Brother wants his inheritance paid into his kids accounts

[renouncefifty]

My Father passed at the end of 2020 and I was named executor in the will. I was granted probate recently and have began the process of selling his property. My bother and I are joint beneficiaries in the will.

My brother is on benefits and has been for many years, he and his partner have some disabilities. My Brother has asked me to pay his share into his sons bank accounts. - I think this is his attempt to not lose his benefits.

I don't have to make any payments as yet as the flat my father owned has just gone on the market, but to be honest I'm worried that my brother is dragging me into something dodgy. I don't claim benefits and never have, the last thing I want is to commit fraud not to mention the fact if he isn't entitled due to an inheritance he really shouldn't be on benefits.

Where do I stand legally when it comes to making the payment to him once everything is wrapped up ? If I was to send the money to his kids accounts isn't that going against the will ?

Thank you in advance for any replies x

Leaving aside which bank account the money goes to, he already OWNS the money, so therefore he should already have stopped claiming benefits.

No, he doesn't - there hasn't been a distribution of estate, the property that's part of the estate hasn't even been sold yet. The process getting all the way through probate can take several months sometimes over a year (my MIL's took nearly 18 months): what would you expect someone to live on in the mean time?

Apparently this is a frequent question on The Moneysaving Expert. What do some people here suggest would be a suitable amount in order to cease claiming benefits? £50k? £100k? £1m ?

One part of the issue is that this doesn't apply to Tax Credits. You can inherit whatever, it doesn't change anything with TC -- and I'm not sure there is much evidence of people hoarding vast inheritances on TC.

For me, personally, I'm more concerned about a lack of transition time to get advice and set up, especially when considering that benefits link up to various other things like dental/opticians and children's access to certain activity and services. If I thought the governments' systems could handle it, maybe having that inverse to the amount (someone inheriting £1m likely benefits less from transition space than someone who is inheriting £25k which is well over the limit but likely within a year of normal spending could be back under) could maybe give a better middle ground between the nothing happens of TC and the deep end that UC can feel.

@andweallsingalong

Buying a property is quite possibly an option if he is currently living in rented property. He would still have to declare the inheritance immediately upon receipt and state what he intends to use it for. Obviously everyone’s situation is slightly different and I can only give very generic advice!

@5zeds

If you haven’t worked for years I don’t think esa is what you’d be receiving. I think most people would get PIP and UC. They’d still receive PIP surely?

Yes but PIP isn't going to cover a whole lot of anything and many of us on ESA (we're being transferred to UC last if we're disabled) or the disability element of UC have fought hard to get it and we don't have the mental fortitude to go through the embarrassment and stress of attempting to claim PIP too. Disabled people are treated like scum by this Government and many of the assessment teams.

@KilljoysDutch

To all the people responding to me over my statement I'd love to see you all saying the same thing to the posters on here talking about how to get their inheritance early so they don't have to pay tax or getting them to spend so they stay under the cap for care home fees but you won't because it only fucking matters when it comes to keeping the poor and disabled in their place.

Bunch of hypocritical bull.

Well I have never said that, and no-one is keeping anyone in their 'place' but there are 1000s of tax payers who are struggling, 1000s of tax payers not on benefits living hand to mouth and paying for everything, you tell me why their tax money should be given to someone who has more money than they will ever have, money that would make their lives easier

@KilljoysDutch

I’ve just done a rough estimate of benefits available for a couple with a child where one is unable to work due to disability and the other is their full time carer. The calculator gives a benefit total of £17+k a year for the non means tested element, increasing to £21k per year including means tested benefits, assuming they have no savings and rent of £150 a week. Even with savings of £100000k, they would still receive £17+k.

There’s two parts to this.

1. OP’s legal obligation as executor and not being complicit in fraud.
2. The brother’s obligations to declare the inheritance and consequences of that.

The OP must pay it into an account with their brother’s name on as the will currently stands. So they cannot do as brother is asking. Unless...

The brother (and the other beneficiaries) agree to a deed of variation, formally giving the inheritance to his son. Then OP can fulfil her obligations legally.

However, several PPs have pointed out that this would still be seen as deprivation of assets by the DWP, so it doesn’t help brother.

The brother needs legal advice.
OP needs to fulfil her legal obligations, whatever brother is advised.

BiBabbles also has a good point - being disabled is expensive and money doesn't go far especially if you suddenly need to pay for your prescriptions, dental care and eye care all of which are obviously affected by disability. Not to mention rent and council tax.

You think it's an opportunity to better your life but in reality all that will happen is that the money is swallowed up by day to day costs and people will be afraid of spending the money too fast in case the DWP decides they have purposefully deprived themselves of the money and refuses to give their benefits back. Not to mention again the problems of reclaiming benefits and re-going through the trauma of the fit for work assessments.

OldSu Your problem should be with the Government and the wealthy business owners who aren't paying enough for working people to survive on not making an enemy out of the disabled who didn't ask to be in the position they are in. Don't punch down, punch up.

Thanks everyone for your input. I shall not be doing anything other than what is expressed in the will. I have advised my brother of some of the issues raised. When the time comes I shall write him a cheque for his share and then it's up to him. You all confirmed for me what I already knew really.

Soontobe60 That only works for some situations. I am disabled due to mental health and I do not have the strength to go through attempting to claim PIP. Just the normal ESA assessment has made me incredibly unwell in the past. Since we don't claim PIP we can't claim carers allowance.
We get £80 a week in CB and CTC and £175.50 a week in ESA. We have a 18 year old living at home who we receive nothing to support and who receives nothing right now and an 8 year old.

