Am I entitled to half of my mother's house? My mother died recently. Her home-made will left everything jointly to me, her only child, and her husband, whom she married after divorcing my father. A solicitor has said that because all her assets - a house worth £500,000 and a few bank accounts - were held jointly with her husband, I will not receive anything from the estate at all. Can this be right? Relations are not good between me and her husband, but it does not seem fair. Helen Freely, partner at Druces law firm says that it could be correct even though on the face of it it seems unfair. There are two ways to hold property in joint names: as "joint tenants" or as "tenants in common." Where a property is held as joint tenants, the death of the first owner triggers automatic ownership for the second owner, regardless of any will. This is known as the right of survivorship. On the other hand, where a property is held as tenants in common, the joint owner's share passes in accordance with any will. If your mother and her husband held the property as joint tenants, then yes, the solicitor is correct. If your mother and her husband held the property as tenants in common, then, assuming your mother and her husband held the property 50/50 then your mother's half of the estate should pass in accordance with her will. However, regardless of how the property was held, you may still have a claim against her estate on one or more of the following grounds. Firstly, you may be able to say that the will is "useless" because the estate is not passing in the way in which the deceased had intended. However, if the will is declared invalid, and her estate is dealt with under intestacy rules - as if no will had been written - the effect could be the same, because intestacy rules will not override the joint tenancy. Secondly, you may have a claim against the estate under the Inheritance Provision for Family and Dependents Act 1975, particularly if you have been financially dependent on your mother during her lifetime. Thirdly, it could be possible to argue that you were promised an immediate proprietary interest - share of the property - and you acted to your financial detriment based on this promise. But it will very much be a case of analysing your evidence and ascertaining the strength of your claim based on the facts. One thing to bear in mind is that there will be cost implications of bringing a claim and you will need to fund the claim yourself. Many people with this sort of difficulty tend to weigh up the expense of bringing the claim against the maximum they are likely to recoup from the estate. Often, they decide not to proceed with a claim. You might decide that the best course of action is to try to appeal to your mother's husband's better nature and ask him to respect your mother's memory and wishes, perhaps by converting the joint tenancy to a tenancy in common retrospectively by way of a deed of variation. However, if relations are not good between you, this is something that may not be possible. Can you borrow to cut your IHT bill? In the FT article "Non-doms urged to check tax status" (April 12), you mention changes in the 2013 UK Budget and how these measures will affect non-domiciled individuals who may previously have increased their borrowing to reduce the value of their estate for tax purposes. Is it still possible to increase borrowing to reduce your inheritance tax (IHT) bill if you are a UK citizen permanently living in the UK? Lisa-Jane Dupernex, a solicitor at Speechly Bircham, says all UK-domiciled individuals are liable for inheritance tax on the value of their worldwide estates in the absence of any other exemptions or reliefs. IHT is payable on anything above the tax-free, nil-rate band of £325,000. Under current law any debts that are outstanding at the date of an individual's death can be deducted from the total value of the deceased's estate for IHT purposes. However, new legislation in this year's Finance Bill imposes some restrictions. Although the rules are apparently directed at aggressive tax planning schemes, the proposed changes are wide-ranging and will affect many existing mainstream arrangements. The first change is that liabilities will have to be fully repaid from the deceased's estate in order to be deductible for IHT purposes. At present, the deduction is given for the full value of the debt due, rather than the amount actually repaid. This could have implications for many existing debt arrangements. Some common planning has involved debts subject to rolled-up interest which, if repaid, could attract an income tax charge. The second change to the law restricts the types of property that attracts favourable IHT treatment. The current regime provides relief from IHT for business property and agricultural property. Under the new provisions, where a loan has been taken out to buy an asset that qualifies for relief, the deduction for this liability must only be set against the value of the relief-qualifying assets. This means that if an individual borrows against his home in order to invest in his business, then the liability will be deductible against the value of the business - which may be exempt from inheritance tax - rather than the value of the home. A similar provision applies to loans used to buy so-called "excluded property," such as property situated outside the UK that belongs to a non-UK-domiciled individual. The new provisions will not allow a deduction for any liability incurred directly or indirectly to acquire excluded property. These changes will come into force for deaths occurring after the Finance Bill receives Royal Assent, which is expected to happen in July. There may be changes to the detail of the legislation but it is clear that these new provisions represent a fundamental change in the treatment of liabilities for IHT purposes. It will be essential for individuals to review existing IHT planning arrangements involving debts. The advice given is specific to the questions posed. Neither the FT nor the contributors accept liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from any reliance placed on replies.