Willed money to sons.

Keep_pedalling

AnotherJoe said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Hectors_House said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

None of my business, but you don't feature in your partner's will?  I assume that's intentional?

(As I say none of my business, but you understand this... )

Yes Manxman in Exile I don’t feature in my partner’s will and this isn’t a problem.

My only concern is, now he has discussed it with me I can see two of his children may, inadvertently be affected by his generosity in ways he didn’t intend (one son is fighting cancer and was long-term disabled before his diagnosis and will never work again sadly).

It is looking like all three will inherit in the region of £120,000 each and he, currently has things set up to drip feed £10,000 per year to the two sons reliant on various benefits currently.

Thank you everyone for your advise so far.

I really think it is a silly idea. £120k is going to make a big difference to their lives even if it does mean loosing benefits, which may not even be the case with the one who can’t work because of illness, as his benefits may not be means tested, but even if they are drip feeding at £10k pa  will Have the same effect on those benefits.

There is also the strong possibility that this son may not live long enough to make full use of the £120k.

He should keep it simple, just leave them equal shares outright.

Not necessarily. It's probably to avoid Going over a threshold of savings where benefits are reduced. However making that future proof could be difficult. 

I think anything coming from a discresionary trust will be treated as unearned income and 10k pa of unearned income will wipe out any universal credit, as each £1 of income will reduce the benefit payment by the same amount. 

Malthusian

This sounds to me like the worst of both worlds from a tax-efficiency perspective and the only rationale for doing this is if your partner has a moral objection to benefits and wants to minimise the amount his sons can claim from the state.

I am not au fait with means test thresholds, but £10kpa sounds to me like the right amount to leave to replace their benefits without leaving them any better off.

As others have covered, leaving them a £120,000 lump sum makes them much better off even if they receive £120k less in benefits over the following years (which doesn't have to be the case as Aranyani says). A lump sum is much more valuable than a trickle of benefits as it can be used for education, disability adaptations, getting a car, moving somewhere with better job prospects, going travelling etc etc.

Aranyani said:

If the sons receive a lump sum, then it is my understanding that if they used it for a sensible reason, such as to buy a home or to make adjustments to make their home more disability friendly, or buy an adapted car or pay for specialised care or therapy etc. Then this would not be counted as deprivation of assets and would not affect their benefits. 

The receipt of the £120,000 would affect their benefits, but you are right inasmuch as they could spend some or all of the £120,000 you describe and then successfully claim benefits when the money had been spent. Owning their own home would affect Housing Benefit though.