Inheritance and succession across jurisdictions: a planning matrix

For a family with assets spread across three or more jurisdictions, succession is rarely governed by a single law. It is governed by a collision of regimes — each asserting authority over different assets, different heirs, and different tax liabilities. The 2025-2026 planning window is defined by a specific set of pressures: the European Succession Regulation (EU 650/2012) has now been in force for a full decade across most member states, creating a body of case law that clarifies its limits; several common-law jurisdictions, including Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, have introduced or amended forced-heirship protections for real property; and the OECD’s continued push toward automatic exchange of inheritance-related information means that undisclosed cross-border estates are increasingly visible to multiple revenue authorities simultaneously. This matrix examines the core variables — domicile, situs, forced heirship, spousal rights, and tax trigger events — and offers a framework for structuring succession that survives jurisdictional conflict. ## The three axes of jurisdictional conflict Every cross-border succession involves at least three legal coordinates: the deceased’s domicile or habitual residence, the location of each asset (its situs), and the nationality of each beneficiary. The interaction of these three variables determines which court has jurisdiction, which substantive law applies, and which tax authorities can claim a share of the estate. ### Domicile versus habitual residence The European Succession Regulation (EU 650/2012), effective since 17 August 2015, replaced domicile with habitual residence as the primary connecting factor for succession in 25 member states (Denmark, Ireland, and non-EU jurisdictions remain outside). This shift was intended to align succession law with the actual centre of a person’s life, but it introduced a new layer of uncertainty: habitual residence is a fact-based determination, not a formal election. A principal who spends 180 days per year in Monaco, 120 days in London, and the remainder in transit may find that no single member state considers them habitually resident, or that two states claim them simultaneously. The regulation permits a choice-of-law declaration (professio juris) to override habitual residence with the law of the testator’s nationality, but this election must be made explicitly in the will and is irrevocable upon death. As of 2025, the European Court of Justice has issued at least four rulings clarifying that the professio juris is valid only if the testator held the chosen nationality at the time of making the declaration — a dual national cannot retroactively select a second passport’s law. ### Situs and the real property carve-out No regulation, treaty, or convention overrides a state’s sovereign right to control the devolution of real property within its borders. This principle, codified in Article 1(2)(k) of EU 650/2012, means that a villa in France, a farm in Italy, and a condominium in Spain each remain subject to the forced-heirship and spousal-reserve rules of the situs jurisdiction, regardless of the testator’s habitual residence or chosen law. In practice, this creates a bifurcated estate: movable assets (bank accounts, securities, art, aircraft) follow the succession law of the habitual residence or chosen nationality, while immovable assets in each jurisdiction follow local substantive law. The UAE’s Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2022 on Civil Transactions, effective from 2 January 2023, introduced a notable exception: non-Muslim expatriates may now elect to have their entire estate — including UAE real property — governed by their home-country law, provided the election is made by a registered will at the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department or the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Wills Service. This election overrides the default application of Sharia-based forced heirship for immovables, but only if the will is executed before death and registered with the competent authority. ### Beneficiary nationality and withholding regimes Beneficiary nationality matters most at the tax-collection stage, not the succession stage. A German heir inheriting a Swiss bank account from a French-resident testator triggers reporting obligations under the OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS) in all three jurisdictions. The CRS, in force since 2016 for early adopters and since 2018 for most major financial centres, requires financial institutions to report account balances and gross proceeds to the tax authority of the account holder’s residence. Upon death, the reporting obligation shifts: the executor or personal representative must notify the financial institution of the change in beneficial ownership, and the institution must report the new beneficial owner’s residence jurisdiction. As of 2025, over 110 jurisdictions participate in the CRS, and the OECD’s 2024 peer-review report identified that 14 jurisdictions had begun exchanging inheritance-related data specifically — a category that did not exist in the original CRS