Seemingly trivial things that cheer you up

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Like reading Brian's post and thinking "I assume what he really means is that inheritance tax rules are simple"?

It's a common misconception amongst those who don't know much about the subject. I can tell that from some of the replies.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Like reading Brian's post and thinking "I assume what he really means is that inheritance tax rules are simple"?

It's a common misconception amongst those who don't know much about the subject. I can tell that from some of the replies.

It really does seem there is an outbreak of 'reading what you want to read not what I wrote' on the forum today

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Like reading Brian's post and thinking "I assume what he really means is that inheritance tax rules are simple"?

It's a common misconception amongst those who don't know much about the subject. I can tell that from some of the replies.

Nope, still doesn't help. It's complicated, we get that. I don't understand much about the subject, sure. So I'd hire an expert, if it involved me.

Actually, it did: I paid an executor and a tax expert to check out my mum's inheritance. Saved me filling my pretty little head with the mysteries of tax.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Like reading Brian's post and thinking "I assume what he really means is that inheritance tax rules are simple"?

It's a common misconception amongst those who don't know much about the subject. I can tell that from some of the replies.

It really does seem there is an outbreak of 'reading what you want to read not what I wrote' on the forum today

Brian's reference to 'the correct amount of tax' did show that he had a something of a misconception given the inherent uncertainties and judgmental points that I mentioned. Have another read

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Like reading Brian's post and thinking "I assume what he really means is that inheritance tax rules are simple"?

It's a common misconception amongst those who don't know much about the subject. I can tell that from some of the replies.

Nope, still doesn't help. It's complicated, we get that. I don't understand much about the subject, sure. So I'd hire an expert, if it involved me.

Actually, it did: I paid an executor and a tax expert to check out my mum's inheritance. Saved me filling my pretty little head with the mysteries of tax.

Well done, a sensible course of action. Maybe my explanations above about the uncertainties and judgmental matters help clarify why there is not necessarily a 'correct amount'.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Like reading Brian's post and thinking "I assume what he really means is that inheritance tax rules are simple"?

It's a common misconception amongst those who don't know much about the subject. I can tell that from some of the replies.

It really does seem there is an outbreak of 'reading what you want to read not what I wrote' on the forum today

Brian's reference to 'the correct amount of tax' did show that he had a something of a misconception given the inherent uncertainties and judgmental points that I mentioned. Have another read

pangolin

Want a spade Stevo?

pblakeney

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

The Telegraph headline:

"HMRC targets bereaved families with raid on inheritance tax"

I'm not sure what people The Telegraph thinks are the target of inheritance tax... hard not to be bereaved if you're about to inherit from a dead relation.

A more accurate headline would be "Correct inheritance tax collected."

It cheers me up that you think tax is that simple. From the same article:
Some of the families investigated by HMRC may have knowingly avoided paying death duties. But others are likely to have fallen foul of complex IHT rules and difficulties valuing assets.

Mr Warburton said: “Property and shares are relatively straightforward but problems can arise with valuable chattels such as pictures and antiques. HMRC have wised up to that and now ask to see details of home contents insurance to spot missing items from the assets submitted.

“Another problem arises with lifetime gifts. Gifts within seven years before the death typically form part of the estate, but how do the executors know about these when the person they most want to ask has inconveniently just died? If they kept detailed records that is great, but many people do not do so.”

sounds to me like HRMC should be applauded for doing some basic checks to stop people defrauding them.

You would think that there would be a paper trail for significant gifts

Maybe, but when the person dies it can be easier said than done to track that down. As mentioned in the article.

In the end it's an avoidable tax with a bit of planning (and assuming you're not really unlucky and get hit by a bus).

Thanks... seems you agree with me. If you've got a sizeable estate, get good advice, and you won't end up overpaying, or misunderstanding the complexities. It's not as if it's a secret tax that HMRC suddenly pop up and say "Surprise!" when someone with a large estate croaks. I'm sure with your professional skill, you'd not expect to get away with a defence of ignorance if HMRC came knocking at your door. Same rule applies to everyone, thankfully.

I've never said ignorance is a defence. The point is that it is easy to make a mistake if you're not an expert. Similarly, it is easy to have a disagreement with HMRC even if you do know what you are doing given the inherent difficulties of valuing certain assets/types of assets.

Big amount of money: get a qualified expert, and then if the expert is wrong, you sue them. DIY inheritance tax can be an expensive mistake, but don't expect HMRC to say "Oh, that's OK, we know it's complex, so you can keep the money."

They have get out clauses written into the contract.

briantrumpet

.

pblakeney said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

The Telegraph headline:

"HMRC targets bereaved families with raid on inheritance tax"

I'm not sure what people The Telegraph thinks are the target of inheritance tax... hard not to be bereaved if you're about to inherit from a dead relation.

