The Society has been liaising with the Scottish Courts & Tribunal Service (SCTS) on processing form C1 confirmation inventory. Data were captured from Edinburgh Sheriff Court to identify common mistakes in the C1 forms that lead to rejection. In order to assist the profession, SCTS has provided a list of the common mistakes. Several matters are referred to below, to remind practitioners of where useful information can be found to assist in the submission of the forms.
- Incorrect fee.
- Executor’s address incorrect and not corrected within the declaration. For example, an executor may be designed in the will at a previous address to the one they are currently living at. This should be declared in the C1 form together with reference to the previous address in the will.
- Document referred to in the declaration not lodged.
- Domicile incorrect.
- Eik value not stated – the amended value for confirmation at the foot of p 3 of the eik form is missing.
Incorrect fees are a common return reason. SCTS advises that it receives incorrect fees very regularly. Practitioners can sign up to a SCTS credit agreement, which will prevent occurrences of wrong fees being sent by cheque and being returned. The link to the up-to-date fee order for commissary is: www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2018/81/schedule/1/made
Practitioners may also wish to refer to the HMRC C3 guidance, C3 – Notes for completion of forms C1 (Confirmation Inventory) and form C5 (Inland Revenue Return). The reasoning behind this is that the C1 confirmation inventory form is a dual-purpose form used by both the sheriff clerks’ offices and HMRC, for the issue of confirmation and assessment of tax respectively. Information is also readily available to practitioners from Currie on Confirmation of Executors (9th ed by Eilidh M Scobbie), at paras 10-21 onwards.
SCTS has recently set up a Commissary Records Unit email inbox at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. All members’ queries/progress requests should be directed to CRU@scotcourts.gov.uk
In this issue
- Brexit: prepare for impact
- Continuity and compatibility
- The Disability Convention: clearing obstructions
- Policing review: the priorities
- Five investment practicalities for lawyers managing trusts
- Reading for pleasure
- Opinion: Aamer Anwar
- Book reviews
- Profile: Serena Sutherland
- President's column
- People on the move
- Lifting the lid on the law
- The article 50 case: how it happened
- Forum for business
- Relevant persons: an alternative
- Three ways to enhance digital innovation
- Brexit north of the border
- Roberton – a way forward?
- Interest that runs for years
- Minimum pricing: what next?
- A bill not as planned
- Consumer contracts, choice of law and time bar
- Entrepreneurs' relief: tightened too far?
- Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal
- In the name of justice
- Views from the bar
- Design the Journal front cover!
- Public policy highlights
- OPG update
- Police station interview training – an update
- Easier caution with Marsh online service
- Fantastic locums – and where to find them!
- Navigating competencies
- C1s – why they bounce
- Conference content?
- Turn on the black box
- Ask Ash