Then I'd 100% agree with their request & go ahead with the deed.
Will was badly worded, individual PP should not have been named.
IANAL
Then I'd 100% agree with their request & go ahead with the deed.the money wasn't left to the parish it was to the PP
I can only guess that is the case. But who would police this? Executor is happy to transfer money to PP as per wording of the will.If it was left to the PP specifically to say Masses and it is beyond his capacity to do so then, according to the Irish bishop's guidance, he is supposed to pass on the money to other priests who can do it and who need the money. Is it that he would prefer for the money to be spent on his local Parish needs instead?
yes agree absolutely, however PP does not want to involve own solicitor now, as he had been advised.Then I'd 100% agree with their request & go ahead with the deed.
Will was badly worded, individual PP should not have been named.
well no, I disagree the wording of the will is paramount and that surely is the responsibility of the will solicitor to make sure no ambiguous wording in the 1st placeThis thread is a reminder that you should appoint practical people as executors.And that wills shouldn’t be too complex!
I can only guess that is the case. But who would police this?
He probably wasn't.Will was badly worded, individual PP should not have been named.
It looks as though PP can't say the number of masses required by the bequest, but doesn't want to pass the offerings on to other priests because the money could be used productively in the Parish.I can only guess that is the case. But who would police this? Executor is happy to transfer money to PP as per wording of the will.
This. As a matter of practical reality the PP could accept the bequest, use the money for parish purposes, and simply not say all the masses that the bequest requires. He could probably get away with this because who is checking? But he is too decent and honest a man to consider doing such a thing. So he would like a deed of arrangement to (in effect) vary the will so that the bequest is for the general purposes of the parish and is not specific about the number of masses to be celebrated for the donor's intentions.I don't know anything about Canon Law or bishop's directives but maybe the policing is by the PP's conscience? The Deed of Arrangement would absolve his responsibility?
OP says he was!He probably wasn't
No, he doesn't. He says that the money was left to the PP, not to the parish, but that is equally true whether the money is left to "Rev Danny BoyD PP" (i.e. left to a named person) or to "the parish priest of Glockamorra" (i.e. whoever happens to be PP of Glockamorra when the testator dies). The latter would be much more common, for the reasons already discussed.OP says he was!
Nobody is going to check the masses are said. This is not an executor problem, this is a beneficiary problem, money to priest, executor job is done. Priest can say a couple of masses, or ask the other priests to do so, he then uses the money to fix the church steeple.I can only guess that is the case. But who would police this? Executor is happy to transfer money to PP as per wording of the will.
He could, but if he asks another priests to say the masses he is required by Church regulations to pass on the money to them - rather that fix the steeple. He could be bold and just fix the steeple but he would prefer a conscionable way out of the bind.ask the other priests to do so, he then uses the money to fix the church steeple.
So long as he satisfies his conscience and passes on the money to the parish after paying his tax liabilities.He could be bold and just fix the steeple but he would prefer a conscionable way out of the bind.
I think the problem here is that he can't. The thread suggest that the testator has left a significant amount of money for masses to be said at a specified stipend per mass; if you do the maths it amounts to hundreds of masses, and he can't say them all himself. He's not going to accept the bequest and just fail to arrange for the masses, or most of them. So the options are:So long as he satisfies his conscience
As a bequest it's within the CAT regime rather than the income tax regime. But as a charitable bequest the CAT charge is nil. So if he does accept the bequest he won't have any tax liability on it.. . . after paying his tax liabilities.
That is my suspicion too, hence the request for the deed.I think the problem here is that he can't.
Don't they fall under emoluments and so are subject to income tax, though subject to cost of living deductions? Most Catholic dioceses seem to operate a common fund structure where a portion of fees for intentions go into a common pool for redistribution to all the clergy with a portion going directly to the priest performing the intention, but the guidance is this money is all subject to taxation as priests are classed as self-employed for taxation purposes.But as a charitable bequest the CAT charge is nil.