Latest Posts

When Should You Update Your Will? Key Life Events That Should Trigger a Review

Ensuring that your Will reflects your current wishes is of fundamental importance to you and your loved ones.

However carefully your Will has been drafted, it cannot account for every possible future change in your family circumstances, finances, residence or the law. As a general rule, it is sensible to review your Will every five years, or sooner if a significant personal, financial or legal change occurs.

Below, we have set out some of the key triggers that should prompt you to review your Will.

Does marriage or civil partnership affect your Will?

A marriage or civil partnership can affect the validity of your existing Will and may change how you want your estate to be distributed on death.

In England and Wales, getting married or entering into a civil partnership will usually cancel any Will made before that marriage or civil partnership, unless the Will was prepared in contemplation of it. Marriage and civil partnership can also unlock important inheritance tax exemptions, which may affect your wider estate planning.

Updating your Will at this stage helps ensure that your estate is passed on in accordance with your current wishes and that your estate planning reflects your new legal and family position.

Should you update your Will after divorce?

A divorce can also affect parts of your Will if your former spouse or civil partner is named as an executor or beneficiary. These provisions relating to a former spouse or civil partner may no longer take effect in the way they did before. This can leave uncertainty, particularly where they were appointed as an executor or where you and your former spouse prepared mirror Wills reflecting each other’s wishes.

Reviewing your Will following divorce helps ensure that your estate is still passed to your chosen beneficiaries and avoids complications in the administration of your estate.

Should you update your Will after having children or grandchildren?

Welcoming a child into your family is also a good time to review your Will.

This is particularly important if you wish to appoint guardians for your children or provide for minor beneficiaries under a trust structure.

If your existing Will was created before the next generation of your family arrived, you may want to reconsider how your estate will be passed down, who should be responsible for administering it, and whether any inheritance should be protected until children or grandchildren reach a suitable age.

This may be especially important for blended families or following second marriages.

Should you update your Will after a significant financial event?

Moving house, buying additional property, starting or selling a business, receiving an inheritance or experiencing a significant change in asset values can all affect the value or structure of your estate.

These events may affect how you choose to structure your Will, your chosen beneficiaries and any estate planning opportunities available to you.

For example, a business sale, property acquisition or inheritance may change the balance of your estate considerably. A Will that was appropriate when it was signed may no longer reflect how your wealth is now held or how you would want it to be passed on.

What happens if a beneficiary or executor dies?

If a beneficiary or executor dies, your Will may no longer work as you had intended when it was drafted.

You may need to replace these appointments to ensure that your estate is administered as efficiently as possible and that your chosen beneficiaries are still properly provided for.

This is particularly important where an executor had a specific role because of their relationship with the family, knowledge of the estate or professional expertise.

Should you update your Will if you move abroad or acquire overseas assets?

Moving country, acquiring or giving up citizenship in the UK or abroad, or owning assets in other jurisdictions can raise succession and tax issues both at home and overseas.

Where international considerations apply, it is sensible to review your Will to ensure it works alongside domestic and international laws, tax rules and any overseas estate planning documents.

This may be particularly relevant for internationally mobile families, individuals with overseas property or assets, family members in different countries or cross-border business interests.

Can changes in the law affect your Will?

Significant changes in the law can also affect your existing Will and any tax planning you may have in place.

For example, recent changes replacing domicile with long-term residence as the determining factor for the scope of UK inheritance tax may affect families with cross-border connections. A Will that was tax-efficient when signed may not remain so after significant legal or tax changes.

This is why it is important to review your Will not only when your personal circumstances change, but also when the legal or tax landscape changes.

What should you consider when reviewing your Will?

When reviewing your Will, it is helpful to consider whether it still reflects:

• who you want to benefit from your estate;
• who should act as your executors;
• who should act as guardians for minor children;
• whether any beneficiaries should inherit outright or through a trust;
• whether your estate has changed significantly in value or structure;
• whether you own assets overseas;
• whether your inheritance tax planning remains appropriate;
• whether there are any family circumstances that may create uncertainty or future dispute.

A regular review of your Will gives you peace of mind that it remains practical, tax-efficient and aligned with your wishes.

How Quastels can help

Quastels’ Private Wealth & Tax team advises individuals, families, trustees, executors and internationally mobile clients on Wills, succession planning, inheritance tax, trusts, probate and cross-border estate planning.

If any of these events apply to you now or in the future, we would be happy to arrange a call to discuss your circumstances and review whether your existing Will continues to reflect your wishes.

Read More

Dilapidated, Derelict, or Just in Need of TLC? First-tier Tribunal Finds Severely Deteriorated House Was Not “Residential Property” for SDLT Purposes

Quastels LLP is pleased to have acted for the successful Appellant in Oakwood Great Oak Ltd v HMRC [TC/2024/03198], a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) issued on 5 August 2026. The case is an important addition to the growing body of case law on when a building ceases to be “suitable for use as a dwelling” for the purposes of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT), and provides welcome clarification on how the Court of Appeal’s recent guidance in Mudan should be applied to severely deteriorated properties.

