Assent of a property

Deceased left his whole estate to his 4 adult children, the 4 adult children are the only beneficiaries and are the executors of the estate. The estate administration is ongoing but they wish to have the family home (which forms part of the deceased’s residuary estate) transferred to them in equal shares and they then want to sell the property themselves. There is no mortgage. In these circumstances would an assent to the beneficiaries be the correct approach and a deed of appropriation would not be necessary, as the beneficiaries plan to arrange the sale of the property themselves once the assent is signed? What are the main implications they should consider when deciding to sell after a transfer to themselves rather than selling as executors of the estate?

Why not just sell with the Grant…the assent seems unnecessary to me.

Thanks Karl yes that is what I thought but this is what the executors/beneficiaries have asked to do. Possibly they have look at it that it could be better for them with use of personal CGT allowances if the property has increased in value?

But they can still use their CGT allowances without an assent.

By a deed of appropriation?

I suggest that you read read CG30700 et seq.

1 Like

Thank you, I think perhaps I am getting confused. I have read previous posts that discuss an assent in this type of circumstance and then others that discuss deed of appropriation. Dealing with an estate administration, the whole estate is to pass to the beneficiaries in equal shares. We have been asked to transfer the property to the beneficiaries in equal shares so that they can deal with the sale of the property and not to deal with the property as part of the administration. normally we would deal with the sale of the property during the estate administration when acting for the executors and then divide the sale proceeds along with the rest of the residuary estate.

When reading some posts it appears as though assent and appropriation are terms used interchangeably but I thought they were two different things with different purposes. Assent (AS1) to transfer title to beneficiaries under the Will and appropriation to set out if a beneficiary is receiving an asset or share of an asset as part of their entitlement under the Will and also so that they could use their own basic rate tax allowances if there was a gain for CGT purposes without actually updating the title at the land registry.

Could anyone set out the differences here and try to clear my confusion. When would you use an assent but not an appropriation and vice versa.

The appropriation is done so the Estate deals with the sale but is selling as Bare Trustee for those having the assets appropriated to them. This then attaches their CGT allowance to the asset. No assent/transfer is required; it is unnecessary work with additional (avoidable) costs.

An assent also means the estate’s CGT allowance is available together with the beneficaries who have had the asset appropriated.

Assents also work for shares that have, or may, rise in value over the course of the administration.

If appropriation used, the beneficaries must have all or some of their own CGT allowance available, or be mindful if they intend to dispose of other capital assets. If the sale results in a gain so it exceeds all the available CGT allowances, then each benef (and the estate) will have a CGT liability to declare/settle.

Charity benefs will often have assets appropriated as they are exempt from CGT.

With the steep reduction of the CGT allowance to only £3K, appropriation will become more common.

1 Like