framework. This means that a beneficiary who inherits assets in a jurisdiction where they are not tax-resident may find that their home tax authority receives an automatic notification of the inheritance, even if no local inheritance tax return was filed. ## Forced heirship: the jurisdictions that override the will Forced heirship is the single most common source of cross-border succession disputes. It is not a relic of civil-law tradition; it is a statutory regime in force in every EU member state except England and Wales, every Middle Eastern jurisdiction applying Sharia-based family law, and several Asian civil-law jurisdictions including Japan, South Korea, and Thailand. The key variable is the proportion of the estate reserved to descendants and, in some regimes, surviving spouses. ### The reserved share in major civil-law jurisdictions France’s Code Civil, Articles 912-914, reserves 50 percent of the estate for one child, 66.7 percent for two children, and 75 percent for three or more children, with the surviving spouse receiving a usufruct over the entire estate unless a formal election is made for a fractional share in full ownership. These rules apply to all immovable property situated in France and to movable property if the deceased was domiciled in France at death. Italy’s Codice Civile, Articles 536-564, reserves 50 percent for one child, 66.7 percent for two or more children, and 25 percent for the surviving spouse if there are children (50 percent if there are no children but ascendants survive). Spain’s Código Civil, Articles 806-822, reserves 66.7 percent of the estate for descendants, with one-third of that reserved portion distributed in equal shares and one-third available for improvement (mejora) among descendants at the testator’s discretion. Germany’s Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB), Sections 2303-2338, does not reserve a fixed fraction of the estate but instead grants a compulsory portion (Pflichtteil) equal to half the intestate share — a monetary claim rather than a right to specific assets. This distinction is critical: a German forced heir cannot block the sale of a specific asset, only claim cash value. ### Common-law jurisdictions with forced-heirship equivalents England and Wales does not recognise forced heirship in the civil-law sense, but the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 allows certain categories of claimants — spouses, former spouses who have not remarried, children, and anyone financially dependent on the deceased — to apply to the court for reasonable financial provision from the estate. The court has broad discretion to override the will’s terms, and the 1975 Act applies to all assets in England and Wales regardless of the deceased’s domicile, provided the claimant can establish a connection to the jurisdiction. In practice, this means that a French-resident testator with a London flat and an English-resident child may find that the child can challenge a will that excludes them, even if French forced-heirship law would have granted them a reserved share. The US state of Louisiana operates a civil-law-based forced-heirship regime under its Civil Code Articles 1493-1501, reserving a portion of the estate for descendants under age 24 or those with permanent incapacity. No other US state has forced heirship, but the Uniform Probate Code, adopted in 18 states as of 2025, includes a spousal elective-share right that functions similarly: a surviving spouse can claim between 30 and 50 percent of the augmented estate, depending on the length of the marriage. ### The elective-share as a planning tool Several jurisdictions allow the testator to opt out of forced heirship entirely by making an affirmative election during lifetime. The DIFC Wills Service, established in 2015 and codified in DIFC Law No. 4 of 2021, permits non-Muslim expatriates to register a will that disposes of all DIFC-situated assets and, since the 2022 amendment, any assets in the UAE mainland that the testator designates. The election must be made by a notarised declaration and registered with the DIFC Wills Service before death; it is irrevocable. Similarly, the Swiss Civil Code, Article 470, allows a testator to dispose freely of the portion of the estate that exceeds the forced-heirship reserve, and Article 477 permits the testator to reduce the forced-heirship share of a descendant who has committed a serious crime against the testator or a close family member. These elections are jurisdiction-specific and do not override forced-heirship rules in other jurisdictions where assets are located. ## The matrimonial property overlay Succession does not begin at death. It begins at marriage, because the matrimonial property regime in force at the time of marriage determines what share of the couple’s assets belongs to which spouse before any inheritance rules apply. A surviving spouse who believes they are inheriting half the estate may in fact already own half under the matrimonial regime — and the other half may be subject to forced heirship in favour of children from a prior marriage. ### Community property versus separate property The distinction between community property and separate property is the single most