entirely to a spouse, HMRC recognises that it is just make-work to
require pointless form filling and examination.- It therefore has a
simplified procedure for 'excepted estates' that does not require the
tedious and time-consuming formality of the IHT400 procedures.- The
estate value limit for that is -u3 million.
Congratulations on your use of search engines and AI to discover
"excepted estate" status.
estates the size of the one we're considering.
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
Norman Wells has just had a post rejected, forming part
of his long running exchange with Simon Parker; on account
of its allegedly containing nothing new.
The message is available for scrutiny on
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-177375976824377.txt
And while much of it wasn't in fact new, just Norman
repeatedly questioning why HMRC should require detailed
information on Estates where no IHT was due - they just
do alright ?
Or foolishly questioning the validity of patently genuine quotes
At least one exchange, was nevertheless of particular interest
quote:
............................................
NW > Where no inheritance tax will be due, as with any estate that passes
NW about which you clearly knew very little, especially in respect ofCongratulations on your use of search engines and AI to discoverentirely to a spouse, HMRC recognises that it is just make-work to
require pointless form filling and examination.-o It therefore has a
simplified procedure for 'excepted estates' that does not require the
tedious and time-consuming formality of the IHT400 procedures.-o The
estate value limit for that is -o-a3 million.
"excepted estate" status.
estates the size of the one we're considering.
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
.................................................
:unquote
Which indeed is "new". Very "new" in fact.
As indeed, in the whole course of this lengthy exchange, up
until Norman's introducing such a possibility, was there any
mention of 'excepted estates' at all. None.
Which despite Simom Parker's protestations to the contrary
in respect of the significance of excepted estate status,
and hence his not mentioning it previously, could quite
possibly have been of especial relevance, the present instance
quote:
Benefits of being an excepted estate
The key advantages include:
a.. No need to prepare a full Inheritance Tax account (IHT400) in many cases.
b.. Reduced administrative burdens for the PR.
c.. Fewer formal tax calculations and often a simpler path to obtaining a Grant (if required).
:unquote
https://www.kctrust.co.uk/help/what-is-an-excepted-estate
So that Norman's observation
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
Seems both very pertinent, on topic, and very "new".
Unlike interminable and doubtlessly endlessly absorbing discussions
of the technical aspects of telephone systems, which presumably
are simply totally unavailable in any other place, online.
On 18/03/2026 09:13, billy bookcase wrote:
Norman Wells has just had a post rejected, forming part
of his long running exchange with Simon Parker; on account
of its allegedly containing nothing new.
The message is available for scrutiny on
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/
nr-177375976824377.txt
And while much of it wasn't in fact new, just Norman
repeatedly questioning why HMRC should require detailed
information on Estates where no IHT was due - they just
do alright ?
Or foolishly questioning the validity of patently genuine quotes
At least one exchange, was nevertheless of particular interest
quote:
............................................
NW > Where no inheritance tax will be due, as with any estate that passes >>>>> entirely to a spouse, HMRC recognises that it is just make-work to
NW about which you clearly knew very little, especially in respect ofCongratulations on your use of search engines and AI to discoverrequire pointless form filling and examination.-o-a It therefore has a >>>>> simplified procedure for 'excepted estates' that does not require the >>>>> tedious and time-consuming formality of the IHT400 procedures.-o-a The >>>>> estate value limit for that is -o-a3 million.
"excepted estate" status.
estates the size of the one we're considering.
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
.................................................
:unquote
Which indeed is "new". Very "new" in fact.
As indeed, in the whole course of this lengthy exchange, up
until Norman's introducing such a possibility, was there any
mention of 'excepted estates' at all. None.
Which despite Simom Parker's protestations to the contrary
in respect of the significance of excepted estate status,
and hence his not mentioning it previously, could quite
possibly have been of especial relevance, the present instance
quote:
Benefits of being an excepted estate
The key advantages include:
-a-a a.. No need to prepare a full Inheritance Tax account (IHT400) in
many cases.
-a-a b.. Reduced administrative burdens for the PR.
-a-a c.. Fewer formal tax calculations and often a simpler path to
obtaining a
Grant (if required).
:unquote
https://www.kctrust.co.uk/help/what-is-an-excepted-estate
So that Norman's observation
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
Seems both very pertinent, on topic, and very "new".
