Well if it was an interest in possession trust - and the Will could be interpreted that way as it appears to give the husband a right to live in the trust (though it isn't as clear as it could be!) - then it should have been included in his IHT estate at death and that will need to be rectified. Was it treated as spouse exempt when Mrs A died - that would certainly suggest it was treated as an IIP trust at that point? If it was treated as a discretionary trust on Mrs A's death and IHT paid on the value at that point, and the bit about Mr A 'may' live in the house was treated as a wish rather than an instruction, then you need to consider IHT on the trust when the property or value leaves the trust and/or on the tenth anniversary, there's no automatic uplift for CGT on Mr A's death and a PPR claim will have to be made on the disposal (PPR isn't automatic for trustees and has to be formally claimed). But it does sound as if the intention was to create an IIP trust as the Will says 'when this trust ends'. And the discretionary trusts created on Mr A's death do preclude the RNRB being used, as MUL says.
You can't have it not falling into Mr A's estate and have a CGT uplift/no IHT implications for the trust.
I provide tax consultancy services to accountants and can't tell you how often the tax implications of trusts are misunderstood or dealt with incorrectly by trustees - sometimes for years!
You did say that - but you also said 'There is a slight complication in that Mrs A's will implies that the estate (really only the house) was held by the 4 children within discretionary trusts and that when Mr A died the house would be split in the same way.' which appears to say something different. Have you read the Will and are sure it is an interest in possession trust and not a discretionary trust? It is the terms of the Trust as set out in the Will that are important. If the Will says the estate went into a discretionary trust, why do you believe it is an interest in possession trust? Has the property been included in Mr A's estate for IHT on his death?
You need to establish whether Mr A had a right to live in the property (an interest in possession) or was a discretionary beneficiary allowed to live there by the trustees as that will determine the CGT and IHT implications. Either way, CGT is unlikely to be much of an issue if the gap between Mr A's death and sale isn't long but how the gain is calculated and reported and what claims need to be made will depend on the terms of the trust and the type of occupation (by right or discretionary) so the terms of the trust set up on Mrs A's death need to be examined.
I do a lot of trust work and often find that the trustees'/beneficiaries' understanding of the trust terms doesn't always reflect what the trust deed/Will actually says!
If the employer advises HMRC that the P11D was issued in error/incorrect an overpayment relief claim should be possible. If they just tell your client, then your client needs to forward that information to HMRC who would hopefully take it up with the employer.
There's nothing grammatically wrong with using 'they' in the singular. It's been used like that for more than 500 years. Personally I didn't find the question at all unclear as it was clear from the context who was being referred to (or 'to whom they were referring', if you prefer!).
I don't know how you get the bank to do what you want but I'd suggest you tell whoever is managing this organisation that you are asking the bank to remove you as a signatory but will cease to authorise any payments and return post to the bank, whether or not the bank will remove you as a signatory, if they don't organise a new signatory within, say, 2 weeks. Being faced with no way of authorising payments might focus their minds! My experience with this sort of thing is that sometimes you have to be ruthless and make it absolutely clear you are walking away whether or not they have replaced you. Then usually things seem to get done!
My answers
Well if it was an interest in possession trust - and the Will could be interpreted that way as it appears to give the husband a right to live in the trust (though it isn't as clear as it could be!) - then it should have been included in his IHT estate at death and that will need to be rectified. Was it treated as spouse exempt when Mrs A died - that would certainly suggest it was treated as an IIP trust at that point? If it was treated as a discretionary trust on Mrs A's death and IHT paid on the value at that point, and the bit about Mr A 'may' live in the house was treated as a wish rather than an instruction, then you need to consider IHT on the trust when the property or value leaves the trust and/or on the tenth anniversary, there's no automatic uplift for CGT on Mr A's death and a PPR claim will have to be made on the disposal (PPR isn't automatic for trustees and has to be formally claimed). But it does sound as if the intention was to create an IIP trust as the Will says 'when this trust ends'. And the discretionary trusts created on Mr A's death do preclude the RNRB being used, as MUL says.
You can't have it not falling into Mr A's estate and have a CGT uplift/no IHT implications for the trust.
I provide tax consultancy services to accountants and can't tell you how often the tax implications of trusts are misunderstood or dealt with incorrectly by trustees - sometimes for years!
Very true!
You did say that - but you also said 'There is a slight complication in that Mrs A's will implies that the estate (really only the house) was held by the 4 children within discretionary trusts and that when Mr A died the house would be split in the same way.' which appears to say something different. Have you read the Will and are sure it is an interest in possession trust and not a discretionary trust? It is the terms of the Trust as set out in the Will that are important. If the Will says the estate went into a discretionary trust, why do you believe it is an interest in possession trust? Has the property been included in Mr A's estate for IHT on his death?
You need to establish whether Mr A had a right to live in the property (an interest in possession) or was a discretionary beneficiary allowed to live there by the trustees as that will determine the CGT and IHT implications. Either way, CGT is unlikely to be much of an issue if the gap between Mr A's death and sale isn't long but how the gain is calculated and reported and what claims need to be made will depend on the terms of the trust and the type of occupation (by right or discretionary) so the terms of the trust set up on Mrs A's death need to be examined.
I do a lot of trust work and often find that the trustees'/beneficiaries' understanding of the trust terms doesn't always reflect what the trust deed/Will actually says!
That's my reading of Schedule 2 too.
Don't do it - it's not nice here in Ripon today!
Are they saying she can't charge VAT or that the price she has agreed with them is VAT inclusive?
If the employer advises HMRC that the P11D was issued in error/incorrect an overpayment relief claim should be possible. If they just tell your client, then your client needs to forward that information to HMRC who would hopefully take it up with the employer.
There's nothing grammatically wrong with using 'they' in the singular. It's been used like that for more than 500 years. Personally I didn't find the question at all unclear as it was clear from the context who was being referred to (or 'to whom they were referring', if you prefer!).
I don't know how you get the bank to do what you want but I'd suggest you tell whoever is managing this organisation that you are asking the bank to remove you as a signatory but will cease to authorise any payments and return post to the bank, whether or not the bank will remove you as a signatory, if they don't organise a new signatory within, say, 2 weeks. Being faced with no way of authorising payments might focus their minds! My experience with this sort of thing is that sometimes you have to be ruthless and make it absolutely clear you are walking away whether or not they have replaced you. Then usually things seem to get done!