OV9

Holley wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 11:48 am

GG. wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 11:29 am Is the increasing option just inflation linking I presume. It wouldn't step up in line with the underlying liability right? And again if you happen to die after the policy expires you have no contingency at all.

I also assume getting a policy to 90 if you're currently 63 on, say £500,000 of IHT would indeed be significant amounts pcm but you would know better than me on that.

They offer RPI or fixed annual increases of 2-5%. On top of that they can offer GIO (guaranteed insurability option) which allows the client to increase the cover in the future without further medical evidence. They only offer the latter if the client is deemed a good risk from the outset.

£500k as a single life to age 90 would be pricey, £400pcm. A WOL joint life second death at 63yrs old would be £620pcm. That last one sounds horrendous but even if both lived to age 93, you're still £276,800 up. It's one of those that pays to do it early where it's significantly cheaper.

duncs500 wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 11:43 am I'm certainly not going to argue with you, hence I caveated with 'or something'. I don't think the farm purchase loophole is a very healthy one for the farming industry, and so another mechanism that prevents that as an option would be a useful one to apply. All I'm saying is that it should be pretty clear who's attempting to manipulate the loophole, perhaps Clarkson is the exception as he got into farming but I'd hazard mostpeople buying a farm at 50 after making their money in finance are unlikely to have suddenly cultivated a generational family passion for farming.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 11:53 am

GG. wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 11:41 am The transfer would still attract stamp duty though presumably?

For a farmhouse worth £1,500,000 that's going to be well into six figures.

Re the IHT shelter thing that's easily addressed with saying you need to work it and not a tenant farmer and live in the farmhouse. That would still rule out clarkson as he lives in a big mansion he's constructed nearby.

Plenty of actual farmers have tenancies of other farm land (as Harry Metcalfe does); I don't see why the owner of that farm land which is being worked shouldn't get the IHT exemption. So if the loophole had been closed as you propose then it would have still caused a similar outcry.

No SDLT on a a gift; that would not be the case on a transfer for nil consideration into a company you (solely or jointly) own though, so putting the farm business into a company maybe isn't the solution. Transfer to the kids wouldn't have a big one-off liability though.

GG. wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:00 pm Though if you've gifted it for zero value, I wonder how that works for CGT if its not your primary residence and is then sold. TBD if the gain you make is the entire value versus market uplift since transfer. You could end up paying in CGT what you didn't in IHT or SDLT.

I personally would still prefer that outcome as the distressing thing is having to liquidate assets to fund dry tax bills.

GG. wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 10:38 am Also Dan and Rich's snide comments are getting a bit tiresome. No this is not a farming forum so there won't be many on here but they're doing the same thing to shares in small businesses (and my family has a family business), so this sort of shithousery on tax will affect most of us at some point. It already affects all employed people by virtue of employers class 1 NICs despite them lying about this. The fact that it is not an immediate deduction but robs people of pay rises (or potentially, their job or opportunity for a job) does not make it any better.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:30 pm Your CGT baseline is zero so yes, you are storing up potential CGT liability.

mik wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2024 12:25 am

Jobbo wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 12:30 pm Your CGT baseline is zero so yes, you are storing up potential CGT liability.

ZedLeg wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2024 4:37 pm James Dyson owns farming land worth half a billion pounds. No wonder he’s not a fan of the changes.

IMG_2234.png

From Jolyon Maugham on twitter

Simon wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:58 pm It's interesting how there is a view on the left that those with money are the least entitled to an opinion about how they are taxed on it, and those not impacted by such taxes can voice their opinions till the end of time.