Death of Joint Account holder

Anderson10

My Grandfather recently died, leaving his estate split broadly between grandchildren and my father.
My father had 2 joint bank accounts with my Grandfather, one savings and one current; both set up for ease of managing finances and paying bills.

My Father has been told by the solicitor that as the money was deposited solely by my Grandfather, that the money forms part of the state and the accounts are to be closed and money transferred to solicitor.

We understood that the money now legally belonged to my father, and whilst liable for inheritance tax, any remainder would be Dad's. I didn't think it mattered who deposited the money; can you advise of the best way to proceed?
The bank has transferred the account into my Father's name and consider the money to be his, so legally whose money is it? The estate of my Grandfather or my Father as joint account holder?

getmore4less

by saying it was a joint account of convenience that could imply it was never intended to be a "joint asset" account or a gift.

There will be plenty of case law covering this which is why the solicitor can make a claim on the funds for the estate it will be upto them and your dad to put a case together if they fail to agree.

pick a google search and research more.

here is a link to get you going

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/community/blogs/pd-tax/inheritance-tax-joint-bank-accounts

edit : might as well add this one as it discusses the concept of resulting trusts.
http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/tax-articles/income-tax/joint-accounts-income-tax.html

Yorkshireman99

Anderson10 wrote: »

My Grandfather recently died, leaving his estate split broadly between grandchildren and my father.
My father had 2 joint bank accounts with my Grandfather, one savings and one current; both set up for ease of managing finances and paying bills.

My Father has been told by the solicitor that as the money was deposited solely by my Grandfather, that the money forms part of the state and the accounts are to be closed and money transferred to solicitor.

We understood that the money now legally belonged to my father, and whilst liable for inheritance tax, any remainder would be Dad's. I didn't think it mattered who deposited the money; can you advise of the best way to proceed?
The bank has transferred the account into my Father's name and consider the money to be his, so legally whose money is it? The estate of my Grandfather or my Father as joint account holder?

It is not a simple as some glib answers may make you believe. IMHO the solicitor is being rather heavy handed particualrly if, as you imply, there are other estate assets. I had a similar arrangement with my late mother and there was no similar problem with HMR&C or the executor. You might want to get some professional advice rather than relying on advice from here.

NordicNoir

This is the view taken by HMRC on the subject:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517451/IHT404.pdf

Keep_pedalling

Whatever the legal situation, it does not seem right morally that everything in these accounts goes to you father, as you say the only reason they were made joint accounts was to allow your father to help manage your GFs finances.

Clearly these were you GFs assets and should be divided as per his will

Yorkshireman99

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Whatever the legal situation, it does not seem right morally that everything in these accounts goes to you father, as you say the only reason they were made joint accounts was to allow your father to help manage your GFs finances.

Clearly these were you GFs assets and should be divided as per his will

Whatever may be "morally correct" is not relevant. It is the law that matters. Nor is the HMR&C form is not a definitive statement of the law and each case note needs to be taken of the facts relating to it. It may well be very difficult, or indeed impossible, to unravel all the transactions. In the absense of any proof to the contrary the funds belong to the survivor. In my own case the accounts had been open for nearly twenty years and the Inland Revenue, as they then were, agreed that they could not prove that the ownership was anything but joint.