Applying for probate - Gross value

[stewamax]

When applying online for probate, the definition of the Gross value for probate is slightly ambiguous:
"This is the total value of the deceased’s assets in their sole name.
To work this out, subtract the values of any joint assets passing to the other joint owner..."

For a 50%/50% husband/wife joint asset (e.g. a shared bank account; joint-tenant house; car) does this mean:

- "subtract the value that will pass to the survivor (e.g. subtract 50%)
or
- "subtract the total value of the asset" (e.g, subtract 100%)

[scrumpyjack]

When applying online for probate, the definition of the Gross value for probate is slightly ambiguous:
"This is the total value of the deceased’s assets in their sole name.
To work this out, subtract the values of any joint assets passing to the other joint owner..."

For a 50%/50% husband/wife joint asset (e.g. a shared bank account; joint-tenant house; car) does this mean:

- "subtract the value that will pass to the survivor (e.g. subtract 50%)
or
- "subtract the total value of the asset" (e.g, subtract 100%)

Seems clear to me - subtract the total value of the asset in joint names. You only include assets in their SOLE NAME. No ambiguity there.

[staffordian]

I guess the ambiguity is whether an asset passes automatically to the other party.

Eg a house could be in joint names, but depending on the type of ownership, all might pass to the other party and hence not form part of the estate, or it could remain as part of the estate and need including.

[stewamax]

Tnx scrumpyjack: Yes - that is how I initially construed it.
But then I realised that if all the assets were held jointly, the gross probate value of the estate would be zero, and the net probate value would be negative when funeral expenses (even if there were no debts) were deducted. Which sounded a bit odd...

[Dod101]

When applying online for probate, the definition of the Gross value for probate is slightly ambiguous:
"This is the total value of the deceased’s assets in their sole name.
To work this out, subtract the values of any joint assets passing to the other joint owner..."

For a 50%/50% husband/wife joint asset (e.g. a shared bank account; joint-tenant house; car) does this mean:

- "subtract the value that will pass to the survivor (e.g. subtract 50%)
or
- "subtract the total value of the asset" (e.g, subtract 100%)

Seems clear to me - subtract the total value of the asset in joint names. You only include assets in their SOLE NAME. No ambiguity there.

Unless you are living under Scots law where there is no automatic of transfer of assets to the survivor. In Scotland I think you need to include the 50% or whatever held in the name of the deceased at the time of death.

Dod

[stewamax]

Tnx.
I guess what I am also trying to clarify is whether a 'joint asset' that passes to the survivor is either:
- an asset where there is formal registration of the jointure (a joint bank account; a house owned in joint tenancy), where the survivor assumes single ownership irrespective of the Will
or
- an asset held as a conjugal asset (car; furniture;...) and not brought into the marriage at the outset and which is regarded as jointly owned during the marriage
or
- both

[Dod101]

When applying online for probate, the definition of the Gross value for probate is slightly ambiguous:
"This is the total value of the deceased’s assets in their sole name.
To work this out, subtract the values of any joint assets passing to the other joint owner..."

For a 50%/50% husband/wife joint asset (e.g. a shared bank account; joint-tenant house; car) does this mean:

- "subtract the value that will pass to the survivor (e.g. subtract 50%)
or
- "subtract the total value of the asset" (e.g, subtract 100%)

Seems clear to me - subtract the total value of the asset in joint names. You only include assets in their SOLE NAME. No ambiguity there.

Why? Even under English law surely there could be situations where the 50% in the name of the deceased could pass to someone other than the surviving joint owner?

Dod

[Lootman]

Tnx scrumpyjack: Yes - that is how I initially construed it.

But then I realised that if all the assets were held jointly, the gross probate value of the estate would be zero, and the net probate value would be negative when funeral expenses (even if there were no debts) were deducted. Which sounded a bit odd...

Surely that is correct i.e. that for an estate where everything passes to a survivor upon death via joint tenancy, then the estate has a zero value.

In fact probate would not normally be needed in that situation, so the question of the estate's value would never need to be asked or answered.

Even under English law surely there could be situations where the 50% in the name of the deceased could pass to someone other than the surviving joint owner?

I do not believe so as that transfer happens immediately upon death. A joint tenancy is essentially a trust, meaning that the asset is outside of probate.

[Dod101]

Tnx scrumpyjack: Yes - that is how I initially construed it.

