Eligable for capital gains/aquisitions?

eagle10

If a man died less than 10 years ago and left no will and his wife recieved house etc.....

Years later the mans mother died and the man was named as a benicerey in her will. When the mans wife recieves her share of the estate would she have to pay any tax if so how would it be calculated?

Sydney2007

The man's wife would not automatically be entitled to his share of his mother's estate, and would only receive it if the mother specificallly said so in her will. In such case, the wife would be treated as a child of the mother in law, and would receive the tax free threshold of a child, currently about €440,000. Anything over that would be taxed at 25%

blueythebear

eagle10 wrote: »

If a man died less than 10 years ago and left no will and his wife recieved house etc.....

Years later the mans mother died and the man was named as a benicerey in her will. When the mans wife recieves her share of the estate would she have to pay any tax if so how would it be calculated?

The man's wife is most likely entitled to nothing. Where a beneficiary dies, the gift lapses, i.e. it forms part of the residuary of the estate and is distributed according to the residuary clause in the will.

So to answer your question in the strictest sense, she doesn't have to pay any tax as she gets nothing...

eagle10

Thanks for the info.

Would the above circumstances change if the desceased man had children?

blueythebear

eagle10 wrote: »

Thanks for the info.

Would the above circumstances change if the desceased man had children?

Yes they would but not for the man's wife. Where the beneficiary (the man) predeceseases the testator (the man's mother) leaving children of his own, any gifts he receives under the will go to his children in equal proportions. i.e. if he has two children they each get half of his inheritance under his mother's will.

dats_right

Bluebear is totally wrong and Sydney is nearly right. The terms of the mother's will are all important. Section 98 of the Succession Act states: 98.—Where a person, being a child or other issue of the testator to whom any property is given (whether by a devise or bequest or by the exercise by will of any power of appointment, and whether as a gift to that person as an individual or as a member of a class) for any estate or interest not determinable at or before the death of that person, dies in the lifetime of the testator leaving issue, and any such issue of that person is living at the time of the death of the testator, the gift shall not lapse, but shall take effect as if the death of that person had happened immediately after the death of the testator, unless a contrary intention appears from the will.

Now the effect of this section is to provide an exception to the doctrine of lapse for wills. In effect it provides that if a child of a testator dies before the testator, under the purposes of the Succession Act they are deemed to have died immediately after the testator thus preserving the share for the child’s estate. If it applies the gift passes to the estate of the pre- deceased child and will pass in accordance with the terms of their will/ intestacy, meaning that if the wife of the deceased child was the universal legatee they stand to take the entire gift now passing from the parent's estate and not the children, I think eagle may be getting mixed up with the per stirpes rule that apply to intestacies.

eagle10

dats_right wrote: »

Bluebear is totally wrong and Sydney is nearly right. The terms of the mother's will are all important. Section 98 of the Succession Act states: 98.—Where a person, being a child or other issue of the testator to whom any property is given (whether by a devise or bequest or by the exercise by will of any power of appointment, and whether as a gift to that person as an individual or as a member of a class) for any estate or interest not determinable at or before the death of that person, dies in the lifetime of the testator leaving issue, and any such issue of that person is living at the time of the death of the testator, the gift shall not lapse, but shall take effect as if the death of that person had happened immediately after the death of the testator, unless a contrary intention appears from the will.

Now the effect of this section is to provide an exception to the doctrine of lapse for wills. In effect it provides that if a child of a testator dies before the testator, under the purposes of the Succession Act they are deemed to have died immediately after the testator thus preserving the share for the child’s estate. If it applies the gift passes to the estate of the pre- deceased child and will pass in accordance with the terms of their will/ intestacy, meaning that if the wife of the deceased child was the universal legatee they stand to take the entire gift now passing from the parent's estate and not the children, I think eagle may be getting mixed up with the per stirpes rule that apply to intestacies.

Thanks for that dats right.
Bless my ignorance I cant really understand the jargon but I will do my best to translate to laymans terms

Cheers