The Gazette 1964/67

After some correspondence the Revenue Com missioners agreed with the view that the accoun tability of the last testator for duty in connection with the original death is limited by the amount of the assets of the latter which he has received or might but for his own neglect or default have received. Under the law as it existed down to the 1st January 1967 when the law as to the chain of executorship was changed the following position arose. If A died on 6th July 1941, appointing B his executor, B died on 17th August 1956 appoint ing C his executor, C died on 17th September 1960, appointing D his executor and D died on 25th March 1966 appointing E his executor, then E became executor of A and indeed all the subse quent estates if the testators died in the order indicated and the executors took out grants in that order. If B had failed to account for death duties on property passing on A's death, the ques tion of accountability for duties arose. The Estate Duty Office agree that the accountability of A is limited by the amount of the assets of the previous estates which he has received or might but for his own neglect or default have received. If B had got in all A's estate and had distributed the assets without regard to the outstanding estate duty claims, then presumably E would be absolved on the ground that it was not due to his neglect or default that assets of A had not come to his hands. A difficulty might well arise as to how the accounting party is to ascertain whether or not there are assets which should be got in. Presum ably the onus of showing that E is guilty of neglect or default would rest on the Revenue Commissioners. Section 19 of the Succession Act 1965 termin ated representation by change of executorship. Section 10 (5) of that Act, however, should be borne in mind. Under this section it would appeal- that unadministered estate vested in a personal representative who has died, will vest in his own personal representative as trustee and the latter as such trustee may be liable under Section 8 (4) of the Finance Act 1894 to any claim for duty affecting that property. As in such a case he will have property vested in him to answer the claim. He will suffer no personal loss provided that he does not part with the legal estate in the property while any claims for duty are outstanding. This is a serious inconvenience and still leaves an acting executor under the risk of becoming liable for duties on property of which he is unaware and which may become vested in him automatically without his knowledge. Apart from the above considerations a further

liability for duty may affect a personal represen tative of a personal representative independently of any chain of executorship. A person who is made accountable for duty, whether as executor, trustee, beneficiary, alienee of a beneficiary or otherwise becomes a personal debtor to the State. If he dies without discharging the liability the debt with all the other debts of his own testator, falls to be discharged out of his assets by his executor or administrator in the proper order. There is some authority for the proposition that the State is not bound by the statutory notice to creditors as Section 49 of the Succession Act 1965 makes no reference to State claims. It may well therefore happen that the executor of a deceased administering the assets of the estate after the expiration of the statutory notice to creditors might find himself faced with a claim by the State for duties for which his own testator was accountable in his capacity as trustee of a previous testator.

DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTER

The District Probate Registries (Places and Districts) Order, 1966, S. 1, No. 274 of 1966 con tains a list of fourteen District Probate Registries. The Registries were appointed for the purpose of Section 129 of the Succession Act, 1965, and are situated throughout the country. The Order takes effect from 1st January 1967.

THE HIGH COURT

As and from the week commencing 30th day of January 1967 the Master will sit on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday of each week instead of Monday, Wednesday and Thrusday as heretofore. Cases already adjourned to a Monday or a Wed nesday subsequent to 30th January 1967 will be listed for hearing on the following Tuesday or Thursday respectively. In future all Motions in Common Law, Wards of Court, Minors, Probate and Bankruptcy Mat ters ordinarily taken on Fridays will be taken on Mondays. Any such Motions at present standing ad journed to or returnable for a Friday will be listed accordingly for hearing on that day, but in the event of no appearance in Court will be ad journed to the following Monday. (Extract from The Legal Diary : Tuesday, 17th January 1967) 106