important variable in cross-border succession planning for married couples. Under a community-property regime, in force in France (communauté réduite aux acquêts), Italy (comunione legale), Spain (sociedad de gananciales), and several US states including California, Texas, and Florida, all assets acquired during the marriage are presumed to belong equally to both spouses. Upon the death of the first spouse, only the deceased spouse’s half of the community property passes through the estate — the surviving spouse already owns the other half. This means that forced-heirship percentages are calculated on half the marital assets, not the whole. Under a separate-property regime, in force in England and Wales, Germany (Zugewinngemeinschaft, which is not a true community regime but a deferred-compensation model), and most common-law US states, each spouse retains ownership of assets acquired in their own name, and the surviving spouse’s share depends entirely on the will or intestacy rules. ### The matrimonial property election EU Regulation 2016/1103, in force since 29 January 2019, allows spouses in 18 participating member states to choose the law governing their matrimonial property regime, provided that law is either the law of the habitual residence of one spouse, the nationality of one spouse, or the law of the first matrimonial domicile after marriage. This election is separate from the succession election under EU 650/2012 and must be made in a separate document. A French-German couple living in London can elect German matrimonial property law (Zugewinngemeinschaft) and French succession law (professio juris to French nationality), creating a hybrid structure that no single jurisdiction would produce by default. The election must be made in writing, dated, and signed by both spouses; it can be made before or during the marriage, but if made during marriage, it takes effect only from the date of the document, not retroactively. ## The composite case study: the Martinez estate The following composite case study, based on facts drawn from reported decisions and statutory regimes in force as of 2025, illustrates the interaction of the variables described above. ### Facts Antonio Martinez, a Spanish national, died domiciled in Switzerland in November 2025. He was survived by his second wife, Claudia (German national, resident in Switzerland), and two adult children from his first marriage (Spanish nationals, resident in Spain). His estate comprised: a residential villa in Marbella, Spain (value EUR 4.2 million); a bank account in Zurich, Switzerland (CHF 3.8 million); a portfolio of US-listed securities held through a Luxembourg custodian (USD 5.1 million); and a flat in London held jointly with Claudia as tenants in common (value GBP 1.5 million, of which Antonio’s 50 percent share is GBP 750,000). Antonio executed a Swiss will in 2020 leaving his entire estate to Claudia, with no provision for his children. He did not make a professio juris election under EU 650/2012. ### Analysis Under EU 650/2012, Antonio’s habitual residence at death was Switzerland, which is not a member state. The regulation applies only to member states; for a non-member-state resident, each member state applies its own conflict-of-laws rules. Spain applies Spanish succession law to Spanish nationals regardless of domicile (Article 9(8) of the Spanish Civil Code). Therefore, the Marbella villa is governed by Spanish substantive succession law. Spain’s forced-heirship rules under Articles 806-822 of the Código Civil reserve 66.7 percent of the estate for descendants. Since the villa is Antonio’s only Spanish-situated asset, the children are entitled to 66.7 percent of the villa’s value — EUR 2.8 million — in equal shares. Claudia receives the remaining EUR 1.4 million of the villa plus her 50 percent ownership share as tenant in common (which is not part of the estate). The Zurich bank account is governed by Swiss succession law, as Switzerland applies the law of the deceased’s last domicile. Swiss law, under Articles 470-475 of the Swiss Civil Code, reserves for each child a forced-heirship share equal to half the intestate share. Since Antonio had two children, the intestate share for each child is one-third of the estate (the surviving spouse receives one-third, and each child receives one-third). The forced-heirship share for each child is therefore one-sixth of the Swiss estate. The Swiss estate for this purpose includes only assets subject to Swiss succession law — the Zurich account and, under Swiss conflict-of-laws rules, the Luxembourg securities (movable assets follow the law of the deceased’s domicile). The total Swiss-law estate is CHF 3.8 million plus USD 5.1 million (converted at the 2025 average rate of 1.10 CHF/USD, or CHF 5.61 million), for a total of CHF 9.41 million. Each child’s forced-heirship claim is CHF 1.57 million (one-sixth). Claudia receives the remaining CHF 6.27 million from the Swiss-law estate. The London flat is governed by English law, as it is immovable property situated in England and Wales. Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the children can apply to the English court for reasonable financial provision. The court will consider that the children have already received EUR 2.8 million from the Spanish villa and CHF 3.14 million (combined) from the Swiss estate. Given this substantial provision, the court is likely to deny the application or award a nominal amount. Claudia retains her GBP 750,000 share as tenant in common and inherits Antonio’s GBP 750,000 share under the will, subject to the court’s discretion. ### Tax consequences Spain imposes inheritance tax (Impuesto sobre Sucesiones y Donaciones) at progressive rates from 7.65 percent to 34 percent, with a EUR 1 million exemption for descendants in Andalusia (the region where Marbella is located). The children’s EUR 2.8 million inheritance from the villa, after the EUR 1 million exemption each, results in a taxable base of EUR 800,000 per child, at a rate of approximately 21 percent, yielding tax of EUR 168,000 per child. Switzerland does not impose federal inheritance tax; cantonal rates vary. Zurich’s inheritance tax rate for a surviving spouse is 0 percent; for children, it is 6 percent on amounts exceeding CHF 200,000 per child. Each child’s CHF 1.57 million inheritance is taxed at 6 percent on CHF 1.37 million (after the exemption), yielding CHF 82,200 per child. The UK imposes inheritance tax at 40 percent on estates exceeding GBP 325,000, but the surviving-spouse exemption means that assets passing to Claudia are exempt. The children’s potential claim under the 1975 Act would be taxable at 40 percent on amounts exceeding the nil-rate band, but the claim is unlikely to proceed given the other provisions. ## The planning checklist for cross-border estates The following five steps are derived from the statutory regimes and case law described above. They are not advisory; they are structural requirements for any cross-border succession plan that aims to survive jurisdictional conflict. 1. **Establish the matrimonial property regime in writing before any other planning step**, because the regime determines which assets belong to the estate and which belong to the surviving spouse as of right, and an election under EU Regulation 2016/1103 must be made separately from any succession election. 2. **Execute a professio juris election under EU 650/2012 in the will itself**, not in a separate document, and ensure that the chosen law is the law of a nationality held at the time of execution — the election is irrevocable upon death and cannot be changed by a later codicil that does not explicitly reaffirm it. 3. **Register a separate will for each jurisdiction where immovable property exceeds the local forced-heirship threshold**, because no professio juris or matrimonial-property election overrides the situs jurisdiction’s substantive rules for real property, and a single will that attempts to dispose of immovables in multiple jurisdictions may be invalid in one or more of them. 4. **Structure liquid assets through a trust or foundation in a jurisdiction that does not recognise forced heirship**, such as the DIFC (under DIFC Law No. 4 of 2021), Singapore (under the Trustees Act, Cap. 337, as amended in 2023), or the Cook Islands (under the International Trusts Act 1984, as amended), because assets held in a properly settled trust are not part of the settlor’s estate and are therefore not subject to forced-heirship claims, provided the trust is not a sham and was settled before the forced-heirship claim arose. 5. **File a CRS notification with each financial institution holding the deceased’s accounts within 30 days of death**, because the reporting obligation shifts from the deceased to the estate upon death, and failure to notify the institution of the change in beneficial ownership may result in the institution reporting the deceased as the beneficial owner for the year of death, triggering an automatic exchange with a jurisdiction that may have no claim to the assets. ## Sources - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32012R0650 - Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of matrimonial property regimes: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R1103 - French Civil Code, Articles 912-914 (forced heirship) and 1400-1491 (matrimonial property): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGITEXT000006070721/ - Spanish Civil Code, Articles 806-822 (forced heirship) and 1344-1410 (matrimonial property): https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1889-4763 - Swiss Civil Code, Articles 470-475 (forced heirship) and 181-251 (matrimonial property): https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/24/233_245_233/en - German Civil Code (BGB), Sections 2303-2338 (compulsory portion): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/ - UAE Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2022 on Civil Transactions: https://u.ae/en/information-and-services/justice-safety-and-law/laws-and-regulations - DIFC Law No. 4 of 2021 (Wills and Probate): https://www.difc.ae/business/laws-regulations/ - Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (UK): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63 - OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and 2024 Peer Review Report: https://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/crs-implementation-and-assistance/