Bobby9

Thanks, but please can I ask for further clarification why that is the case. From your link "Where the values of the assets making up that estate have been ascertained for the purpose of Inheritance Tax the same values must be used for Capital Gains Tax. CG32224 explains what is meant by ascertained in this context.". Based on CG32224 it seems clear that the probate value in this case has not been ascertained, so doesn't this mean that it does not have to be used for the CGT calculation? I can't see anything in what you've linked that confirms the (incorrect) probate value must be used in a case like this (where to do so would exaggerate the actual gain made). Please confirm. Thanks Bobby9

Any help appreciated for this CGT query with regards to house sold during administration of estate. Date of death Nov 2019, value of property on Inheritance Tax estate report was estimated (badly) to be 93K making total value of estate 156K (well below IHT threshold). Subsequently an estate agent valued the property at date of death to be 140K. The property sold end of May 2023 for 166K. So the estimated property value was inaccurately low, house prices have obviously not increased by 75%+ in 3.5 years. Note that had the correct 140K valuation been used for probate the estate would still have been well below IHT threshold. Given the above it seems very unfair to use the 93K probate value to calculate the gain. In this situation is it permissible to use the subsequently acquired estate agent valuation of 140K at date of of death? That would give a realistic gain of 26K to pay CGT on. As the 93K probate value was not a material factor in calculating an actual IHT charge, that value was not 'ascertained' (it simply established that the property couldn’t be worth enough to give rise to an IHT charge). So is it correct that for the CGT calculation the actual value at acquisition can be used instead (of the incorrect probate value) and an estate agent valuation for the date of death would be an acceptable way of arriving at that? Many thanks Bobby