Featured

Word of the Day: Fungible

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fungible

Nothing to do with mushrooms (or badgers or snakes). And also nothing to do with a Runcible Spoon. Of course, a runcible spoon could be fungible, providing it is identical to another. Highly unlikely really, as there is argument that money itself is not totally fungible Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd [1986] and principles considered later in https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2010-0194-judgment.pdf

fungible

adjectivefun·​gi·​ble | \ ˈfən-jə-bəl  \

Definition of fungible

 (Entry 1 of 2)1being something (such as money or a commodity) of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in paying a debt or settling an accountOil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities.fungible goods2capable of mutual substitution INTERCHANGEABLE… the court’s postulate that male and female jurors must be regarded as fungible— George Will3readily changeable to adapt to new situations FLEXIBLEManagers typically use more than a hundred different lineups over the course of the season. Batting orders are so fungible that few players last long in one spot.— Tom Verducci

fungiblenoun

Definition of fungible (Entry 2 of 2)something that is fungible (see FUNGIBLE entry 1 sense 1a good one part or quantity of which can be substituted for another of equal value in satisfying an obligation —usually used in pluralFungibles may be valued by weight or measure.

Massive probate fee increase

From £1.50 to £16 each – massive fee increase for probate fees

In case anyone missed it – and it loomed up far too quickly…

Fees for official copies of a grant of probate have gone from £1.50 each to £16!

That’s a staggering increase and will fill up the government coffers nicely. Especially if you have lots of different bank accounts and shareholdings all over the place and no shares are under management…

LPA fee increase 2025

MoJ announces proposed LPA fee increase from November 2025

MOJ announcement on LPA fees

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced that the lasting power of attorney (LPA) application fees will increase from £82 to £92, pending Parliamentary approval. The new fee will apply to applications received by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) from 17 November 2025. This adjustment aims to better align application income with costs associated with OPG service delivery. Fee exemptions and reductions will continue to be available depending on applicants’ financial circumstances, in accordance with His Majesty’s Treasury guidance on Managing Public Money.

This opportunity comes once in a lifetime

Daily writing prompt
If you had the power to change one law, what would it be and why?

Gravity. I think it would be fun if this was optional and/or discretionary… Imagine the fun you could have…

Seriously though – in England the laws can be changed – by parliament. If you want to change the law you need to get elected, or to thoroughly persuade those who are elected. You might decide to stand as a politician or local councillor.

Protesting in the streets doesn’t seem to have much effect on policy in England – it didn’t stop the poll tax, it didn’t stop Brexit. You may get further if you have serious amounts of money – even politicians are swayed by powerful people – but the direct route of being elected is usually considered less controversial than buying your way to a law change…

Why not look at laws as being the written rules, that might need changing from time to time, and really examine if they are fit for purpose? Examine the way those laws have been interpreted, when the situation is not clear – and how lawyers have understood the words used in the laws. Unlike scientific laws, the ways we choose to codify our lives as a society can be changed.

Or else the beat goes on…

Why d’you have to make things complicated?

Types of Trust (UK specific) explained, and why they are used

Trusts are something that people often get worried about – they think it’s all too complex and not for them.  But basically it’s about putting a defined amount of money (or other assets) under someone else’s control for the benefit of defined group of people (and you choose who those people are).  The person who is listed as the owner is not necessarily entitled to the money themselves, but is looking after it for others.  They are entrusted with its care. 

This is written about UK trusts, but they can exist in other forms in other countries in the world. The choice of trust is important, as there can be adverse tax consequences if you are using the wrong type for the task in hand. This short post is not a substitute for specialist legal advice tailored to your circumstances.

Why would I need one?   

You might be using a trust structure without realizing it – now!  If you and your partner own a house together, then you might both be listed on the deeds.  When you sell, do you each get half of what is left over after expenses?  If you died, would you want your partner to automatically have all the value in the house?  How have you decided the terms of your house ownership with each other? 

If you have a child who is under the age of 18 when you die – who will look after the assets you have on their behalf until they are old enough?  Is 18 old enough to inherit what you have?  Do you have a child who has additional needs?  Do you want them to have all your money when their needs might be lifelong, and they might not be able to manage money well? 

Do you worry about what might happen if your partner meets someone new and forgets about how much they have inherited from you – and spends it on them?  Or if they get into debt, and it eats up not only all their share, but yours as well?  A trust can be a good way of letting your partner have some of the benefit of what you have, but keeping a bit of security, so they don’t spend it (or have it spent for them) 

Are they expensive? 

There will be a cost for setting up your trust.  Running a trust can cost, but then again, if you choose non-lawyers or non-accountants to be your trustees, the cost may be minor, being limited to out of pocket expenses.  Looking after a million pounds means more work to do than if you were being asked to look after a thousand pounds, and you might need professional help.   