Would he still need the benefits if he got this huge sum of money? Surely, state benefits are a short term solution for those really, really struggling until they get back on their feet again which is what this inheritance will mean. I'm not including those receiving disability-related benefits in this.

@KilljoysDutch have you had a look to see if you might be better off with UC? A benefits checker like Turn2Us is quite easy to use. Or ask citizens advice? The 18 year old will be expected to contribute to the household - could he claim UC if not studying/working?

I think I’d be looking into the deed of variation, so my niece/nephew get a leg up in life. I’d imagine they won’t be able to get anything from their dad. So if it helps them stand a chance at a decent life

@dontcare85

Mother in law had hers payed into her sisters. she then gets in touch with sister if she needs to use it for anything.. I feel sorry for your brother why should the inheritance go into day to day living. obviously it depends on the situation. Mother in law hasn't got a pension so hers if for retirement

So another case of benefit fraud I assume.

@Cheshirewife

The amount of silliness posted on here by people who haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about is embarrassing.

Of course a beneficiary can stipulate where the money is to be paid. The point is the right to the money is theirs. So long as they have legal capability, they can assign it to anyone they wish. Doing so is a very common tax management strategy, particularly for high net worth individuals!

This is just wrong and you are the one being silly. The executor has a legal responsibility to pay it to the bank account of the person named in the Will unless a Deed of Variation is completed. Solicitors acting as executors now require copies of bank statements and proof of ID before paying out for this reason. The beneficiary would need to formally request that the money be diverted and this leaves the OP as exector would be open to accusations of aiding in commiting benefit fraud. As others are saying, a Deed of Variation may constitute a deprivation of assets for benefit purposes. So, in short, the beneficiary can say where he wants it paid but whatever way it is done, it will affect his benefit claim if those benefits are means tested.

C8H ... but as things stand, OP must put the money into brothers name. End of. If and when the brother has a deed of variation, then it’s a different matter. But right now, she must give the money to her brother. There is no deed. Her op does not mention a deed at all, so based on her op, and her question, it must go in her brother’s name.

@KilljoysDutch

OldSu Your problem should be with the Government and the wealthy business owners who aren't paying enough for working people to survive on not making an enemy out of the disabled who didn't ask to be in the position they are in. Don't punch down, punch up.

But if he has an inheritance he has money to survive doesn't he? benefits (and I agree they are not enough) for disabled people come in 2 forms PIP which is not means tested and is supposed help people with the extra cost of their disability or illness (and YES I know its not easy to get with going through a lot of hoops) and ESA which is an income replacement for those who cannot work or have no other money coming in and the latter is in dispute here because he has an income, and he should be using that income to live on. Curious about the word 'enemy' do you see yourself as my enemy because I don't think its fair on the tax payer to fund the lifestyle of someone with the means to fund themselves

@VanCleefArpels

Your brother could not access the funds if they are in an account with someone else’s babe. He’d have to get them to transfer the money back out to him which rather defeats the object.

If you do a deed of variation the money would be held in trust (assuming the kids are minors) and could only be distributed to the kids under the terms of the trust (usually capital at 18 and income to be agreed by the trustees). Again, doesn’t achieve his objective.

How much are we talking here? If the money is enough to buy a house he is going to live in then he will not lose entitlement to benefits as the house does not count as capital. He would have to close his claim, but the property and then claim again based on low income.

But If not a sum that could buy a house but over £16k then yes he needs to declare it and will lose his benefits. And why should he not? The benefits system is there as a safety net not a lifestyle choice

This is correct.

Your dad was probably hoping this could mean he wouldn't need to be on benefits anymore

This makes me so cross.

We all have a certain amount of money. Those who don't have enough can claim benefits. (Simplified I know and no consideration of their choices or otherwise)

If you have enough money you absolutely should not be given more by the state.

Don't get drawn into benefit fraud OP.

When my dad passed he left me some money. I received it in a cheque and put it into my bank. I then transferred money to a few family members of his who basically harrassed me for his money ( I've since gone NC with his side due to the treatment I received over it all)
Maybe you will receive it in cheque form? This wasn't a substantial amount only around 25000 and was 10 years ago so don't know if things work differently now.
I did have to have an interview with the bank who asked me how I came to have the money but once it was in my bank I was free to transfer it to whoever I wanted.

@KilljoysDutch we receive disability related benefits in my household and have never been treated “like scum”. I’m sorry that’s been your experience. As a pp has mentioned UC (or ESA if you haven’t been transferred yet) takes the place of savings/income and acts as a safety net for those who don’t have either. OPs brother will inherit and will then not need a safety net to support him and his family.

I don't understand the idea that someone on benefits who inherits it's the government taking 'their' money. To go on to benefits you need to spend your savings to be allowed on to them. I don't see why if you have an amount you could and should support yourself with whilst on them. You shouldn't be expected to use that money, until you requalify.

This thread sounds another good reason to use a professional (such as solicitor) to be the executor. That way you avoid this kind of family relationship problem.

Good points, Killjoys. However the dissatisfaction with inheritance tax is because the people leaving the money and property have paid income tax, sometimes a lot of it, so it is like being taxed twice

The people who earned it have paid tax on it and can spend it as they wish (and pay the relevant taxes such as VAT).

For the inheritors its new income which they are receiving unearned and I agree with Killjoys - you don't see people being criticised for stashing money in ways to avoid inheritance tax, why is stashing it to avoid loss of benefits any different? Both deprive the public purse.