Interpreting net and gross value of an estate

[RJH]

I have a summary 'grant' of an intestate will that contains this
sentence: 'the gross value . . . does not exceed £325,00 and the net
value . . . does not exceed £318,000'

I think the value of the estate was about £100,000.

What's the basis of these net and gross figures? I recognise the
£325,000 as the (old?) threshold at which tax became payable. But I'm
not sure of the net figure.

Just pondering really. What I wanted from the online probate records
service was the amount left in the will, which I'm obviously no closer
to knowing.

Thanks

[Robin]

It would help if you could tell us your source and the precise words it
uses given there's either an intestacy or a [valid] will but not both.
The date of the death might also help as there are some figures in the
National Probate Calendar Index for pre-1966 deaths. But AIUI generally
in England & Wales you need to buy a copy of the "grant of
representation" (for a will or an intestacy).

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[Peter Crosland]

The net value is after taking into account any debts such as the funeral
costs. Why would you think the real value was less than a third of the
declared value? There is no way to find out any detail unless you are a
residuary beneficiary. You could buy a copy of the grant with the will
annexed but it may not tell you anything.


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[RJH]

On 11/12/2015 17:28, Robin wrote:
> RJH wrote:
>> I have a summary 'grant' of an intestate will that contains this
>> sentence: 'the gross value . . . does not exceed £325,00 and the net
>> value . . . does not exceed £318,000'
>>
>> I think the value of the estate was about £100,000.
>>
>> What's the basis of these net and gross figures? I recognise the
>> £325,000 as the (old?) threshold at which tax became payable. But I'm
>> not sure of the net figure.
>
>> Just pondering really. What I wanted from the online probate records
>> service was the amount left in the will, which I'm obviously no closer
>> to knowing.
>>
>
> It would help if you could tell us your source

The source is a Grant document from a district probate registry. I got
it from:
ttps://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/#wills

and the precise words it
> uses given there's either an intestacy or a [valid] will but not both.

Sorry yes - no will, intestate

> The date of the death might also help as there are some figures in the
> National Probate Calendar Index for pre-1966 deaths.

Recently - a few years back

But AIUI generally
> in England & Wales you need to buy a copy of the "grant of
> representation" (for a will or an intestacy).
>

Yes, I have one of those, about a tenner from these people:
https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/#wills

The exact wording is as above really - 'It is hereby certified that it
appears from information supplied on the application for this grant that
the gross value of said estate . . .' etc.

So, it would appear that the gross value of the estate was probably more
like 325,000, and after expenses (solicitor and funeral?) 318,000?


--
Cheers, Rob

[RJH]

On 11/12/2015 18:24, Peter Crosland wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 13:15, RJH wrote:
>> I have a summary 'grant' of an intestate will that contains this
>> sentence: 'the gross value . . . does not exceed £325,00 and the net
>> value . . . does not exceed £318,000'
>>
>> I think the value of the estate was about £100,000.
>>
>> What's the basis of these net and gross figures? I recognise the
>> £325,000 as the (old?) threshold at which tax became payable. But I'm
>> not sure of the net figure.
>>
>> Just pondering really. What I wanted from the online probate records
>> service was the amount left in the will, which I'm obviously no closer
>> to knowing.
>
> The net value is after taking into account any debts such as the funeral
> costs.

Ah, thanks. I'd thought the net/gross was something to do with tax.

The 'not exceed' 325k just looks like some sort of catch-all to me - a
figure they (solicitors perhaps) put on all such cases not subject to
CGT. But you think it may relate to the actual size of the estate?

> Why would you think the real value was less than a third of the
> declared value?

Well, that's the point of the query! I've been led to believe it was in
the region of 100k. But have reason to doubt, and was wondering if this
finding has any bearing on that.

> There is no way to find out any detail unless you are a
> residuary beneficiary. You could buy a copy of the grant with the will
> annexed but it may not tell you anything.
>

The person died without making a will, and I wasn't the next of kin or
anything like that. The next of kin doesn't want to disclose the details.


--
Cheers, Rob

[Peter Crosland]

If they died intestate then the intestacy laws apply to who inherits and
how much. What makes you think the actual value is much lower?

[Robin]

RJH wrote:
> So, it would appear that the gross value of the estate was probably
> more like 325,000, and after expenses (solicitor and funeral?)
> 318,000?

I think that must be right. The only point I paused over is the use of
the words " does not exceed..." The very few copies of grants from
recent years I have readily available just state baldly the (rounded)
gross and net figures as for example in "amounts to £175,000". But it
may be that the wording has varied over time.

I offer no comment on the coincidence with the IHT threshold!

