GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #3

[Tortoise]

I think it's clear her provisions were sufficient and exactly what he would have got had they been married or not. half of us here are missing the point she had an insurance policy in his name for the inheritance tax. She'd clearly gone out her way to make sure he'd be ok no matter if they were married or not.

I think she was going to change the will to include the sinfields again and he had to act.

I also have this niggle in my head of him chipping and chipping away at her about how stressed he was in case anything happened to her and he couldn't cope again being put out the house etc etc etc. He's a fly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think the insurance policy covering Inheritance Tax would have to name anyone. Inheritance Tax is paid by the estate.

I think the defence barrister has confused the issue by saying IS would have to pay IT, I think he means his inheritance would be reduced (before marriage) because the estate would be reduced after tax.

After marriage you can make IT free gifts to your spouse. But because Helen had a policy to cover IT, IS is not affected.

I think this is correct and I hope the prosecution will clear it up, because as it stands I believe it is false and misleading to say IS stood to lose if she died before marriage.

 

[ColourPurple]

The way I am reading it, from the solicitors evidence, is that IS would have had to pay the IT if he was not married to Helen.

These kind of IT policies are usually set up with standard wording and cover spouse, children etc....

So in order for IS to be able to * benefit* from the policy (ie be able to have access to this insurance pay out in order to pay Helens tax bill ) he would have to be specifically named in the policy ( being as he was not related to her ).

It sounds as though this had not happened.
Remember they were keeping the engagement/marriage a secret.
So Helen thought she had done the necessary by putting IS into the Will.
What she had clearly not done was update the Life Insurance Policy ( Trust ) to pay out to IS if need be.
As I said, it will be a great line for the Defence. Why would IS want to kill her and have to pay IT at 40% on her estate.

I read it that if they were married when she died he'd pay no IT but if they weren't married he would have to pay IT but the insurance policy she'd set up would actually pay the IT for him. That way he'd be no worse off even though he'd paid the IT(as the insurance policy would pay it)

 

[Alyce]

I don't think the insurance policy covering Inheritance Tax would have to name anyone. Inheritance Tax is paid by the estate.

I think the defence barrister has confused the issue by saying IS would have to pay IT, I think he means his inheritance would be reduced (before marriage) because the estate would be reduced after tax.

After marriage you can make IT free gifts to your spouse. But because Helen had a policy to cover IT, IS is not affected.

I think this is correct and I hope the prosecution will clear it up, because as it stands I believe it is false and misleading to say IS stood to lose if she died before marriage.

It would usually be paid into a Trust for Helen's Estate and the Trust would have named Trustees and Beneficiaries. If a person is not named, they cannot access or benefit from the Trust.
This I think is where the solicitor is coming from - she is saying that IS was not named, therefore would not have access to this Trust and would have to pay the IT. ( if he had been married to Helen, then he would come under the standard heading of spouse and no problems ).

What we need to know is who are the trustees/beneficiaries.

 

[snoopydog]

I read it that if they were married when she died he'd pay no IT but if they weren't married he would have to pay IT but the insurance policy she'd set up would actually pay the IT for him. That way he'd be no worse off even though he'd paid the IT(as the insurance policy would pay it)

Also I think killing her just after they got married he couldn't use the excuse she vanished into thin air so easily...everyone would have seen her happy at the wedding...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wolfcub]

I think it's clear her provisions were sufficient and exactly what he would have got had they been married or not. half of us here are missing the point she had an insurance policy in his name for the inheritance tax. She'd clearly gone out her way to make sure he'd be ok no matter if they were married or not.

I think she was going to change the will to include the sinfields again and he had to act.

I also have this niggle in my head of him chipping and chipping away at her about how stressed he was in case anything happened to her and he couldn't cope again being put out the house etc etc etc. He's a fly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes,absolutely.
He would have been manipulating her into making these decisions, whilst all the time making it appear (even to Helen herself!) that the ideas were her own...

 

[Legally Bland]

But he couldnt if they were not married.
Unfortunately for him, it appears that Helen had not changed the terms of the Trust ( policy ) because the solicitor said that, if they were not married, then IS would have been liable for the IT.
Good line for the Defence though

I'm in two minds on this. I agree with that, but if Helen was missing, not dead?

Not sure if it helps the defence or not.

 

[ColourPurple]

I'd love to see what provisions he'd made in his own will.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Haha maybe that was the motive! Maybe she was going to do a new will including them back into it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it would be strange if she did not intend to leave something to her stepchildren and her brother. After all, IS was well provided for - what would he need a huge sum of money for at his time of life after she had left him the house? He already had his own income of nearly £2k a month plus a six figure sum in the bank, before she left him a penny! Yes, highly likely he felt he must murder her before she amended that will, quite reasonably, to include other people. The greed of this man is breath taking!

 

[Tortoise]

I don't think the solicitor should be asked about the tax implications of Helen's death. She isn't a tax or finance specialist.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Here's a link to explain Inheritance Tax in the UK.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/a-guide-to-inheritance-tax

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't think the insurance policy covering Inheritance Tax would have to name anyone. Inheritance Tax is paid by the estate.

I think the defence barrister has confused the issue by saying IS would have to pay IT, I think he means his inheritance would be reduced (before marriage) because the estate would be reduced after tax.

After marriage you can make IT free gifts to your spouse. But because Helen had a policy to cover IT, IS is not affected.

