Just a quick reminder to myself that these are the current cases concerned the ability of attorneys to make valid gifts, and the interaction with IHT.
Day -v- Harris 2013 Day v Harris and others Same v Royal College of Music and another (Arnold and another, interpleader claimants)  EWCA Civ 191;  WLR (D) 112 and PDF of judgment concerns a registered EPA – and gifts made by the attorney (who was also a joint holder of a bank account) and whether the gifts that he had made were as attorney for the donor, or in another capacity as being access to the joint bank account as was his right as a joint bank account signatory
In my judgment, it remained open to Mr Day to operate the bank account after registration of the EPA as he had done before such registration. He could not use it to benefit himself without the full, free and informed consent of Sir Malcolm but, if he had that consent, as the judge held he did, gifts made by drawing cheques on the joint account were not invalidated by the effect of section 7(1)(c) of the Act even though made after registration of the EPA.
Had the gifts not been validly made, then they were still part of the donor’s estate for IHT purposes – on the basis of Curnock v IRC, Curnock v IRC  SWTI 1053 where a cheque was not encashed prior to the death of the donor – and therefore the gift was not complete by the time of death. This could also be seen in conjunction with Phizackerley, Personal Representatives of Phizackerley v HMRC  SpC 591
An earlier version of Day -v- Harris, in 2010 concerned the nature of the accounting to be made for the researches of the executor into the amount of the gifts that were made and how far back the executor should go in attempting to ascertain what gifts had been made, and whether the expenses of the executor in doing so were reasonable.