But then I realised that if all the assets were held jointly, the gross probate value of the estate would be zero, and the net probate value would be negative when funeral expenses (even if there were no debts) were deducted. Which sounded a bit odd...

Surely that is correct i.e. that for an estate where everything passes to a survivor upon death via joint tenancy, then the estate has a zero value.

In fact probate would not normally be needed in that situation, so the question of the estate's value would never need to be asked or answered.

Even under English law surely there could be situations where the 50% in the name of the deceased could pass to someone other than the surviving joint owner?

I do not believe so as that transfer happens immediately upon death. A joint tenancy is essentially a trust, meaning that the asset is outside of probate.

As I understand it there is such a thing as 'Tenants in Common' even under English Law. Under such an arrangement the individual owners can do what they want with their own share. Thus I would have thought that with such an arrangement the share owned by the deceased should be included in probate but not the share owned by the survivor, since there is then no automatic transfer. The deceased's share is dealt with under the Will.

Dod

[Lootman]

Tnx scrumpyjack: Yes - that is how I initially construed it.

But then I realised that if all the assets were held jointly, the gross probate value of the estate would be zero, and the net probate value would be negative when funeral expenses (even if there were no debts) were deducted. Which sounded a bit odd...

Surely that is correct i.e. that for an estate where everything passes to a survivor upon death via joint tenancy, then the estate has a zero value.

In fact probate would not normally be needed in that situation, so the question of the estate's value would never need to be asked or answered.

Even under English law surely there could be situations where the 50% in the name of the deceased could pass to someone other than the surviving joint owner?

I do not believe so as that transfer happens immediately upon death. A joint tenancy is essentially a trust, meaning that the asset is outside of probate.

As I understand it there is such a thing as 'Tenants in Common' even under English Law. Under such an arrangement the individual owners can do what they want with their own share. Thus I would have thought that with such an arrangement the share owned by the deceased should be included in probate but not the share owned by the survivor, since there is then no automatic transfer. The deceased's share is dealt with under the Will.

Yes, correct, if the joint ownership is a TIC then your individual share forms part of your estate and the will applies.

I was talking about joint tenancies, where only the surviving tenant benefits and the will is moot.

A JT has to be equal shares, but a TIC can be any split. A JT can be severed by any one party to it but a TIC can only be changed by mutual agreement.

[Dod101]

Tnx scrumpyjack: Yes - that is how I initially construed it.

But then I realised that if all the assets were held jointly, the gross probate value of the estate would be zero, and the net probate value would be negative when funeral expenses (even if there were no debts) were deducted. Which sounded a bit odd...

Surely that is correct i.e. that for an estate where everything passes to a survivor upon death via joint tenancy, then the estate has a zero value.

In fact probate would not normally be needed in that situation, so the question of the estate's value would never need to be asked or answered.

Even under English law surely there could be situations where the 50% in the name of the deceased could pass to someone other than the surviving joint owner?

I do not believe so as that transfer happens immediately upon death. A joint tenancy is essentially a trust, meaning that the asset is outside of probate.

As I understand it there is such a thing as 'Tenants in Common' even under English Law. Under such an arrangement the individual owners can do what they want with their own share. Thus I would have thought that with such an arrangement the share owned by the deceased should be included in probate but not the share owned by the survivor, since there is then no automatic transfer. The deceased's share is dealt with under the Will.

Yes, correct, if the joint ownership is a TIC then your individual share forms part of your estate and the will applies.

I was talking about joint tenancies, where only the surviving tenant benefits and the will is moot.

A JT has to be equal shares, but a TIC can be any split. A JT can be severed by any one party to it but a TIC can only be changed by mutual agreement.

Under Scots law there is no such thing as a Joint Tenancy, although I must say that I can see the benefit of one. However if a house for instance is held in joint names in Scotland, the deceased could leave his/her share of it to anyone and that could create problems for the survivor.

Dod

[monabri]

So, Stewart will need to check if any property is held as " Tenants in Common" or as "Joint Tenants "?

Wouldn't this be specified on a Land Registry document ( a paid for download ....used to cost £3.50 to download).

Stewamax would need this information if the deceased held shares in other properties ( % owned).

I imagine Gross Value =

Value of assets held solely in their name PLUS

Value of their percentage share in a property ( ies) PLUS

value of their percentage share in anything else of value.

