Can beneficiaries refuse to disclose previous gifts to the Executor?

S

Sailorgirk

Registered User
Messages
24
On this similar topic can beneficiaries just refuse to list to a solicitor any prior gifts and just state they've no obligation due to GDPR? I've very difficult beneficiaries who eventually gave their PPS but say they've no right to be asked about prior gifts etc due to GDPR. So what's the point of the question on SA2 then? I know revenue will contact them from their PPS if they are in the system and have received prior gifts etc but using GDPR surely isn't OK?
 
There's nothing in GDPR that says a person can't, or doesn't have to, provide information required by Revenue.

By law (since, I think, 2020) you need to provide this information when applying for a grant of probate. If you can't provide the information, there will be no grant of probate and the distribution of the estate cannot proceed.

Write, don't talk, to the beneficiaries explaining this to them. Tell them that they can either provide the information required and in due course receive their inheritances, or disclaim their inheritances so that the administration of the estate can proceed without them, for the benefit of those who do want to receive their inheritances. Say that the adminstration of the estate cannot proceed until they decide which of these courses of action they prefer to follow.
 
Thank you TomEdison.. Would you know what law that was? The beneficiaries argue that they've provided their PPS so now none of anyone's business what they may have received over the years since 1991. Beneficiaries say they'll deal with revenue themselves if contacted. Now I know majority of the beneficiaries won't come anywhere near the threshold to pay tax and only one will need to file a IT38 possibly but if they don't reveal anything saying GDPR is that acceptable?
 
Sailorgirk said:
Thank you TomEdison.. Would you know what law that was? The beneficiaries argue that they've provided their PPS so now none of anyone's business what they may have received over the years since 1991. Beneficiaries say they'll deal with revenue themselves if contacted. Now I know majority of the beneficiaries won't come anywhere near the threshold to pay tax and only one will need to file a IT38 possibly but if they don't reveal anything saying GDPR is that acceptable?
Click to expand...
That person is an idiot. It’s fairly obvious that GDPR doesn’t apply and it’s blindingly obvious why Revenue take this opportunity to obtain the information. Throw in the fact that Executors can be held secondarily liable for tax debts of non compliant beneficiaries in certain circumstances.

It’s almost as if the system is designed to prevent and unearth non compliance and to protect the tax base from eejits.
 
Sailorgirk said:
Thank you TomEdison.. Would you know what law that was? The beneficiaries argue that they've provided their PPS so now none of anyone's business what they may have received over the years since 1991. Beneficiaries say they'll deal with revenue themselves if contacted. Now I know majority of the beneficiaries won't come anywhere near the threshold to pay tax and only one will need to file a IT38 possibly but if they don't reveal anything saying GDPR is that acceptable?
Click to expand...
In fairness they may well have a point here. In a country with a self assessment tax system and full traceability of PPSNs within the inheritance tax system, the requirement to disclose to executors the sums of prior benefits received always struck me as an invasion of privacy.

If uncle Bob's estate is being processed and 30 years ago Bob's brother Mick secretly gifted Mary one of the current beneficiaries a hundred grand, that might be something Mary would like to keep private from members of her family.

In that situation Mary would be well within her rights to refuse to withhold this information from the executors of Bob's estate, both to protect herself and Mick.
 
Just a quick question related to this requirement. I had a look at the form. Is it supposed to be asked by the executor or the solicitor?
 
Last edited:
Sailorgirk said:
Would you know what law that was?
Click to expand...
It's the Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003 s. 48A (which was inserted by the Finance Act 2019). That section says that:

"A person who intends to apply for probate in relation to the estate of a deceased person . . . shall submit information to the Commissioners which information shall be specified in regulations made by the Commissioners"

The regulations made by the Revenue Commissioners say that the information to be provided includes:

"For each beneficiary, the aggregate of the taxable values of all prior gifts and inheritances received by that beneficiary within the applicable group threshold on or after 5 December 1991".

Running with T McGibney's example, Mary doesn't have to disclose to Bob's executors that she received 100k from Mick; she only has to disclose the total of all the gifts and inheritances she has received from all donors who are within the same group threshold as Bob.

If Bob is, say, Mary's father, she does't have to include anything she got from her uncle Mick, because Mary's father and her uncle are in different group thresholds.

If Bob and Mick are both uncles to Mary they're in the same group threshold, in which case she has to include the 100k she got from Mick. But all she has to say is that she has received X amount from donors with the group threshold since 1991; she doesn't have to say how many gifts or inheritance that represents or who gave any of them. The executor may have his suspicion that Mick provided some or all of the amount but he can't know that, not least because there is at least one other person in the threshold. And, if Bob left an inheritance for Mary, it's not impossible that he also gave her one or more gifts.

It goes without saying that the executor has no business telling anyone else in the family the information that Mary supplies. GDPR doesn't apply to Mary to prevent or excuse her from furnishing the information needed, but it does apply to the executor to prevent them from using the information for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was supplied, and from disclosing the information unnecessarily.