Unlike interminable and doubtlessly endlessly absorbing discussions
of the technical aspects of telephone systems, which presumably
are simply totally unavailable in any other place, online.
Just to clarify, it was I who rejected a recent series of posts from
Norman including, I think, the above.
If it did contain anything new, then I think Norman should have edited
and snipped some of his dreary repetitive mocking remarks and got to the point more concisely.
On 18/03/2026 09:13, billy bookcase wrote:
Norman Wells has just had a post rejected, forming part
of his long running exchange with Simon Parker; on account
of its allegedly containing nothing new.
The message is available for scrutiny on
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-177375976824377.txt
And while much of it wasn't in fact new, just Norman
repeatedly questioning why HMRC should require detailed
information on Estates where no IHT was due - they just
do alright ?
Or foolishly questioning the validity of patently genuine quotes
At least one exchange, was nevertheless of particular interest
quote:
............................................
NW > Where no inheritance tax will be due, as with any estate that passes >>>>> entirely to a spouse, HMRC recognises that it is just make-work to
NW about which you clearly knew very little, especially in respect ofCongratulations on your use of search engines and AI to discoverrequire pointless form filling and examination.? It therefore has a >>>>> simplified procedure for 'excepted estates' that does not require the >>>>> tedious and time-consuming formality of the IHT400 procedures.? The >>>>> estate value limit for that is ??3 million.
"excepted estate" status.
estates the size of the one we're considering.
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
.................................................
:unquote
Which indeed is "new". Very "new" in fact.
As indeed, in the whole course of this lengthy exchange, up
until Norman's introducing such a possibility, was there any
mention of 'excepted estates' at all. None.
Which despite Simom Parker's protestations to the contrary
in respect of the significance of excepted estate status,
and hence his not mentioning it previously, could quite
possibly have been of especial relevance, the present instance
quote:
Benefits of being an excepted estate
The key advantages include:
a.. No need to prepare a full Inheritance Tax account (IHT400) in many
cases.
b.. Reduced administrative burdens for the PR.
c.. Fewer formal tax calculations and often a simpler path to obtaining a >> Grant (if required).
:unquote
https://www.kctrust.co.uk/help/what-is-an-excepted-estate
So that Norman's observation
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
Seems both very pertinent, on topic, and very "new".
Unlike interminable and doubtlessly endlessly absorbing discussions
of the technical aspects of telephone systems, which presumably
are simply totally unavailable in any other place, online.
Just to clarify, it was I who rejected a recent series of posts from Norman including, I think, the above.
If it did contain anything new,
en I think Norman should have edited
and snipped
some of his dreary repetitive mocking remarks and got to the point more concisely.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:n1v95iFml3iU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/03/2026 09:13, billy bookcase wrote:
Norman Wells has just had a post rejected, forming part
of his long running exchange with Simon Parker; on account
of its allegedly containing nothing new.
The message is available for scrutiny on
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-177375976824377.txt
And while much of it wasn't in fact new, just Norman
repeatedly questioning why HMRC should require detailed
information on Estates where no IHT was due - they just
do alright ?
Or foolishly questioning the validity of patently genuine quotes
At least one exchange, was nevertheless of particular interest
quote:
............................................
NW > Where no inheritance tax will be due, as with any estate that passes >>>>>> entirely to a spouse, HMRC recognises that it is just make-work to >>>>>> require pointless form filling and examination.? It therefore has a >>>>>> simplified procedure for 'excepted estates' that does not require the >>>>>> tedious and time-consuming formality of the IHT400 procedures.? The >>>>>> estate value limit for that is ??3 million.
NW about which you clearly knew very little, especially in respect ofCongratulations on your use of search engines and AI to discover
"excepted estate" status.
estates the size of the one we're considering.
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
.................................................
:unquote
Which indeed is "new". Very "new" in fact.
As indeed, in the whole course of this lengthy exchange, up
until Norman's introducing such a possibility, was there any
mention of 'excepted estates' at all. None.
Which despite Simom Parker's protestations to the contrary
in respect of the significance of excepted estate status,
and hence his not mentioning it previously, could quite
possibly have been of especial relevance, the present instance
quote:
Benefits of being an excepted estate
The key advantages include:
a.. No need to prepare a full Inheritance Tax account (IHT400) in many >>> cases.
b.. Reduced administrative burdens for the PR.
c.. Fewer formal tax calculations and often a simpler path to obtaining a
Grant (if required).
