Postby LozaACCS » Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:44 pm
Maths
I can ill afford the time myself but it is an interesting point.
Like you I prefer to concentrate on the legislation at the expense of the manuals, in the case of GWR,s I think the problem is how to reconcile a reality to the fiction that a GWR imposes.
Using your example Simon gave away the whole of a property (worth say 400K) and effectively ends up living in another property which is the result of a substitution (or sale), this is I agree consistent with Sch 20 (2)(1), I would also agree that Sch 2(2)(b) refers to an initial gift of cash.
In this case however Simon gave away one half of a property and was protected from the GWR rules by S102(b)(4) (hopefully).
If Simon subsequently moved out of the house the GWR would exist for the full value of the property, he did not however, the house was sold, surely Simon has received full value for his original gift of one half of the property, he cannot have reserved a benefit in his original one half of the property because he was paid for it, the proceeds are in his estate, my view is that the GWR rules end at this point.
If the GWR rules applied what would be the value of the reservation in Simon,s estate 400K or 200K, notwithstanding that his half is already in his estate.
Simon then moves in with Liam and the contribution condition for POAT is met, hence my view that POAT is in point.