Companies House Changes

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

I mean it's partly because what you're getting at with that last sentence. Only 4% of people every pay anything, but those are not the 4% richest. The very richest have it tied up in non-taxable assets while it's the next branch down that pay.

 

I'd replace the whole system so you were not limited on what you gave, but what you could receive. So everyone had a lifetime gift limit of say, £5 million, which is what you can receive in cash/asset gifts in your lifetime, including inheritance. And that's the only relief. So if a billionaire dies, they can leave £5 million each to their kids, and if they can find 1000 other people they can leave them £5 million each too and pay no tax at all.

 

They may not be the 4% wealthiest but they are all very wealthy - which is why I am baffled why people are so angry about the tax that they will never come close to paying.

[parsonjack]

"Long term future of Glastonbury Festival only assured by careful financial management".

 

Who'd have known.

[A Particular Grey Chihuahu]

9 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

 

And the sister took the lot, I presume? Even though I fear my brothers will do something similar to me, I know 100% that I'd never do it to them. It wouldn't even cross my mind. That, as you say, would be dirty money.

 

Exactly what happened. She gave her sister lots of support in the last and even bought her a car at one point, so I think she expected her to do right by her. But yeah, money changes things, doesn't it? 😕 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

5 hours ago, DeanoL said:

 

 

There's a solid argument for inheritance tax being 100% with no allowance. Why should you get a load of money just because of stuff your parents did? You didn't earn it. Why should it be yours, just because of an accident of birth?

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but it may not be as clear cut to define like that. I can use my own case as an example. I (and 3 of my 4 brothers) worked for over two decades for my parents without getting paid. We did this so that they could build up the empire that they quested. Now your 100% tax regardless would essentially mean that over 20 years of my life was squandered - or a good % anyway. Does that seem fair to you? It certainly doesn't at this end. 

 

[DeanoL]

13 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

 

I understand what you are saying, but it may not be as clear cut to define like that. I can use my own case as an example. I (and 3 of my 4 brothers) worked for over two decades for my parents without getting paid. We did this so that they could build up the empire that they quested. Now your 100% tax regardless would essentially mean that over 20 years of my life was squandered - or a good % anyway. Does that seem fair to you? It certainly doesn't at this end. 

 

Your family wouldn't have done it that way though if the taxation system was different. You were working for them without getting paid because you assumed they'd continue to support you and one day you'd inherit the company. If that wasn't possible, then your parents would have had to actually give you and your brothers shares in the business much earlier on, and you wouldn't be in the sh*tty situation you're in now.

[DeanoL]

17 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

They may not be the 4% wealthiest but they are all very wealthy - which is why I am baffled why people are so angry about the tax that they will never come close to paying.

A lot of it is London property. Plenty of London property bought at sensible prices 20/30 years ago is now well above the threshold. Which isn't a problem unless the kids want to actually still live in London.

(or if, shocker, you don't actually want to leave your assets to your kids or grandkids)

Edited October 29 by DeanoL

[A Particular Grey Chihuahu]

21 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I never understand 'normal' people being angry about inheritance tax when less than 4% of people ever pay any and they are the wealthiest people in the UK.

My parents died and we never paid any as we were nowhere near the amount where we would.

Personally I am angry that the Earl (or maybe Duke) of Westminster inherited an estate worth over £10 billion and paid nothing.

 

Most people are a bit dim. A newspaper only has to word something cleverly to make them scared that the two grand they'll inherit might be taxed.

[Nobody Interesting]

29 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

A lot of it is London property. Plenty of London property bought at sensible prices 20/30 years ago is now well above the threshold. Which isn't a problem unless the kids want to actually still live in London.

(or if, shocker, you don't actually want to leave your assets to your kids or grandkids)

 

It is highly likely that the kids will already live in London if they want to unless their parents die when they are too young to have left home and own property.

 

Also from Rightmove ""The majority of sales in London during the last year were flats, selling for an average price of £542,787. Terraced properties sold for an average of £794,199, with semi-detached properties fetching £780,745.""