Regarding Premos's query; the executor has to include this information in form SA2, which is part of the probate application process, so it has to be obtained before probate is granted. It doesn't matter whether the executor or the executor's solicitor asks for it. You should assume that any information supplied to the executor's solicitor is available to the executor anyway, since a solicitor normally doesn't — indeed, can't — keep information from their client.
 
So if a beneficiary refuses to provide the information what does the Executor do?

If I have been left €10k and am in no hurry, can I refuse to provide the information, so as to stop Probate being granted?
 
TomEdison said:
Running with T McGibney's example, Mary doesn't have to disclose to Bob's executors that she received 100k from Mick; she only has to disclose the total of all the gifts and inheritances she has received from all donors who are within the same group threshold as Bob.
Click to expand...
My example didn't include any implication that different group thresholds applied to Mary's respective inheritances from Mick and Bob.

A better example is a two-parent family with 2 adult children, Joe and Patricia. Years ago, unbeknownst to Joe, mum gave Patricia €100k to help her buy her first home.

Joe and Patricia don't get on with each other. Dad now dies and Joe is appointed executor. He appoints a close friend of his to act as solicitor for the estate. The solicitor duly asks Patricia to confirm the quantum of previous Group A gifts and inheritances. She is conscious that if she confirms a figure of €100k that it won't be hard for Joe to put two and two together.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
So if a beneficiary refuses to provide the information what does the Executor do?

If I have been left €10k and am in no hurry, can I refuse to provide the information, so as to stop Probate being granted?
Click to expand...

Could probate not be granted anyway? Is it not purely for ensuring all affairs of estate are in order?

Perhaps the executor could withhold that particular inheritance (or better a solicitor) until that info is provided (assuming it is indeed required)

Seems unfair to delay probate especially if there are other beneficiaries who are compliant.

How does it work if a beneficiary cannot be contacted for some reason (long lost, distant relative etc)
 
Thank you all for your much appreciated replies. So if an execetor signs off on the SA2 and the prior gifts section is left blank for beneficiaries as they've refused to divulge their past gifts can the execetor be made liable for any tax implications? Also as an execetor is signing the SA2 they're legally putting their name to a document that they know isn't essentially completed properly due to the beneficiaries hiding behind GDPR. Could there be repercussions for the executor over this from Revenue etc?
 
IANAL

I believe you document all your efforts to get information from beneficiaries, your correspondence and their replies. Print and save screen shots of text messages / emails etc.,

The SA2 is completed to the best of your knowledge and belief. Your knowledge is that beneficiaries have declined to co-operate, you believe that you have made every effort to get the information requested.

If the beneficiaries are not resident in Ireland, exec can withhold an amount for potential tax until you have confirmation from Revenue (either that it's paid or not applicable); I would suggest a similar approach for these non-cooperating folks.
 
Yes I have and surprisingly Sol hasn't come across this before. Clients usually provide what's needed and Sol has never had GDPR quoted as a reason to withold information before. Sol is looking into all this. It's took months of chasing to get this far with the beneficiaries
 
I’m sure that Revenue would be fascinated by people who refuse to disclose details of prior benefits and who cite red herrings like GDPR. Classic Irish gombeenery at play. The Executor has secondary liability for unpaid taxes. A sensible Executor might contact Revenue for guidance, e.g. “I have this intransigent beneficiary, Mr X, Address YZ, who won’t disclose prior benefits or his PPS number and is ranting about GDPR. I want to avoid being liable for any unpaid taxes. Can you help me?”
 
DannyBoyD said:
If the beneficiaries are not resident in Ireland, exec can withhold an amount for potential tax until you have confirmation from Revenue (either that it's paid or not applicable);
Click to expand...
The actual position is slightly different. A non-resident beneficiary is obliged to engage a solicitor in relation to any Irish bequest to which they are entitled. That solicitor is prohibited from making any distribution to any such beneficiary until they first notify Revenue of their intention of doing so. Revenue can within the intervening notice period either give or withhold consent to the mooted distribution, or stay silent in which case the solicitor can proceed with the distribution once the notice period expires.
DannyBoyD said:
I would suggest a similar approach for these non-cooperating folks.
Click to expand...
This would be a foolhardy approach, and probably an unlawful one.
 
T McGibney said:
A non-resident beneficiary is obliged to engage a solicitor in relation to any Irish bequest to which they are entitled.
Click to expand...
Please quote your reference for this.

Unless it's a recent requirement, I've dealt with estates where there were overseas beneficiaries and they were not required to engage a solicitor.
 
Tax evasion in relation to inheritances cheats all of us and society as a whole. The people who try to hide prior benefits are parasites. Just play a straight bat and get on with your life.
 
T McGibney said:
This would be a foolhardy approach, and probably an unlawful one.
Click to expand...
You can't be in a position where you potentially have a liability for the non-payment of tax by a beneficiary resident in Ireland (I remain to be convinced about this, so if you have source that would be helpful); and also not be able to protect yourself for that liability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top