Yes it is true that if you give your assets to your kids and live for seven years there’s no inheritance tax to pay…but you’d better get on well with your kids.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
It’s a double edged sword tbh… yes on properties up to a certain value it’s true both you & your partner (if applicable) have an allowance where you’ll pay nothing if it doesn’t exceed that amount which is great but if you’ve passed a property onto your kids they may pay more in capital gains tax 🤷♂️
I have given my house to my son , just have to live another 3 years , then we’re ok! He is going to pay for everything I need in future,house valued £700,000 . He’s a very lucky boy! Has already bought me a new boiler in my 400yr old cottage! And will top up my pension every month too. All good 😊
when you gift an asset it is no longer a gift if you still derive a benefit from it
It stops people giving their residence to children but still live in it rent free
It’s kind-of true, there’s a lot more to it than that. But the point is that it would work perfectly well with most family
farms, less so with wealthy celebrities trying to avoid Inheritance Tax.
Farmers don't tend to retire at 65, and they're not phasing it in over 7 years, they just pulled his rabbit out of the hat without any warning or consultation via DEFRA.
Look at it again and find some way to differentiate between the investors and family farms.
Full IHT relief only came in in 1992, the 50% relief that this returns to was brought in by Lawson in 1984. And I don't think you got the extra million (2 for couples) tax free.
So, farmers used to have to plan for this sort of thing, assuming their farm was worth enough.
Most farmers have accountants and lawyers to advise alongside vets. It's whether they listen. Today had farmer keen to split farm between 3 sons and daughter in his will. But wanted any spouses excluded. Had experience of gold diggers apparently. It's quite emotional.
It worked so much easier in the olden days when the eldest son would inherit all the land, the second would go join the priesthood, the third would join the army, and the daughter would be married off. Far less emotional 🙂
A lot of the 3rd son religious conscripts ended up as missionaries in far flung countries eying up the farming business potential before colonisation. Letters of 1820s CMS vicars in New Zealand are very revealing.
No, but they can certainly get on with it now surely. Yes, some of them might die in the next 7 years, and the policy probably needs tweaking to mitigate against that.
Yes, but according to Jezza Clarkson, setting up a trust is time-consuming.
I mean, why would a multimillionaire bother to hire a solicitor and accountant to assist with such arduous work?
It's an attack on the rich tax dodgers.
No wonder they call it broken Britain.
My neighbours (farmers, very rural northern England), is clear - every single one believes that if being ‘evicted’ by your kids is a concern, that’s easily resolved with a continuing resident clause being put into the legal transfer documents.
Be interested to know if that’s the case ?
It’s a good point but you can use a family protection trust if worried about falling out with the kids or being disenfranchised if they divorce. It only costs a few thousand in solicitor’s fees.
Most farmers and country people do this. Always have. Always will. Specifically to avoid inheritance tax. I live in a very rural county. I don’t know any family that owns land who hasn’t done this.
how comes you gave the Labour guy a hard time regarding 500 farms affected by the new tax, and then said "it's only 500 farms affected" to Victoria Atkins?
Anyone care to mention tapering? Liability reduces every year. Farmers have accountants and advisers who can recommend basic solutions - no need for a trust as Clarkson is going on about in a condescending manner not only to @vicderbyshire.bsky.social but to his poorer farming buddies.
1. If you don’t get on with your kids, why do you care if they get taxed when you die?
2. They can still easily pass on over £3m tax free to their hated children if they don’t trust them.
If you don't get on well with kids..let them pay the tax...it's that simple.
It's amazing how much outcry there is in the UK when absolute inherited privilege is threatened.
Well if you don’t (&you weren’t intending to leave it to them), u could give it to someone else! It’s not like u have too. If children are working the farm it makes some good sense to start moving some ownership to them before death, that’s kind of inline with whole continuity/stewardship argument
Aren’t most farms Ltd Companies, easy tax avoidance. Or, gift them 49% which reduces or eliminates inheritance tax. There are lots of ways to avoid it and I doubt it will raise much extra for the Treasury.
It’s exactly what my grandfather wanted to do! Sign the 200 acre farm to me and lived another thirteen years. No capital gains for me. No inheritance tax. Problem was my father wouldn’t agree.. so it was sold. 😡
Comments
It stops people giving their residence to children but still live in it rent free
farms, less so with wealthy celebrities trying to avoid Inheritance Tax.
Look at it again and find some way to differentiate between the investors and family farms.
So, farmers used to have to plan for this sort of thing, assuming their farm was worth enough.
I mean, why would a multimillionaire bother to hire a solicitor and accountant to assist with such arduous work?
It's an attack on the rich tax dodgers.
No wonder they call it broken Britain.
Be interested to know if that’s the case ?
Or you’ll lose half to your daughter or son-in-law
Unless you put it in trust
2. They can still easily pass on over £3m tax free to their hated children if they don’t trust them.
It's amazing how much outcry there is in the UK when absolute inherited privilege is threatened.