 

So not that much above the threashold as the amount of £325,000 is for each parent so you get £650,000 and also, according to the OBR, most people who paid IT did not live in London.

 

I have absolutly no problem with such a tax and if we are going to debate taxes being placed on things you have already been taxed on then I guess we have to scrap VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty and all the rest.

[Nobody Interesting]

3 minutes ago, A Particular Grey Chihuahu said:

 

Most people are a bit dim. A newspaper only has to word something cleverly to make them scared that the two grand they'll inherit might be taxed.

 

The Daily Hate (aka Mail) does a very good job of making people think things that are untrue are actually true.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

Your family wouldn't have done it that way though if the taxation system was different. You were working for them without getting paid because you assumed they'd continue to support you and one day you'd inherit the company. If that wasn't possible, then your parents would have had to actually give you and your brothers shares in the business much earlier on, and you wouldn't be in the sh*tty situation you're in now.

 

I'm not in a sh*tty situation because of laws, shares, or taxation. I'm in a sh*tty situation because I am one of two brothers who has no say how my parents wealth gets split. It is up to the three other brothers to decide that. As has been indicated elsewhere on this thread, not all siblings divvy up the wealth equally. 

 

And 'yes' my parents may well have done what you say, but how would one plan for a law that wasn't in existence 20 or 30 years ago? Nobody can tell the future,.

 

And mine is just one example. there may be others - many others.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

33 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

The Daily Hate (aka Mail) does a very good job of making people think things that are untrue are actually true.

 

Yes, it does that with all subjects. I used to read it and try to educate the readers on its forum, but have given up.

[DeanoL]

32 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

It is highly likely that the kids will already live in London if they want to unless their parents die when they are too young to have left home and own property.

 

Also from Rightmove ""The majority of sales in London during the last year were flats, selling for an average price of £542,787. Terraced properties sold for an average of £794,199, with semi-detached properties fetching £780,745.""

 

So not that much above the threashold as the amount of £325,000 is for each parent so you get £650,000 and also, according to the OBR, most people who paid IT did not live in London.

That's another good example - the "each parent" bit - if you were raised by a single, very hard working parent because the other one left before they got a property... you get half the allowance. Totally fair that.

I don't have a problem with the tax, like I say. But the system does need reforming because it's pretty unfair right now. And often people with just moderate wealth can get caught up in it while those with significantly more can avoid it entirely. Often it won't be the super-rich you see complaining about it, it'll be people who fall outside the guardrails of the system that's designed for a very specific type of family and a very specific sort of inheritance.

(Another one: you don't have kids. You want to leave your stuff to a close friend. Well bad luck, that gets taxed higher, unless you pretend they're your partner. )

[DeanoL]

3 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

 

I'm not in a sh*tty situation because of laws, shares, or taxation. I'm in a sh*tty situation because I am one of two brothers who has no say how my parents wealth gets split. It is up to the three other brothers to decide that. As has been indicated elsewhere on this thread, not all siblings divvy up the wealth equally. 

 

And 'yes' my parents may well have done what you say, but how would one plan for a law that wasn't in existence 20 or 30 years ago? Nobody can tell the future,.

 

And mine is just one example. there may be others - many others.

I mean, you're in a sh*tty situation because you worked for two decades for free without anything on paper to protect you. I'm sure there were very appealing, tax-dodgy reasons your parents didn't actually employ you or bring you on as company owners. I mean, how did you survive for two decades with no income?

You can't plan ahead for the law changes no, but that's why you should take steps to correctly protect the interests and work of everyone involved while still alive. Even if it's family.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

I mean, you're in a sh*tty situation because you worked for two decades for free without anything on paper to protect you. I'm sure there were very appealing, tax-dodgy reasons your parents didn't actually employ you or bring you on as company owners. I mean, how did you survive for two decades with no income?

You can't plan ahead for the law changes no, but that's why you should take steps to correctly protect the interests and work of everyone involved while still alive. Even if it's family.

