Deed of Variation

getmore4less

Given that the DOV is an insurance policy against death of 2 people within 7 years or less if there is unused gifts exemptions, how much would an alternative single payment life policy cost to cover the max tax due of 40% of £25k if the estate is over £650k.

Savvy_Sue

g6jns wrote: »

Nobody can be forced to accept a legacy.

Small exception, as I understand it, you can't refuse a legacy left to a child / a child can't refuse to accept a legacy.

Not relevant to the current situation, but if the OP's father had left money direct to his grandchildren, the OP could not refuse it with a DofV or any other way.

g6jns_2

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Small exception, as I understand it, you can't refuse a legacy left to a child / a child can't refuse to accept a legacy.

Not relevant to the current situation, but if the OP's father had left money direct to his grandchildren, the OP could not refuse it with a DofV or any other way.

A legacy to a minor is held in trust until they are 18. AFAIK they could then refuse it.

securityguy

g6jns wrote: »

Yes I did get it in writing. The crucial point is that you never have the funds so you cannot deprive yourself of something you don't have. Nobody can be forced to accept a legacy. All a DOV does is to say that you don't accept the funds. Whilst a DOV can be up to two years from the date of death provided it is done before the estate is distributed then it is not deprivation of assets.

On the other hand, if the sums of money were large, one can imagine the DWP asking some very stringent questions about the relationship between the person that refused the inheritance and the person who ultimately received it. The slightest suggestion that the refuser has any formal or informal control over the money might be something of a red flag.

If you refuse the legacy and the deed of variation gives it to the dogs' home, then the DWP probably don't have a leg to stand on. If (say) an adult in receipt of means-tested benefits refuses a legacy and uses a DoV to pass the money to their minor children in trust instead, I suspect the DWP would argue that the transaction was artificial. Case law is needed here, I think.

Mojisola

securityguy wrote: »

On the other hand, if the sums of money were large, one can imagine the DWP asking some very stringent questions about the relationship between the person that refused the inheritance and the person who ultimately received it. The slightest suggestion that the refuser has any formal or informal control over the money might be something of a red flag.

I'm waiting for a reply from the DWP about this. I'll post whatever I get back from them.

getmore4less

AIUI the beneficial interest starts from the DOD, the executors are only holding the assets as trustees.

If it was this easy we could all just hide our assets in trusts in advance and bingo benifits/care comes rolling in.

Mojisola

getmore4less wrote: »

AIUI the beneficial interest starts from the DOD, the executors are only holding the assets as trustees.

If it was this easy we could all just hide our assets in trusts in advance and bingo benifits/care comes rolling in.

If the beneficiary is getting the rent from the date of the death, does the beneficiary also pay the insurance, council tax, repairs and maintenance from that date?

g6jns_2

Mojisola wrote: »

If the beneficiary is getting the rent from the date of the death, does the beneficiary also pay the insurance, council tax, repairs and maintenance from that date?

The executors are responsible al the outgoings until probate and distribution.

Mojisola

There's not much logic in the beneficiary having the income from the property but the estate responsible for all expenses related to the same property.

g6jns_2

Mojisola wrote: »

There's not much logic in the beneficiary having the income from the property but the estate responsible for all expenses related to the same property.

But until probate the beneficiary does not get any rent because that is due to executors.