321 / 364
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