A more accurate headline would be "Correct inheritance tax collected."

It cheers me up that you think tax is that simple. From the same article:
Some of the families investigated by HMRC may have knowingly avoided paying death duties. But others are likely to have fallen foul of complex IHT rules and difficulties valuing assets.

Mr Warburton said: “Property and shares are relatively straightforward but problems can arise with valuable chattels such as pictures and antiques. HMRC have wised up to that and now ask to see details of home contents insurance to spot missing items from the assets submitted.

“Another problem arises with lifetime gifts. Gifts within seven years before the death typically form part of the estate, but how do the executors know about these when the person they most want to ask has inconveniently just died? If they kept detailed records that is great, but many people do not do so.”

sounds to me like HRMC should be applauded for doing some basic checks to stop people defrauding them.

You would think that there would be a paper trail for significant gifts

Maybe, but when the person dies it can be easier said than done to track that down. As mentioned in the article.

In the end it's an avoidable tax with a bit of planning (and assuming you're not really unlucky and get hit by a bus).

Thanks... seems you agree with me. If you've got a sizeable estate, get good advice, and you won't end up overpaying, or misunderstanding the complexities. It's not as if it's a secret tax that HMRC suddenly pop up and say "Surprise!" when someone with a large estate croaks. I'm sure with your professional skill, you'd not expect to get away with a defence of ignorance if HMRC came knocking at your door. Same rule applies to everyone, thankfully.

I've never said ignorance is a defence. The point is that it is easy to make a mistake if you're not an expert. Similarly, it is easy to have a disagreement with HMRC even if you do know what you are doing given the inherent difficulties of valuing certain assets/types of assets.

Big amount of money: get a qualified expert, and then if the expert is wrong, you sue them. DIY inheritance tax can be an expensive mistake, but don't expect HMRC to say "Oh, that's OK, we know it's complex, so you can keep the money."

They have get out clauses written into the contract.

Damned experts!

morstar

pblakeney said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

The Telegraph headline:

"HMRC targets bereaved families with raid on inheritance tax"

I'm not sure what people The Telegraph thinks are the target of inheritance tax... hard not to be bereaved if you're about to inherit from a dead relation.

A more accurate headline would be "Correct inheritance tax collected."

It cheers me up that you think tax is that simple. From the same article:
Some of the families investigated by HMRC may have knowingly avoided paying death duties. But others are likely to have fallen foul of complex IHT rules and difficulties valuing assets.

Mr Warburton said: “Property and shares are relatively straightforward but problems can arise with valuable chattels such as pictures and antiques. HMRC have wised up to that and now ask to see details of home contents insurance to spot missing items from the assets submitted.

“Another problem arises with lifetime gifts. Gifts within seven years before the death typically form part of the estate, but how do the executors know about these when the person they most want to ask has inconveniently just died? If they kept detailed records that is great, but many people do not do so.”

sounds to me like HRMC should be applauded for doing some basic checks to stop people defrauding them.

You would think that there would be a paper trail for significant gifts

Maybe, but when the person dies it can be easier said than done to track that down. As mentioned in the article.

In the end it's an avoidable tax with a bit of planning (and assuming you're not really unlucky and get hit by a bus).

Thanks... seems you agree with me. If you've got a sizeable estate, get good advice, and you won't end up overpaying, or misunderstanding the complexities. It's not as if it's a secret tax that HMRC suddenly pop up and say "Surprise!" when someone with a large estate croaks. I'm sure with your professional skill, you'd not expect to get away with a defence of ignorance if HMRC came knocking at your door. Same rule applies to everyone, thankfully.

I've never said ignorance is a defence. The point is that it is easy to make a mistake if you're not an expert. Similarly, it is easy to have a disagreement with HMRC even if you do know what you are doing given the inherent difficulties of valuing certain assets/types of assets.

Big amount of money: get a qualified expert, and then if the expert is wrong, you sue them. DIY inheritance tax can be an expensive mistake, but don't expect HMRC to say "Oh, that's OK, we know it's complex, so you can keep the money."

They have get out clauses written into the contract.

Person on the internet not really knowing alert.

I assume no clause would indemnify them from negligence though.

rick_chasey

Look, Stevo sees all tax as inherently evil (though he uses public services like roads etc) and he seems HMRC as the enemy, so he just backs anything that means there's less tax being paid, whether that's under-collection, avoidance or just lower taxes.

It'd be easier if he just backed that position to the hilt rather than pretending he wants to be reasonable on this.

pblakeney

morstar said:

pblakeney said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

The Telegraph headline:

"HMRC targets bereaved families with raid on inheritance tax"

I'm not sure what people The Telegraph thinks are the target of inheritance tax... hard not to be bereaved if you're about to inherit from a dead relation.