Background

The case concerned the SDLT treatment of the purchase by our client, Oakwood Great Oak Ltd, of “Great Oak”, a substantial detached house on Prowse Avenue, Bushey Heath, for £2,400,000 on 29 November 2022.

The Appellant filed its SDLT return on the basis that the transaction was non-residential. HMRC disagreed, opened an enquiry, and ultimately issued a Closure Notice concluding that the property was “residential property” within section 116(1)(a) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003), a conclusion it maintained on review, prompting the Appellant’s appeal to the Tribunal.

The distinction matters a great deal in practice. If a property is “residential property”, SDLT is charged at higher residential rates (and, in the case of corporate purchasers, potentially at higher flat rates for high-value residential acquisitions, or an additional surcharge in certain cases). If the property is instead non-residential (because it is no longer suitable for use as a dwelling) the lower, non-residential rates apply. For a derelict or heavily dilapidated property acquired as a development opportunity, the difference in tax exposure can be very substantial.

The Legal Test: Section 116 FA 2003 and the Mudan Guidance

Section 116(1)(a) FA 2003 defines “residential property” as “a building that is used or suitable for use as a dwelling, or is in the process of being constructed or adapted for such use”. The definition of “dwelling” in Schedule 4ZA FA 2003, which governs the higher rates chargeable on additional dwellings, is in the same terms, save that it applies to a “single” dwelling.

A recent authority on this test is the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mudan v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799, upholding the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Mudan v HMRC [2024] UKUT 307 (TCC). In Mudan, the Court of Appeal firmly rejected the argument that a property must be capable of immediate occupation to be “suitable for use as a dwelling”, holding that this would improperly read words into the statute that are not there.

Instead, the Court of Appeal held that the criteria are focused on the “fundamental characteristics and nature” of the building, rather than a snapshot assessment of habitability at the effective date of the transaction. Where a building has previously been used as a dwelling, a key question is whether or not it has lost that character by the relevant date.

The Upper Tribunal in Mudan (endorsed on appeal) set out seven considerations relevant to assessing the impact of necessary works on suitability for use as a dwelling:

1. whether the building was previously used as a dwelling;
2. where it sits on the range between a “desirable house” requiring updating and an “empty shell”;
3. whether the required works are aimed at habitability rather than mere improvement;
4. whether identified defects are capable of remedy without being so hazardous as to prejudice their own viability, or without compromising structural integrity;
5. whether occupation would be unsafe;
6. that whether a repair is ‘minor’ or ‘fundamental’ is relevant but not particularly informative; and
7. ultimately, whether the works needed mean the building no longer has the characteristics of a dwelling.

Critically, the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal both stressed that this is a multifactorial, evaluative assessment and that no single factor, including the theoretical possibility of fixing defects, is determinative.

The Facts

Great Oak was originally built in the 1930s as a substantial detached dwelling house, with a two-storey extension added in the 1960s, and had been used as a dwelling for many years. By the effective date of the transaction, however, it had stood vacant for approximately three to four years.

The Tribunal found that the property had deteriorated substantially during that period of vacancy, with widespread damp and mould, water ingress, cracking, deteriorated internal finishes, boarded or damaged windows, and defects affecting building services and utilities, alongside signs of vandalism or unauthorised access.

Competing structural evidence was before the Tribunal: reports commissioned by the Appellant identified significant damp, cracking and structural movement and concluded the property was not habitable in its then condition, while a report commissioned independently by the local planning authority took a more optimistic view of the main house but nonetheless identified serious concerns regarding the rear terrace, retaining wall, and the two-storey extension.

Perhaps the most significant feature of the case was the extensive presence of asbestos-containing materials throughout the property, including in the basement, service areas and roof void, falling within the highest risk category and necessitating licensed contractors, negative-pressure enclosures, air monitoring and clearance certification before safe occupation, repair or demolition could proceed. Crucially, the Tribunal found that removing the asbestos-containing materials would itself require the removal of associated services and building elements, generating a further need for substantial reinstatement works before the property could again function as a dwelling.

A costing report obtained by the Appellant estimated remediation costs at approximately £2.25 million, a figure the Tribunal treated with some caution as to precision, but accepted as persuasive evidence of the exceptional scale of intervention that would have been required.

The Parties’ Positions

The Appellant argued that the cumulative effect of the structural defects, extensive deterioration and widespread asbestos contamination meant the property had ceased to possess the characteristics of a dwelling and had, in substance, become a development site requiring demolition. Counsel submitted that the assessment of “viability” endorsed in Mudan and Ridgway could not sensibly exclude financial and practical considerations, and warned that HMRC’s approach (under which a building remains residential unless it has physically collapsed or repair would itself cause collapse) would create a perverse incentive to demolish buildings before completion.

