My dad has died and has left everything 50/50 to me and my sibling. However, I know that he gave my sibling a large sum of money before he died. Can this be deducted from my sibling’s share of the estate?
You will need to check the provisions of the Will. The Will might say whether your dad intended to set the amount of gift off against your sibling’s share of their estate.
If your dad intended the sum of money he gave to your sibling as a completely separate gift, then you cannot deduct the sum of money from their share of the estate. However, your sibling will have to prove that this was your dad’s intention when he made the lifetime gifts, as it is presumed that a person would not make the same gift twice (known as the rule against receiving “double portions”).
Related FAQs
The Chief Coroner adopts the approach taken by the Lord Chief Justice in that no physical hearing should take place unless it is urgent and essential business, and it is safe for all involved. If a hearing is to take place, social distancing must be maintained. All hearings that can take place remotely should do so, if it is not possible for social distancing requirements to be met. The expectation is that some hearings will go ahead, most notably Rule 23 hearings. Coroners are reminded that they must however conduct any remote hearings from a court. Decisions as to the most appropriate approach will be left to the senior coroner in that jurisdiction.
As we have already seen, some inquests will be adjourned, most notably those with multiple witnesses and/or a jury.
The guidance stresses the need, when dealing with medical professionals, for coroners to recognise their primary clinical commitments, particularly in these high-pressured times. This could mean avoiding or deferring requests for lengthy reports/ statements and accommodating clinical commitments if clinicians are called as witnesses.
The guidance encourages proactive reviews of outstanding responses to Prevention of Future Death reports and extending timescales for Trusts to respond.
One of the key legislative requirements of EMI is that the employee satisfies the working time requirement, which is that they work at least 25 hours per week in the company or, if less, 75% of the employee’s total working time. If the working time requirement ceases to be met, then there is a “disqualifying event”. That means that the tax benefits of EMI ceases. It may also mean that the option lapses, but that depends on the specific terms of the option.
An employee who has been furloughed is by definition no longer working 25 hours/week and therefore on the face of it, there is a disqualifying event. However, the Government has tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill currently going through Parliament providing in effect that time not worked because an employee has been furloughed counts as working time, both for determining whether the working time requirement is met initially and whether there is a disqualifying event. Provided this amendment is enacted, this should address the issue.
No. No action need be taken in relation to the demand but we would advise against presentation of a petition based upon any Statutory Demand issued between 1 March 2020 and the end of the restrictions. As you may be aware, with Winding Up there is no requirement to issue a Statutory Demand notice before proceeding so this is unlikely to create too many issues – click here to see whether you should issue petitions on other grounds.
There is nothing to prevent statutory demands being served at this time. However, there may be limited benefit as it cannot form the basis of a future winding up petition.
If you do not have a justifiable reason for insisting that your employees have the vaccine (see FAQ above) your employee could resign and bring a claim of constructive unfair dismissal if they have more than 2 years’ continuous employment. This would be on the basis that you have breached trust and confidence.
If the vaccine includes pig gelatine (as many do), and the employee refuses on religious or because they are vegan, you may face a claim for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
A non-molestation order is a form of injunctive relief used when there is harassment / domestic violence within a domestic setting. It is commonly used when you or your children are the victim of domestic violence committed by a partner/ex-partner, but it can also be used if the acts are committed by a relative or by somebody who has had an intimate personal relationship with you. Such domestic violence can take many forms but is typically acts of physical violence, intimidation or harassment as well as more subtle forms such as coercion.
When non-molestation orders are granted, they usually require the perpetrator to stop:
- Using or threatening violence against you
- Intimidating, harassing or pestering you
- Contacting you including in person, by phone, letter or electronic means including social media
- Damaging or threatening to damage your property and possessions
They also prevent the perpetrator from encouraging somebody else to do these things on their behalf.
In addition, a non-molestation order may prevent the perpetrator from coming within a particular distance of your home or your child’s school
Breaching the order without a reasonable excuse is a criminal offence so the perpetrator can be arrested and punished by way of a fine or up to 5 years imprisonment.