Apart from working out what sort of trust suits you and getting the right sort of trust in the beginning, making it work will require some effort, just like running a car or getting a regular haircut. 

Will I need a lawyer all the time? 

Probably not, if you still have an idea of what the responsibilities of a trustee can be.  However, if you are worried, then legal advice is available, if your trustees want to know more.  It can be necessary to have an independent person as a trustee – a friend or someone outside your closest family. 

You mean there are different sorts of trusts? 

Yes – there used to be many more types of trusts – and confusingly, not everyone talks about them using the same labels.  Basically, trusts now can be broken down into four types: 

  1. The bare trust 
  1. The Interest in possession trust 
  1. The discretionary trust 
  1. The charitable trust. 

A bare trust is similar to a nominee – you decide that someone is to own the asset in name only.  But you expect that the proceeds of sale will not go to the person who appears to own it, but to your choice of recipients 

An Interest in possession is where a named person is entitled to receive the income (or to live rent free) in an asset.  The capital remains safeguarded.  Some sub-types of this sort of trust can also be chosen.  These are usually set up in a will, to take effect after death, for tax reasons. 

A discretionary trust is one where you place the most trust – because it is the most flexible arrangement.  You give your assets to your trustees, identify the people who you want to benefit, and then leave the management of the trust, including how and when people benefit to your trustees.  It is helpful to leave them some written guidance, so that they know what you have in mind – but ultimately, you give them the authority to do the “right thing” with your assets, for the benefit of those whom you have chosen.   

So, a bare trust is quite simple? 

Yes – it’s the sort of thing you have if you purchase a house for a person under 18 – when they turn 18, they can force the trustee to hand it over.  You find this sort of thing when administering an estate – an executor, once they have paid debts, can say that they are holding assets for your benefit – and sell on your behalf, at your direction.   

Interest in Possession sounds really weird… 

This is one of the sorts of trusts that ends up with lots of different names, because the technical name is not really all that catchy.  Sometimes it’s called a property trust – because it’s often used to safeguard a share of the house for the benefit of the surviving member of a couple, so they can continue to live in a house rent free, but without being able to spend it on someone new.  Other names can be “Life Interest Trust”, “home trust” and so on – sometimes there are advisers that use this structure and want to brand it specifically so that it has more appeal.   

Discretionary Trusts sound so complicated.  Why would anyone want them? 

These are the most flexible sort.  If you have a person with a learning disability, they may need money throughout their lives, but may not be able to make significant financial decisions either now or in the future.  They may be able to live independently, but be easily swayed by people who want to take advantage.  They might have a physical disability that could need more and more care as time goes on.  Choosing a discretionary trust structure allows those in charge of it (trustees) all the power they need not only to invest according to the needs of those who benefit, but also to pay out in all sorts of different ways – as and when needed.   

It is true to say that Discretionary Trusts are used in times of uncertainty, for those who are wealthy and who want to pass on money for tax reasons, perhaps for their children not to receive the money too soon, if at all.  Or for business owners who want there to be only a few people that own a block of shares, rather than lots of minor shareholders clamouring for power.  But essentially the structure is the same – two trustees who look after something for the benefit of a range of people.   

You left out charities!

Well, there are not many people who want to set up charities – usually there is a charity to suit every need in existence already.  Sometimes using an existing charity presents the best value for money for those who are in need – saving on set up costs and running costs.  Charities can be made using trust documents, setting out their objectives and who is proposed to benefit.  Similarly, pension fund trusts are less often the creation of an individual – and pension fund trustees have wide powers over what they do to invest, and distribute. 

What else do I need to think about? 

Taxation is something that can come into your decision making process.  If you give a property away, there might be a Capital Gains Tax bill – but your advisers might have a way of postponing this.  If you have a fund larger than £325,000 initially, then there are other considerations for Inheritance Tax.  Inheritance Tax capital gifts also have fairly strict allowances – otherwise they might be a gift that you need to survive by a period of years (7 years to a maximum 14 years from trust gift). As with all Inheritance Tax gifts, you cannot benefit from what you have put into your discretionary trust, or it will not work (1)

During the lifetime of the trust, the size of the fund and how it is invested can be important – because it means there will need to be more financial housekeeping.  This can be a relevant consideration in many cases.   

What do you recommend? 

It depends on what matters the most to you – behind every choice there is a risk and benefit.  There is not really a one-size-fits-all solution for every circumstance, and that is where the advice from your solicitor (or accountant) about a trust can be so beneficial.  For more in –depth analysis of the structures you would like to use, and their implications for your own financial situation, you should consider this general note with tailored advice to suit you. 

(1) There are exceptions to this rule, but only very few. Tread carefully, with advice.