A more accurate headline would be "Correct inheritance tax collected."

It cheers me up that you think tax is that simple. From the same article:
Some of the families investigated by HMRC may have knowingly avoided paying death duties. But others are likely to have fallen foul of complex IHT rules and difficulties valuing assets.

Mr Warburton said: “Property and shares are relatively straightforward but problems can arise with valuable chattels such as pictures and antiques. HMRC have wised up to that and now ask to see details of home contents insurance to spot missing items from the assets submitted.

“Another problem arises with lifetime gifts. Gifts within seven years before the death typically form part of the estate, but how do the executors know about these when the person they most want to ask has inconveniently just died? If they kept detailed records that is great, but many people do not do so.”

sounds to me like HRMC should be applauded for doing some basic checks to stop people defrauding them.

You would think that there would be a paper trail for significant gifts

Maybe, but when the person dies it can be easier said than done to track that down. As mentioned in the article.

In the end it's an avoidable tax with a bit of planning (and assuming you're not really unlucky and get hit by a bus).

Thanks... seems you agree with me. If you've got a sizeable estate, get good advice, and you won't end up overpaying, or misunderstanding the complexities. It's not as if it's a secret tax that HMRC suddenly pop up and say "Surprise!" when someone with a large estate croaks. I'm sure with your professional skill, you'd not expect to get away with a defence of ignorance if HMRC came knocking at your door. Same rule applies to everyone, thankfully.

I've never said ignorance is a defence. The point is that it is easy to make a mistake if you're not an expert. Similarly, it is easy to have a disagreement with HMRC even if you do know what you are doing given the inherent difficulties of valuing certain assets/types of assets.

Big amount of money: get a qualified expert, and then if the expert is wrong, you sue them. DIY inheritance tax can be an expensive mistake, but don't expect HMRC to say "Oh, that's OK, we know it's complex, so you can keep the money."

They have get out clauses written into the contract.

Person on the internet not really knowing alert.

I assume no clause would indemnify them from negligence though.

You have to prove negligence though.
I know my contracts have had disclaimers on advice.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Want a spade Stevo?

Good attempt at trolling again Pango. Better luck next time

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Look, Stevo sees all tax as inherently evil (though he uses public services like roads etc) and he seems HMRC as the enemy, so he just backs anything that means there's less tax being paid, whether that's under-collection, avoidance or just lower taxes.

It'd be easier if he just backed that position to the hilt rather than pretending he wants to be reasonable on this.

You're assuming there Rick.

It's part of my job to negotiate with HMRC and tax authorities around the region. Although not on IHT as I don't deal with personal stuff. For this particular tax there is a direct inverse correlation between how much the state takes and how much goes to my family. If you want screw your children's financial future, that's your call. Pretty stupid position take though IMO.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Like reading Brian's post and thinking "I assume what he really means is that inheritance tax rules are simple"?

It's a common misconception amongst those who don't know much about the subject. I can tell that from some of the replies.

It really does seem there is an outbreak of 'reading what you want to read not what I wrote' on the forum today

Brian's reference to 'the correct amount of tax' did show that he had a something of a misconception given the inherent uncertainties and judgmental points that I mentioned. Have another read

Looks like you've run out of arguments, like Pango

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Look, Stevo sees all tax as inherently evil (though he uses public services like roads etc) and he seems HMRC as the enemy, so he just backs anything that means there's less tax being paid, whether that's under-collection, avoidance or just lower taxes.

It'd be easier if he just backed that position to the hilt rather than pretending he wants to be reasonable on this.

You're assuming there Rick.

It's part of my job to negotiate with HMRC and tax authorities around the region. Although not on IHT as I don't deal with personal stuff. For this particular tax there is a direct inverse correlation between how much the state takes and how much goes to my family. If you want screw your children's financial future, that's your call. Pretty stupid position take though IMO.

Screw their future? Hopefully theyll be near retirement before I go.

They can earn their own money. It’s good for you.

No one likes a trust fund kid.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Look, Stevo sees all tax as inherently evil (though he uses public services like roads etc) and he seems HMRC as the enemy, so he just backs anything that means there's less tax being paid, whether that's under-collection, avoidance or just lower taxes.

It'd be easier if he just backed that position to the hilt rather than pretending he wants to be reasonable on this.

You're assuming there Rick.

It's part of my job to negotiate with HMRC and tax authorities around the region. Although not on IHT as I don't deal with personal stuff. For this particular tax there is a direct inverse correlation between how much the state takes and how much goes to my family. If you want screw your children's financial future, that's your call. Pretty stupid position take though IMO.