[Dod101]

When applying online for probate, the definition of the Gross value for probate is slightly ambiguous:
"This is the total value of the deceased’s assets in their sole name.
To work this out, subtract the values of any joint assets passing to the other joint owner..."

For a 50%/50% husband/wife joint asset (e.g. a shared bank account; joint-tenant house; car) does this mean:

- "subtract the value that will pass to the survivor (e.g. subtract 50%)
or
- "subtract the total value of the asset" (e.g, subtract 100%)

If you apply these instructions/guidance literally, then you would not include the value of any jointly held assets in the first place so the second instruction seems to me to be redundant or contradictory. Say there is a jointly owned house. This is not an asset held in the deceased's sole name so it would not be included in the estate. Why would you then subtract the value of the joint assets passing to the other joint owner?

So if the extract is accurate it is not just slightly ambiguous; it makes no sense.

Dod

[88V8]

...if the extract is accurate it is not just slightly ambiguous; it makes no sense.

If one could exclude joint assets, then a surviving wife could put all her assets in joint name with a daughter or... anyone... who in turn when they inherit could do the same and on and on... so no one would ever pay IHT.
That seems too simple.

V8

[Dod101]

...if the extract is accurate it is not just slightly ambiguous; it makes no sense.

If one could exclude joint assets, then a surviving wife could put all her assets in joint name with a daughter or... anyone... who in turn when they inherit could do the same and on and on... so no one would ever pay IHT.
That seems too simple.

V8

It seems that the IHT exemption applies only between spouses. Is that correct?

Dod

[Lootman]

...if the extract is accurate it is not just slightly ambiguous; it makes no sense.

If one could exclude joint assets, then a surviving wife could put all her assets in joint name with a daughter or... anyone... who in turn when they inherit could do the same and on and on... so no one would ever pay IHT.That seems too simple.

No, IHT would still be due. It is probate that would be avoided in that scenario.

IHT would need to be determined and paid outside of the probate process.

[Dod101]

...if the extract is accurate it is not just slightly ambiguous; it makes no sense.

If one could exclude joint assets, then a surviving wife could put all her assets in joint name with a daughter or... anyone... who in turn when they inherit could do the same and on and on... so no one would ever pay IHT.That seems too simple.

No, IHT would still be due. It is probate that would be avoided in that scenario.

IHT would need to be determined and paid outside of the probate process.

That is interesting. This whole business is quite complicated.

Dod

[stewamax]

Thanks for the replies to date.

Firstly, to reiterate, the issue is one of Probate gross value and not IHT, and crux of the problem is the definition of a joint asset. And to confirm: the deceased died in England and was a UK citizen.

A house held in joint tenancy is clearly a joint asset, one which is 100% jointly owned by each party, whose joint ownership is (probably) registered with the Land Registry, and whose ownership is assumed by the survivor irrespective of any related statement in the Will.

But what about other property acquired during a marriage (i.e. not brought into the marriage by either party at the outset)? Things bought during a marriage are also regarded as being jointly owned by both parties, irrespective of which party’s bank account funded it.
And how far does this extend? Mr Testator cannot, as I understand it, leave the couple’s valuable collection of Louis XV furniture and their 1954 Bentley Continental R to whoever he wishes, because these are ‘matrimonial assets’.

Which does, of course, then raise the question of precisely what can be 100% solely owned by one partner. If each has a separate bank account solely in their own name, the balance at the date of death of Mrs Testatrix would be regarded as her sole property for probate (and IHT) purposes, irrespective of which partner funded the account (a valid nil-gain nil-loss inter-spouse capital transfer). But does this mean that money is treated differently from other assets brought into the marriage during the marriage?

[ikethespike]

I thought that the Bentley would probably be a sole asset of the registered keeper as on the DVLA V5C, but can see that the V5C document states that it "is not proof of ownership. It shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle". Can anyone clarify?

[SteelCamel]

I thought that the Bentley would probably be a sole asset of the registered keeper as on the DVLA V5C, but can see that the V5C document states that it "is not proof of ownership. It shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle". Can anyone clarify?

Yes, there is no official register of who owns vehicles in the UK (unlike some other countries). The DVLA only records the keeper, who is responsible for the vehicle but may not own it. Basically they want to know who to send the tax demands, speeding tickets etc. The car may be owned by a finance company, but it's not them the DVLA wants to contact.