:unquote
https://www.kctrust.co.uk/help/what-is-an-excepted-estate
So that Norman's observation
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
Seems both very pertinent, on topic, and very "new".
Unlike interminable and doubtlessly endlessly absorbing discussions
of the technical aspects of telephone systems, which presumably
are simply totally unavailable in any other place, online.
Just to clarify, it was I who rejected a recent series of posts from Norman >> including, I think, the above.
If it did contain anything new,
It did
en I think Norman should have edited
and snipped
It was an exchange between two posters; where Norman was being
challenged throughout.
The responsibility for snipping is not Norman's alone
some of his dreary repetitive mocking remarks and got to the point more
concisely.
At a rough guess around 80% of the ,material posted in that thread would appear dreary and repetitive, to anyone not taking an active interest in it.
As to "repetitive mocking remarks" I can only assume you have chosen
to overlook the tone of mocking condescension, and worse, to which
Norman Wells has regularly been subjected, ever since Simon Parker's
arrival on ULM.
On 18/03/2026 10:48, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:n1v95iFml3iU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/03/2026 09:13, billy bookcase wrote:
Norman Wells has just had a post rejected, forming part
of his long running exchange with Simon Parker; on account
of its allegedly containing nothing new.
The message is available for scrutiny on
https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-177375976824377.txt
And while much of it wasn't in fact new, just Norman
repeatedly questioning why HMRC should require detailed
information on Estates where no IHT was due - they just
do alright ?
Or foolishly questioning the validity of patently genuine quotes
At least one exchange, was nevertheless of particular interest
quote:
............................................
NW > Where no inheritance tax will be due, as with any estate that passes >>>>>>> entirely to a spouse, HMRC recognises that it is just make-work to >>>>>>> require pointless form filling and examination.? It therefore has a >>>>>>> simplified procedure for 'excepted estates' that does not require the >>>>>>> tedious and time-consuming formality of the IHT400 procedures.? The >>>>>>> estate value limit for that is ??3 million.
NW about which you clearly knew very little, especially in respect of >>>>> estates the size of the one we're considering.Congratulations on your use of search engines and AI to discover >>>>>> "excepted estate" status.
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
.................................................
:unquote
Which indeed is "new". Very "new" in fact.
As indeed, in the whole course of this lengthy exchange, up
until Norman's introducing such a possibility, was there any
mention of 'excepted estates' at all. None.
Which despite Simom Parker's protestations to the contrary
in respect of the significance of excepted estate status,
and hence his not mentioning it previously, could quite
possibly have been of especial relevance, the present instance
quote:
Benefits of being an excepted estate
The key advantages include:
a.. No need to prepare a full Inheritance Tax account (IHT400) in many >>>> cases.
b.. Reduced administrative burdens for the PR.
c.. Fewer formal tax calculations and often a simpler path to obtaining
a
Grant (if required).
:unquote
https://www.kctrust.co.uk/help/what-is-an-excepted-estate
So that Norman's observation
It's very strange you did not mention it earlier if you were.
Seems both very pertinent, on topic, and very "new".
Unlike interminable and doubtlessly endlessly absorbing discussions
of the technical aspects of telephone systems, which presumably
are simply totally unavailable in any other place, online.
Just to clarify, it was I who rejected a recent series of posts from Norman >>> including, I think, the above.
If it did contain anything new,
It did
en I think Norman should have edited
and snipped
It was an exchange between two posters; where Norman was being
challenged throughout.
The responsibility for snipping is not Norman's alone
some of his dreary repetitive mocking remarks and got to the point more
concisely.
At a rough guess around 80% of the ,material posted in that thread would
appear dreary and repetitive, to anyone not taking an active interest in it.
The understandable wish to get the last word in any discussion tends to prolong the discussion beyond all reasonable limits and discourage anyone else
from reading the latest posts. There is no easy way to curtail such discussions without offending someone.
As to "repetitive mocking remarks" I can only assume you have chosen
to overlook the tone of mocking condescension, and worse, to which
Norman Wells has regularly been subjected, ever since Simon Parker's
arrival on ULM.
Fair point.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 13:15:27 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (11,196K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,448 |