“I’m not a tenant! we own the house!” – Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common Explained

Owning a property in the UK is something quite a lot of people do – if they are not the sole owner, then clearly they own it with someone else – and that is where the words “tenants in common” and “beneficial joint tenants” come into play.

For example, you might be talking about a freehold (you own the land and the building on it) or leasehold (you own a flat for a period of years, that will eventually expire). You might own with or without a mortgage. But if you own with someone else, you have to describe the way you own it. There are two ways.

Beneficial Joint Tenancy (often shortened to Joint tenants)

This is ownership that the majority of married couples choose, unless they have had taxplanning advice – it means that although both owners are shown on the title deeds, they each have the right to the whole of the property, between them. If one owner dies, the remaining owner is entitled to the whole of the sale proceeds. The ownership passes like a bank account – all that is required is the submission of a death certificate and the completion of a form DJP sent to H M Land Registry.

Tenancy in Common

This is where instead of both owners owning an undivided share, each owner has said that they own a separate share of the proceeds of sale. It doesn’t mean literally putting up walls in the house and segregated areas (although that’s often the joke).

It means that on the death of one of the owners, the ownership of their share passes under their will (or if they have no will, on intestacy) – they can control what happens to their share.

How can you tell which is which?

When you buy a house, your conveyancing solicitor will ask you to sign a document that effects the transfer from the old owner to you – on that document, there is a box to tick saying how you want to own it.

If you subsequently want to change the ownership, then you will need to complete a severance, send the Land Registry form to the Land Registry. They will then send you a new version of the title deed showing that there is a restriction on who can receive the proceeds of sale.

Why do I want to know? What’s the point?

If you are owning a house with your brother, you might want your share to go to your family when you die – or at least to have a say in whether that should happen. If you are getting divorced, you might want to make sure that if you died, your share would pass following your will. If you want to set up arrangements whereby you control what happens to “your share” of the house, you need to start from the position of actually having a share.

Why should you make Lasting Powers of Attorney and pay all that money to a solicitor?

On being asked by a colleague why (entre nous) it would be a
good idea to get some expert advice on making LPAs as opposed to just downloading the forms from the internet… 
Are legal fees worth paying, as opposed to doing it yourself?

Well, certainly the forms are available online.  And there is good advice in the explanatory leaflet. You still have to pay for the registration fees.

But that’s as far as it goes in terms of legal advice – and if you want to consider a scenario which is not covered by the advice – or the phrasing of it means you don’t understand, there is not really much of a substitute for being able to ask someone who knows what they are talking about and can answer.  That’s the real reason why you pay a lawyer – to tell you the trips and pitfalls, and to answer tricky scenarios, if you think there might be one for you.  To make sure you really know what you are signing, especially when it is a powerful document.  Sometimes words used in legal documents already have a specifically understood meaning (rather than the basic meaning of ordinary words).  Sometimes phrases like “appropriate investment advice” covers a wide range of what has been considered to be appropriate in different circumstances. 

In addition, if you think it might be a good idea to restrict the powers that you give to attorneys, you might actually be making matters far worse – your wording may in time come to be very restrictive.

If there is, later on, any question about whether you understood what the power was – either given or received – then you may have had a good start if you saw a solicitor who explained it to you, or who gave you some tips and notes for future reference.

Lets be honest, the law applies to all, and breaking it is a possibility – finding ways round scenarios and using the Ways and Means Act – all of those things are what people do in real life – but there has to be a point at which the buck stops – and that is on the written word of the law, and of the power given.   Because human beings are imaginative, there is always the opportunity for a new situation to come up which no one ever thought was an issue.  So the law moves on, shading ever closer to the “real” meaning of a law.   If the sea is blue, then it is cerulean blue, deep blue, wine-dark, green, grey, flecked with white or a certain shade as defined by Pantone?  And which sea?  The sea I view from my window, or yours? the sea in summer, at Margate, or at Whitby?

PSA: Solicitors charge for what they do

Anecdotal evidence recently exchanged around the office appears to show that solicitors are expected to:

  1. When acting as executors, even after the end of the administration, maintain the grave of the deceased at no cost to the estate, as a matter of course;
  2. Provide initial free advice as a “statutory free half hour” on any topic;
  3. During such initial advice, complete IHT400 forms – for no fee;
  4. Give tax advice in relation to estates for no fee, when such estates would normally attract a significant Inheritance Tax liability;
  5. Travel to see a client residing more than fifteen minutes drive away at no additional fee, at a time convenient to a client;
  6. Provide copies of entire files for no fee;
  7. Answer questions relating to the preparation of a will for no fee.

I really don’t understand – you don’t expect your hairdresser to cut your hair for free – or a plumber to come out and look at your boiler and not charge for their time. You don’t roll up at the airport, board a plane and then fly to New York for no money or expect that a return flight is automatically included because you purchased an outward bound ticket. You regularly pay for your car to be serviced and have new tyres, but expect a will to be an unusual and unnecessary expense, and the advice connected with it to be worthless.

