IHT changes on the way?

[Nimrod103]

I have complete faith that Hunt will seize defeat from the jaws of victory.

What nonsense. No victory in cutting the tax for IHT. As Preston says, it would add nothing to encourage growth and that above all is what we need now.

Obviously I would prefer that we did not tax estates but it is a fairly modest tax anyway. Hunt needs to encourage businesses to invest more in growth to build for the future.

Dod

IHT at 40% is not a modest tax, it is punitive and deliberately so. IHT encourages the dispersal and spending of capital, and so discourages investment and growth. Why save and build when the Govt takes another 40% out of your money, after they already took 40% when you earned it? But it is a bit late for Hunt to want to go for growth, that was Truss's policy wasn't it?

[scrumpyjack]

In my youth Estate Duty was 80% with the highest marginal rate being 85%. There was no business property relief.

Everything is relative!

[Nimrod103]

In my youth Estate Duty was 80% with the highest marginal rate being 85%. There was no business property relief.

Everything is relative!

At what point did it cut in though? Only for what today what be rated as multi millionaires and billionaires.

It was estate duty which destroyed the landed gentry in UK after WW1 and 2, with so many of the great estates broken up into near sub economic units, and family owned businesses built over generations destroyed. Maybe Britain's decline begain at that time - surely a connection?

[Charlottesquare]

In my youth Estate Duty was 80% with the highest marginal rate being 85%. There was no business property relief.

Everything is relative!

At what point did it cut in though? Only for what today what be rated as multi millionaires and billionaires.

It was estate duty which destroyed the landed gentry in UK after WW1 and 2, with so many of the great estates broken up into near sub economic units, and family owned businesses built over generations destroyed. Maybe Britain's decline begain at that time - surely a connection?

Business Relief is pretty generous protecting most family owned business entities.

https://www.gov.uk/business-relief-inhe ... ess-relief

Having said that I still think IHT should go and replace it with CGT on death re latent gains within assets (with spousal holdover) but including one's PPR- more would pay it spreading the load and all the untaxed house valuation uplifts would now fall in to tax. Never going to happen (would not be popular) but makes a lot more sense to me than IHT ever has.

[Nimrod103]

At what point did it cut in though? Only for what today what be rated as multi millionaires and billionaires.

It was estate duty which destroyed the landed gentry in UK after WW1 and 2, with so many of the great estates broken up into near sub economic units, and family owned businesses built over generations destroyed. Maybe Britain's decline begain at that time - surely a connection?

Business Relief is pretty generous protecting most family owned business entities.

Can you tell me why family owned businesses should be so favoured? My business is running a portfolio of assets for the benefit of my family, yet it is not favoured.

[Lootman]

Business Relief is pretty generous protecting most family owned business entities.

Can you tell me why family owned businesses should be so favoured? My business is running a portfolio of assets for the benefit of my family, yet it is not favoured.

That is the problem with a lot of taxes. Tax policy is not just about raising revenue but also about encouraging and discouraging behaviours. Should not be, in my opinion, but it is. And that is why the tax code is so complicated.

[ReformedCharacter]

Business Relief is pretty generous protecting most family owned business entities.

Can you tell me why family owned businesses should be so favoured? My business is running a portfolio of assets for the benefit of my family, yet it is not favoured.

I think the argument is that a farm, for example, or many other type of business cannot easily or economically be partly sold to pay IHT without threatening the viability of the farm or business. That is not the case with a portfolio of liquid assets such as shares. I expect you know this already.

RC

[scrumpyjack]

Can you tell me why family owned businesses should be so favoured? My business is running a portfolio of assets for the benefit of my family, yet it is not favoured.

I think the argument is that a farm, for example, or many other type of business cannot easily or economically be partly sold to pay IHT without threatening the viability of the farm or business. That is not the case with a portfolio of liquid assets such as shares. I expect you know this already.

RC

There is already a facility to pay IHT on property assets in instalments over 10 years. I can't see any reason for BPR being at 100%. That is extremely unfair on those whose wealth is in other assets. Better to reduce the rate of IHT, lower the rate of the BPR relief and allow instalment payments for IHT on business assets. That would be more equitable and, I think, is what the all party parliamentary group recommended.

[Nimrod103]

I think the argument is that a farm, for example, or many other type of business cannot easily or economically be partly sold to pay IHT without threatening the viability of the farm or business. That is not the case with a portfolio of liquid assets such as shares. I expect you know this already.

RC

There is already a facility to pay IHT on property assets in instalments over 10 years. I can't see any reason for BPR being at 100%. That is extremely unfair on those whose wealth is in other assets. Better to reduce the rate of IHT, lower the rate of the BPR relief and allow instalment payments for IHT on business assets. That would be more equitable and, I think, is what the all party parliamentary group recommended.

This of course is one more aspect of the unfairness of IHT. It favours some groups and relief mechanisms over others, and thus gives rise to whole complex industry of advisors.