[RJH]

Yes indeed. All that's sorted, and it passed to the next of kin, who in
turn has distributed the estate in line with what could be considered a
best guess of the wishes of the deceased. My query isn't about a legal
claim on the estate, just how the value as recorded in this grant
document should be interpreted.

I think it's much lower because the amounts distributed come to a lot
less that 325k. At least so I've been told. Hence my trying to get some
sort of factual understanding, rather than rely on scraps of information.

--
Cheers, Rob

[Peter Crosland]

The distribution has to be done strictly according to the intestacy
rules not what somebody thinks the testator would have wanted unless
there was complete agreement and deeds of variation were completed.
There is not need for any interpretation of the values given as gross
and net. The administrator has to declare the various values on the
probate application forms for the gross values and any debts.

I wonder if the deceased had made any large gifts before their death
that were regarded as Potentially Exempt Transfers that would be added
back for the purpose of determining what the IHT liability was?

[Janet]

In article <Ef6dnftzx8LzzfHL...@brightview.co.uk>,
g6...@yahoo.co.uk says...

>
> On 12/12/2015 14:06, RJH wrote:
> > On 12/12/2015 12:55, Peter Crosland wrote:
> >> On 12/12/2015 11:38, RJH wrote:
> >>> On 11/12/2015 18:24, Peter Crosland wrote:
> >>>> On 11/12/2015 13:15, RJH wrote:
> >>>>> I have a summary 'grant' of an intestate will that contains this

> >>>>> sentence: 'the gross value . . . does not exceed £325,00 and the net
> >>>>> value . . . does not exceed £318,000'
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think the value of the estate was about £100,000.

> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's the basis of these net and gross figures? I recognise the

> >>>>> £325,000 as the (old?) threshold at which tax became payable. But I'm

I read the OP's explanation above, to mean that under intestacy rules
everything had already passed to just one next of kin.



Janet.

[Peter Crosland]

If so then the NOK is entitled to do as they wish with the funds. It
would be best to tax purposes to execute deeds of variation so that any
amounts do not fall into the NOK's estate.

[Robin]

Robin wrote:
> RJH wrote:
>> So, it would appear that the gross value of the estate was probably
>> more like 325,000, and after expenses (solicitor and funeral?)
>> 318,000?
>
> I think that must be right. The only point I paused over is the use of
> the words " does not exceed..." The very few copies of grants from
> recent years I have readily available just state baldly the (rounded)
> gross and net figures as for example in "amounts to £175,000". But it
> may be that the wording has varied over time.
>

Apologies for the above which followed a lunch of unusually (for me)
high liquid content.

Engaging a more sober brain , the form of words "does not exceed" comes
from the grant not requiring a full account. While the gross and net
values of the estate still have to be put on the IHT form they do not
form part of the formal grant. That means you can't infer anything from
the grant other than the estate was less than £325,000.

I am sorry to have led you up the garden path. I shall wear the bottoms
of my trousers rolled.

[RJH]

On 13/12/2015 09:26, Robin wrote:
> Robin wrote:
>> RJH wrote:
>>> So, it would appear that the gross value of the estate was probably
>>> more like 325,000, and after expenses (solicitor and funeral?)
>>> 318,000?
>>
>> I think that must be right. The only point I paused over is the use of
>> the words " does not exceed..." The very few copies of grants from
>> recent years I have readily available just state baldly the (rounded)
>> gross and net figures as for example in "amounts to £175,000". But it
>> may be that the wording has varied over time.
>>
>
> Apologies for the above which followed a lunch of unusually (for me)
> high liquid content.
>

No problem!

> Engaging a more sober brain , the form of words "does not exceed" comes
> from the grant not requiring a full account. While the gross and net
> values of the estate still have to be put on the IHT form they do not
> form part of the formal grant. That means you can't infer anything from
> the grant other than the estate was less than £325,000.
>

Many thanks, appreciated.


--
Cheers, Rob

[Robin]

Further apologies. It seems I sent my post at 09:26 when I meant to
save it as a draft. The post I then sent at 9:46 with what I wanted to
say was rejected as a duplicate (which to be fair it was in part).

In any event, with a little repetition in the interests of clarity, the
point I was trying to make is that while you can't infer anything about
the *gross* estate other than that it was less than £325,000 it should
show the *net* rounded up to the nearest £1,000. I think. <Sigh> Or,
at least, I hope I think ;(

[RJH]

Indeed - as in 'it passed to the next of kin' ;-)

>
> If so then the NOK is entitled to do as they wish with the funds. It
> would be best to tax purposes to execute deeds of variation so that any
> amounts do not fall into the NOK's estate.
>

Yes indeed, although my query is more about how the values as recorded
in this grant might be interpreted. And Robin has given what I think is
a good answer.

Thanks all.


--
Cheers, Rob