 

We all held down other jobs while doing this - that's how we survived. Sorry to disappoint, but there were no tax dodges. I can't even recall a company being involved. When my dad had to pay an enormous tax bill in Ireland and then another enormous tax bill to the UK Government (as he wanted to bring money over to this country) I was stunned at the amount of tax involved, and said as much to my dad. his response was 'I'd rather be paying that much tax than not paying that much tax'. One of his pieces of advice to me was to never try to screw the tax man. 

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

That's another good example - the "each parent" bit - if you were raised by a single, very hard working parent because the other one left before they got a property... you get half the allowance. Totally fair that.

I don't have a problem with the tax, like I say. But the system does need reforming because it's pretty unfair right now. And often people with just moderate wealth can get caught up in it while those with significantly more can avoid it entirely. Often it won't be the super-rich you see complaining about it, it'll be people who fall outside the guardrails of the system that's designed for a very specific type of family and a very specific sort of inheritance.

(Another one: you don't have kids. You want to leave your stuff to a close friend. Well bad luck, that gets taxed higher, unless you pretend they're your partner. )

 

If you re-marry or have a civil partner then they can if rules are met give you the double amount.
 

If you wish to leave to a friend there are many easy ways to pay less tax.

[DeanoL]

7 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

If you re-marry or have a civil partner then they can if rules are met give you the double amount.

And if you don't remarry? Or never even knew who the other parent was? That's the fundamental thing, the rules help and protect if you're doing it "properly" but "properly" encompasses both following the financial rules (so actually employing family members if they're doing significant work for a family business) but also living your life in a way the government approve of: being married, two-parent family, etc.

[DeanoL]

23 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

 

We all held down other jobs while doing this - that's how we survived. Sorry to disappoint, but there were no tax dodges. I can't even recall a company being involved.  

Then he operated as a sole trader, but used you and your brother as unpaid labour. Probably just about legal, but certainly exploitative of you.

Wasn't clear you had other jobs as you said without inheritance that two decades would have been "squandered" so made it sound like working for your folks was literally all you did.

Edited October 29 by DeanoL

[Nobody Interesting]

52 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

And if you don't remarry? Or never even knew who the other parent was? That's the fundamental thing, the rules help and protect if you're doing it "properly" but "properly" encompasses both following the financial rules (so actually employing family members if they're doing significant work for a family business) but also living your life in a way the government approve of: being married, two-parent family, etc.

I would think the number of people in that scenario is minimal and I would ask a question - did the remaining parent if one left tell their lender that their income was now reduced? If it was only ever one then they certainly earned a lot to be able to buy a house in London on one salary.

As for if it is a business employing family members then that changes IHT rules and they can pay even less, the details are on the gov website for such things.

As I have said, IHT is fine as it is and if it changes it should take even more from the wealthiest - having just checked the last records show now only 3.76% actually paid any.

Out of all the taxes to become angry about I really do not get why this is the one so many choose.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

Then he operated as a sole trader, but used you and your brother as unpaid labour. Probably just about legal, but certainly exploitative of you.

Wasn't clear you had other jobs as you said without inheritance that two decades would have been "squandered" so made it sound like working for your folks was literally all you did.

 

Why would it be just about legal if he paid all the due taxes? Surely being fully compliant makes you legal?

 

Yes, I guess I wasn't clear in an earlier post, but then again I was clear that my parents weren't tax avoiders in at least one earlier post - a position which you appear not to want to accept.

[stuie]

2 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

 

Why would it be just about legal if he paid all the due taxes? Surely being fully compliant makes you legal?

 

Yes, I guess I wasn't clear in an earlier post, but then again I was clear that my parents weren't tax avoiders in at least one earlier post - a position which you appear not to want to accept.

I’m no accountant but the most tax efficient way would have been for him to pay you (a portion of his income). The fact you say he didn’t pay you leads to the assumption of not being compliant! 
 

