Actually, since no IHT will be due regardless because everything left > >> to a spouse is free of it, it would be a totally pointless exercise > >> for HMRC to scrutinise the value of some wine which they would anyway > >> be most unlikely to establish without external expertise and > >> considerable expense. > > > > Do you make that statement based on your experience of dealing with > > estates of this size? > > > > For the avoidance of doubt, IHT <> CGT <> Income Tax, etc. > > Indeed. I wonder therefore why you try to conflate and confuse them. > > > >> Anyway, of an estate of £3 million, we've been told £2.75 million is > >> in the two houses.  Of the remainder, most is likely to be in cash > >> deposits and shares and probably one or more cars, leaving the wine, > >> whatever it is, as pretty much a trivial irrelevance. > > > > And yet the wine was the one thing mentioned by the OP.  I assumed he > > must have considered it noteworthy or why else mention it? > > It was just something in my view that he could hold against the widow > had the answers here been to his liking, which they weren't. > > > Regardless, the estate may well be liable for income tax on those "cash > > deposits and shares" which you so airily dismiss or had you overlooked > > that (because the search engines and AI didn't mention it?)? > > Income tax has to be accounted for separately. It's not IHT. > > >>> If only HMRC had provided guidance to assist those dealing with > >>> complex estates which items merit their own entry on the IHT400. > >>> > >>>> But getting a valuation need not be any more time-consuming, however > >>>> difficult you would like to make it, than valuing the real estate. > >>>> They can be done in parallel. > >>> > >>> How may properties valued in excess of £1m have you had to deal with > >>> for probate? > >> > >> It's not hard to get a house valued.  There are people called estate > >> agents who do it for a living. > > > > Warning! Dangerous Advice Spotted.  Use at your own risk. > > (Repeat x 3) > > > > Estate agents are happy to provide the current high marketing asking price. > > > > HMRC need the Open Market Value on the date of death. > > > > To obtain the latter, for high value properties, it is recommended one > > instructs a RICS Chartered Surveyor requesting a "Red Book" valuation. > > It's still not hard to get a house valued. > > >>>> I think you're overestimating the complexity.  Two houses, not a lot > >>>> else we know of, is not a particularly large or complex estate in > >>>> the general scheme of things unless you choose to make it so or > >>>> can't see the wood for the trees. > >>> > >>> Tell me you've never handled a "complex" estate without telling me > >>> you've never handled a "complex" estate. > >> > >> Two houses, liquid assets, cars maybe, and some wine.  It's not hard, > >> or even out of the ordinary. > > > > Thank you for making my point for me.  I am most grateful. > > So, what is hard about it, or out of the ordinary? You don't seem to > have said. > > >>>> Which it certainly isn't. > >>> > >>> When conversing with HMRC, please feel free to modify the precise > >>> composition of the estate if you think it will make a difference to > >>> their answer.  (Ed: It won't.) > >> > >> Then why did you repeatedly make such a fuss about it previously, > >> saying how very, very hard it would be? > > > > It is a "complex estate".  That is HMRC's description. > > Indeed. It doesn't mean that it's complex in the ordinary English > meaning of the word. > > And it certainly isn't. It's a very ordinary-sounding estate just with > an extra house, and is just as easily dealt with. > > > If you disagree > > with that, I recommend taking it up with them.  Those of us with > > knowledge and experience of dealing with estates of this size and > > complexity know what is involved.  Those with no knowledge and > > experience of estates of this size imagine it to be much simpler than it > > is. > > > > A simple closed question for you:  Have you any experience whatsoever of > > submitting tax returns for an estate during the probate process?  A > > simple "yes" or "no" answer will be more than sufficient. > > > > > >> For example: > >>>>> £1.5m worth of chattels and belongings *is* likely to be complex. > >>>>> For HMRC's purposes, it most definitely is large. > >> > >> and: > >> > >>>>> Have you ever had to value approximately £1.5m worth of chattels > >>>>> and belongings?  No?  Thought not!  But please keep the outlandish > >>>>> claims coming.  You've brightened my day and that of my colleagues > >>>>> with whom I have shared them. > >> > >> Anyway, have you not just said in another post this afternoon > >> 'Accuracy of information is key'? > > > > Do you have the Message-ID please?  After all, "I don't feel like > > running around after you to verify anything you say.  That's for you." > > I'm sure you remember it. > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmm58UIACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x5YMAgAjSYsK+KN2WkS8JG+NPCTHySILEqA1TNi4tUjMwMTGwJYSn5rSp1nUAX8 RubKz/NjXs+xXefTzeR3Wai3Ur/qfPuH3Z2OZQwSCBCVGXwX9IGT6aEaW6/l+tmt qu9hwc21qnRq4c8TH19ybIvDjDcyRWvSeuH1pDeyi4LnXyErrbw1/wTHTqjiGUjk Vk3zBlmVr6PMBbq304nfgQ/Slvc2zmmBy8fvSoGEDyQ1r5EveZJwB9KrPVikuJnv caS7FAvcPc3MSjeKWnpF7n2VBmAvTD3AekcGNCrCBI3gckRlsrNhop5eDndOLxm5 yOAzDpBNStIUGFeV/X7pOt6B/r5fIQ== =BjRi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----