I appreciate lawyers are “lefty” when they do their job for people whom the last government disliked, or amongst the lowest of the law (the aforementioned government/parliament, estate agents etc) but we seem to be asked to do so much, compared to other professions, and to be vilified in the same breath, all for free…

Inheritance Tax planning in the Court of Protection: PBC v JMA & Ors [2018] EWCOP 19

September 2018 saw the case below, reported in full here 

Mitigation of tax, particularly taxes of inter-generational effect and even by completely lawful “vanilla” means, is a matter on which there may be a range of views. The Mental Capacity Act does not permit the Court to rely on default positions, assumptions or generalisations in making a decision about whether gifts to effect tax mitigation are in the best interests of a particular protected person. The Court must decide the application on nothing more and nothing less than a case-specific application of section 4.

This concerned tax mitigation for a very wealthy individual who had lost capacity and whether this could be said to be in her best interests, given that the Inheritance Tax liability would be on death, and there would therefore not be of immediate concern to the donor, were she capax.

Argued by David Rees, the criteria to be considered are explored in considerable detail.  Since there was sufficient money remaining to cover every conceivable cost the donor could need to pay before death, this was a case not about affordability but whether the court could decide to make a payment on her behalf.  The court had to make a balancing exercise and did so, culminating in the court agreeing to the proposed gifts, after weighing those considerations up.

64.       Affordability : I agree with the Official Solicitor that, where the court is considering the authorisation of gifts, affordability is a “necessary but not sufficient” consideration. The future needs of the protected person must be considered on a cautious basis, and the level of gifting not such as may put in doubt the donor’s ability to meet those needs. I am satisfied that, even though the gifts proposed in this case are very large, they are amply affordable for JMA. If the parties’ agreement is given effect, she will still have at her disposal funds which are more than sufficient to meet her conceivable needs. That in itself is not however sufficient basis to conclude that making the proposed gifts would be in her best interests. There is no expectation on people who retain capacity to make gifts of their surplus wealth during their lifetime, and nor should there be any expectation that it is in the best interests of persons who lack capacity so to do.

  1.  Default position/assumption : The purpose of the gifts presently under consideration has always openly been stated as tax mitigation. In support of the parties’ agreement Mr Rees referred to a “default position [6] ” and Ms. Haren referred to a “reasonable expectation [7] ” or “assumption [8] ” in favour of such measures. Similarly, I note that the Official Solicitor in Re KGS referred to a “generalisation. [9] ” In my judgment, following the exegesis of Charles J in Watts v. ABC , each of these “runs counter to the underlying rationale and purpose of the MCA and, in particular, of its decision and fact sensitive approach to the application of its best interests test in all the circumstances of a given case.”

  2.  Mitigation of tax, particularly taxes of inter-generational effect and even by completely lawful “vanilla” means, is a matter on which there may be a range of views. The Mental Capacity Act does not permit the Court to rely on default positions, assumptions or generalisations in making a decision about whether gifts to effect tax mitigation are in the best interests of a particular protected person. The Court must decide the application on nothing more and nothing less than a case-specific application of section 4.

 

Paragraph 67 of the judgment:

   The balancing exercise : In my judgment, the factors weighing in favour and against the making of the proposed gifts from JMA’s estate may be summarised thus:

 

IN FAVOUR

 

 

AGAINST

The recipients of the proposed gifts are those whom JMA has chosen to benefit in the will she made when she had capacity to do so:

·          the benefit they will receive has a good prospect of being increased by the effect of tax mitigation but will otherwise be much the same overall whether or not the gifts are made

 

JMA had on one occasion expressed a wish that her son should know that the end of financial support from her had come.
Management of her property and affairs with a view to tax efficiency is consistent with JMA’s beliefs and values as demonstrated by her actions when she had capacity to manage her financial affairs for herself:

·          when she could, she took regular financial advice and made decisions in accordance with that advice to minimise her exposure to lifetime taxes, including strategies with incidental inheritance tax benefits

·          JMA’s change of circumstances now makes it feasible to consider post-death tax exposure

JMA’s tax mitigation whilst she had capacity did not extend to post-death taxes save where that was incidental to life-time tax planning intended to address her own needs
The proposed gifts are amply affordable and will have no discernible impact on her ability to meet her conceivable needs from her remaining funds. The proposed gifts reduce JMA’s estate and therefore the funds available to her during her lifetime by approximately 38%.
The proposed gifts reflect an agreement reached between the various recipients and with independent representation of JMA herself:

·          any further argument is avoided, thereby reducing potential exposure to costs

·          giving effect to the agreement may have a beneficial effect on family relationships which have been adversely affected by difficult circumstances.