 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

51 minutes ago, stuie said:

I’m no accountant but the most tax efficient way would have been for him to pay you (a portion of his income). The fact you say he didn’t pay you leads to the assumption of not being compliant! 
 

 

 

He didn't because he ploughed all profits back into getting more profits. Two HMRC Investigator blokes rocked up at his house to go over his accounts once. They spent two full days working there and cross questioning him for that period too. At the end they found nothing wrong, commented him on how good his book keeping skills were, and told him that as a result they wouldn't be visiting him again any time soon. They never did come back. Now if that isn't compliance then I don't know what is. If you have any knowledge of HMRC Inspectors you will know that they know their sh*t. My dad didn't have to pay us because we were his children, not employees. 

[gooner1990]

Interesting...!

 

Jack Charlton's son 'denied' prized 1966 World Cup winner's medal over 'scandalous' inheritance tax

[DeanoL]

19 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I would think the number of people in that scenario is minimal and I would ask a question - did the remaining parent if one left tell their lender that their income was now reduced? If it was only ever one then they certainly earned a lot to be able to buy a house in London on one salary.

As for if it is a business employing family members then that changes IHT rules and they can pay even less, the details are on the gov website for such things.

As I have said, IHT is fine as it is and if it changes it should take even more from the wealthiest - having just checked the last records show now only 3.76% actually paid any.

Out of all the taxes to become angry about I really do not get why this is the one so many choose.

The single parent thing applies even outside of London.

But you're right, the number of people in that situation is small. So f**k 'em right? The system is fine, why change it for just a few people, especially when they're filthy single parents so probably morally dubious anyway.

 

As ever, these systems are designed to screw over a very small percentage of people, preferably ones people can find a reason to look down upon, so everyone else will go "no the system is fine".

 

And then one day, they'll find themselves stuck in such a situation themselves, and no-one will support them. To see another example of this in practice, look at the issues around building cladding following Grenfell, and the fact that people are stuck with mortgaged properties they cannot sell because of cladding issues, or being forced to raise £10,000s to remediate the cladding themselves... But it's a minimal number of people so doesn't matter. Just ruins their lives.

[DeanoL]

15 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

 

He didn't because he ploughed all profits back into getting more profits. Two HMRC Investigator blokes rocked up at his house to go over his accounts once. They spent two full days working there and cross questioning him for that period too. At the end they found nothing wrong, commented him on how good his book keeping skills were, and told him that as a result they wouldn't be visiting him again any time soon. They never did come back. Now if that isn't compliance then I don't know what is. If you have any knowledge of HMRC Inspectors you will know that they know their sh*t. My dad didn't have to pay us because we were his children, not employees. 

They could have paid you, and then you could have invested in the business. Got some shares in it even. But yeah, if you choose to work for free you're welcome to do that. But it won't necessarily end well!

 

HMRC are not looking for tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is legal. They're looking for tax evasion. If the company books were so complex it took two full days to audit it suggests it wasn't a simple structure. There was possibly some creative tax avoidance that was within the law.

[Nobody Interesting]

26 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The single parent thing applies even outside of London.

But you're right, the number of people in that situation is small. So f**k 'em right? The system is fine, why change it for just a few people, especially when they're filthy single parents so probably morally dubious anyway.

 

As ever, these systems are designed to screw over a very small percentage of people, preferably ones people can find a reason to look down upon, so everyone else will go "no the system is fine".

 

And then one day, they'll find themselves stuck in such a situation themselves, and no-one will support them. To see another example of this in practice, look at the issues around building cladding following Grenfell, and the fact that people are stuck with mortgaged properties they cannot sell because of cladding issues, or being forced to raise £10,000s to remediate the cladding themselves... But it's a minimal number of people so doesn't matter. Just ruins their lives.

 

The ones you refer to would not fit into the group you suggest as how could they get the mortgage in the first place - I did ask but you did not reply to that part.

 

As for the rest if only you knew where I lived you would not have written what you did.

But as said before, we will not agree and as you seem to have turned aggressive I shall now end the discussion as it will get us nowhere.