I think this is correct and I hope the prosecution will clear it up, because as it stands I believe it is false and misleading to say IS stood to lose if she died before marriage.

The prosecution would surely have a right to correct that statement immediately after the Defence had finished? Why didn't we hear that?

I agree the Life Insurance would not go to IS as it would mean that it would have been taxable at 40% as he was the beneficiary. It was purely to pay off IT and would be paid by the estate.

 

[cottonweaver]

I think it would be strange if she did not intend to leave something to her stepchildren and her brother. After all, IS was well provided for - what would he need a huge sum of money for at his time of life after she had left him the house? He already had his own income of nearly £2k a month plus a six figure sum in the bank, before she left him a penny! Yes, highly likely he felt he must murder her before she amended that will, quite reasonably, to include other people. The greed of this man is breath taking!

Maybe HB also didn't know he had the stash in the other accounts?

"The investigator confirms that the accounts he has managed to find for Stewart totalled around £162,000 in cash. "

 

[Tortoise]

The prosecution would surely have a right to correct that statement immediately after the Defence had finished? Why didn't we hear that?

I agree the Life Insurance would not go to IS as it would mean that it would have been taxable at 40% as he was the beneficiary. It was purely to pay off IT and would be paid by the estate.

She's still on the stand I believe. Still time to re-examine.

 

[DollyDiamond]

I read it that if they were married when she died he'd pay no IT but if they weren't married he would have to pay IT but the insurance policy she'd set up would actually pay the IT for him. That way he'd be no worse off even though he'd paid the IT(as the insurance policy would pay it)

That's how I read it too, so in effect because of the special insurance policy she had taken out to deal with inheritance tax, it wouldn't be an issue whether they were married or not? Regardless, I think the Defence are clutching at straws with this.

 

[ColourPurple]

Here's a link to explain Inheritance Tax in the UK.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/a-guide-to-inheritance-tax

Thanks. It does sound like she went for this option and therefore nobody she'd left anything to would have to personally pay the inheritance tax. It would be paid by the life insurance as long as, when setting up the policy she specified that the policy was held in trust.

[FONT=museo_sans]Using life insurance to pay Inheritance Tax

[/FONT][FONT=museo_sans]Taking out a life insurance policy to pay some or all of an Inheritance Tax bill, can make things easier on your family when it comes time to sort out your estate.[/FONT]
[FONT=museo_sans]It can help protect your home from having to be sold to pay the Inheritance Tax.[/FONT]
[FONT=museo_sans]It can also help ensure your gifts to family and friends in the last seven years of your life, are protected from this tax.[/FONT]
[FONT=museo_sans]In short, it can give you peace of mind that you’re not lumbering your family and friends with a hefty tax bill when you pass away.[/FONT]
[FONT=museo_sans]In general, it works as follows:[/FONT]

• You set up an insurance policy.
• You specify that the policy is held in trust. If you don’t, the money from the insurance pay-out is counted as part of your estate and subject to Inheritance Tax.
• When you die, the policy pays out to the trust, which might be used to pay all or part of your Inheritance Tax bill.
  You might need to set out your wishes in a side letter to guide your policy trust trustees to use the funds in this way.
• It’s a good idea to write your wishes in a separate letter to help trustees follow your instructions.

 

[Squamous]

Updates have started again, is Alyce around or shall I copy them?

 

[pinklilies]

Yes, but she was left in financial difficulties when her husband died suddenly and unexpectedly, and she didn't want that to happen to IS. Plus her mother testified that she was worried about her blood pressure, Helen said the doctor had told her she could just keel over and die whilst sitting at home because her blood pressure was so high.

I don't understand her logic here. If she was so worried this would happen then why wouldn't she take medication to lower the pressure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeJudi]

I don't think the solicitor should be asked about the tax implications of Helen's death. She isn't a tax or finance specialist.

Solicitors who prepare Wills are definitely aware of the tax implications and probate is a specialised part of the law as distinct from, say, conveyancing, criminal etc. Tax and finance specialists are something else altogether. Huge amounts of money can be lost from an estate if there are legal proceedings over a contested Will. Basically Helen had prepared an "interim" Will to give her breathing space while she made her final decision as to how her estate was to be divided. It's obvious IS was uppermost in her mind when this Will was prepared, but she had not yet made her final decision as to how her estate was to be divided.

 

[snoopydog]

I don't think the solicitor should be asked about the tax implications of Helen's death. She isn't a tax or finance specialist.

I've asked a tax specialist about this. Ok. So it's all depending on what the insurance policy was covering. If it was literally for the inheritance tax then if they were married it wouldn't pay out because there would be no inheritance tax.

We need to know more details about the specific insurance and what it was covering and IF it was specific to IT or it was just an extra amount to him that he could USE to pay IT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Squamous]

Continuing updates...

Stewart asked how to invoke power of attorney after Ms Bailey's disappearance

Ms King-Jones is still being cross-examined. She confirms that she spoke to Stewart on June 2, 2016, and he asked for a copy of the power of attorney document.

She said: “He asked me how does he invoke it? I explained there is no restriction on it and I would normally issue a solicitor certified copy and contact my client. He said it wasn’t desperate. He said he had to cancel holiday and needed it for insurance and to contact the bank.

“I have not come across a request for a document where I could not notify my client that it was going to be put into effect.”

Ms King Jones advised him to seek separate legal advice on how to operate the power of attorney.