HMRC submitted that economic viability formed no part of the statutory test, and that a defect which was capable of remedy was “fixable” regardless of cost. HMRC maintained that the main house remained structurally sound, that the asbestos had in fact been successfully remediated, and that the property therefore retained its residential character throughout.

The Tribunal’s Decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the property was not “residential property” in accordance with section 116(1)(a) FA 2003 at the effective date.

The Tribunal accepted that a number of factors favoured HMRC’s position: the property had been designed, built and used as a dwelling for many years, remained physically standing, and retained a recognisable residential layout at the effective date. The Tribunal also found that the property was not at imminent risk of structural collapse and that repair was not physically impossible.

However, the Tribunal’s reasoning turned on a crucial point of principle. It rejected the proposition that the statutory question is answered simply by asking whether a property is theoretically capable of repair, observing that: “Almost any standing structure can be said to be capable of repair if one assumes the availability of unlimited time, resources and expenditure”, and that such an approach would risk depriving the statutory test of any meaningful content. Instead, the practical consequences and exceptional scale of the required works were relevant to the ultimate question of whether the building retained the characteristics of a dwelling. The Tribunal placed particular weight on the asbestos contamination, finding that its remediation would not simply have made the property safe while leaving it otherwise intact, but would itself have generated a further need for substantial reinstatement works before the property could again function as a dwelling. The Tribunal emphasised that these factors had to be considered cumulatively rather than in isolation: viewed individually, no single defect was decisive, but viewed together, they presented a materially different picture.  The Tribunal weighed all the relevant factors and concluded that the cumulative effect of all the issues with the property meant it had “crossed the line” contemplated in Mudan and was no longer suitable for use as a dwelling.

For any other questions on the case, or tax appeals more generally, please contact the Private Wealth and Tax team at Quastels.

Read More

Crypto-Tax Reform: Lending and Liquidity Pools

So far, apart from Cryptoasset Reporting Framework, the UK has not really seen any tax legislation dealing specifically with cryptoassets. Instead, it has relied upon existing tax laws, and guidance that attempts to apply these laws to the new possibilities thrown up by modern technology.

However, that will soon be changing, as the government has recently published draft legislation setting out two helpful changes to tax law, specifically in relation to cryptoassets.

This article sets out one of those changes, relating to loans and liquidity pools. The other change, relating to stablecoins, is covered in a separate article.

Capital Gains Tax on Cryptoasset Lending

Individuals may be subject to Capital Gains Tax (CGT) when they dispose of a cryptoasset. This might be because they have sold a cryptoasset, or gifted it to another person. However, the application of traditional English legal principles here means that a person will also be making a disposal (and therefore potentially triggering a CGT charge) when they make a loan of a cryptoasset.

This tax treatment is one that would come as a surprise to many taxpayers (and likely many of their advisors), and does not really reflect the economic reality of the transaction in which the lender expects to receive the same value of cryptoassets back at the end of the loan. Therefore, there have been calls for reform to address this point.

The government originally ran a call for evidence on this point back in 2022. Since then there have been a further consultation and various HMRC working groups, which Jack Burroughs of Quastels’ Private Wealth and Tax Team attended, as the details of the proposed reform were worked out.

What’s Changing

We now have draft legislation, which is due to form part of the Finance Bill and take effect from 6 April 2027 (although the government is still considering whether it should be made retrospective).  It addresses this situation by means of a ‘no gain, no loss’ treatment.

The new law can be illustrated with a simple example:

• Alice enters into a contract with Bob, by which she transfers 100 ETH to him, in return for the return of 110 ETH in a year’s time; and
• After a year, Bob repays 110 ETH to Alice.

Under the current law, at the point of the initial loan, Alice would have been subject to CGT if the value of the ETH at that time was more than she had paid for it. However, under the new draft law, there will be no CGT at that point, since Alice is treated as having disposed of her ETH for the same price as she paid for it.

When Bob repays the 110 ETH to Alice, she is then disposing of her right to receive the repayment.  The 100 ETH representing the original loan are received tax free.  However, there will be CGT payable on the additional 10 ETH return, which is treated as Alice’s gain.

Of course, in practice many DeFi transactions will be a lot more complicated than this simple example.  These include the deposit of cryptoassets into a smart contract liquidity pool, which is dealt with in a separate part of the legislation.  There are also various conditions that must be met in order for the new rules to apply, including a ‘low-risk-of-loss condition’ and either the ‘unconnected parties condition’ or the ‘widely available condition’.  Therefore, it will be important to take advice to properly understand how the rules apply to your own specific circumstances. The cryptoasset tax specialists in the Private Wealth and Tax Team at Quastels will be happy to help.

Read More