"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ratsack" writes:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
I can tell you from experience that the burden of proof is firmly on
you. It's 40% unless you can prove otherwise. The last one I dealt with
ground to a halt because the bank could not provide cheque stubs, so
the
payee couldn't be identified. Jolly frustrating, but it's no doubt
easier these days.

Hum, I pay a lot of my mum's bills online from my account and buy her
shopping. She pays me back by cheque periodially, and I don't keep
recods
of what each one was for afterwards. I could see that being a problem?

No, because you can match her cheques with what you have paid for her.

Not easily. A cheque typically covers 3 months of barclaycard, gas,
etc bills, and several loads of shopping, which were only ever added
up on back of an envelope, and not kept.

Sure, but everything except the shopping is easy to prove and
the difference which is the shopping would be reasonable.
You have proven that you are paying for her and getting
that back with a cheque, that is all you have to do, not prove
the amount spent on the shopping as long as the difference
is reasonable. And even if they want to be bloody minded
and ignore the shopping, it wouldn't make much difference
to the value of the estate which has to be substantial for there
to be an inheritance tax due.