Screw their future? Hopefully theyll be near retirement before I go.

They can earn their own money. It’s good for you.

No one likes a trust fund kid.

Who knows, plenty of people die earlier than expected.

I appreciated my inheritance and put it to good use. I intend to do the same for my kid. You do what you want.

pinno

I know from personal experience that IHT is a complete and utter PITA.
In the 7+ years it has taken the solicitors to sort my fathers estate (and it's not finished yet), we had to borrow a sizeable amount and eventually, sell a property to pay the IHT bill. In the time that took, the property (and some shareholdings) went up in value and so we paid Capital gains tax on top of the IHT, as well as the interest on the IHT loan took out to pay the IHT.
The IHT bill had to be paid before the property was sold. Though we got some back under HMRC's tax relief system but not all.
It's not all about the very rich - that's a misconception How many properties in the UK are worth more than the IHT threshold (£325k)?
If the deceased had savings that are put aside for paying IHT, that's considered part of the assets and will be included in the estate value and subject to IHT - that's got to be wrong. That's where an individual should be able to put money aside which is categorically set aside for that purpose and that purpose alone but not included in that individuals estate value.

HMRC's rules are pretty strict and many have to do what we had to do and take out loans to pay for IHT or pay by annual instalments. So someone dies and those in receipt of part or all pf an estate have a perennial financial hangover.

The only way to avoid the IHT bill, is by giving all but everything away under the value of £325k 7 years before they die. IHT is something not to be laughed at as only a rich man's problem.
IHT isn't simply a tax that is 'helping to pay for the fiscal deficit' and HMRC's actions are to be applauded. It's a tax that needs serious review and much more fairness.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Look, Stevo sees all tax as inherently evil (though he uses public services like roads etc) and he seems HMRC as the enemy, so he just backs anything that means there's less tax being paid, whether that's under-collection, avoidance or just lower taxes.

It'd be easier if he just backed that position to the hilt rather than pretending he wants to be reasonable on this.

You're assuming there Rick.

It's part of my job to negotiate with HMRC and tax authorities around the region. Although not on IHT as I don't deal with personal stuff. For this particular tax there is a direct inverse correlation between how much the state takes and how much goes to my family. If you want screw your children's financial future, that's your call. Pretty stupid position take though IMO.

Screw their future? Hopefully theyll be near retirement before I go.

They can earn their own money. It’s good for you.

No one likes a trust fund kid.

Who knows, plenty of people die earlier than expected.

I appreciated my inheritance and put it to good use. I intend to do the same for my kid. You do what you want.

All the inheritance on both sides of my family ended up being eaten up by 10+ years of dementia care. Combined its roughly 50 years of fees.

It’s not something anyone should ever rely on. They wasted far too much time on worrying about it.

I'd rather they spent it all when they could still enjoy it.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Like reading Brian's post and thinking "I assume what he really means is that inheritance tax rules are simple"?

It's a common misconception amongst those who don't know much about the subject. I can tell that from some of the replies.

It really does seem there is an outbreak of 'reading what you want to read not what I wrote' on the forum today

Brian's reference to 'the correct amount of tax' did show that he had a something of a misconception given the inherent uncertainties and judgmental points that I mentioned. Have another read

Looks like you've run out of arguments, like Pango

Completely true

rjsterry

I am no longer cheered by this thread.

kingstongraham

Here's a picture of my dogs.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

I am no longer cheered by this thread.

Would it cheer you up if you knew that Ben Marlow thinks that people shouldn't have to pay tax due that they haven't paid because of "honest mistakes"?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/01/06/taxmans-raid-grieving-families-abhorrent-abuse-power/

Death taxes raised £6.2bn last year, up from £5.4bn in 2021 and £5.2bn in 2020. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects it to generate almost £7bn a year over the next six tax years, and £10bn more than the previous five years as a result of the most recent freezes.

I appreciate that the nation’s finances are stretched but surely these are large enough sums without hounding bereaved families, many of whom have simply made an honest mistake?

rjsterry

No Brian, it would not.

Although I do think they should rebrand IHT as Death Tax. Maybe with a 💀 added beneath the HMRC logo. A little black humour would cheer me up.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

No Brian, it would not.

Although I do think they should rebrand IHT as Death Tax. Maybe with a 💀 added beneath the HMRC logo. A little black humour would cheer me up.

Sorry. Oh well, I tried.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Still not sure what your point to Brian was.

See 2 posts up from yours.

Which doesn't disagree with his post that they were just collecting the correct tax.

If you read my post, specifically the bit about the inherent difficulty in valuing certain assets, you might appreciate that there is not necessarily a 'black and white' right amount of tax.

But if you have listed on your insurance all items over £5k then that would be a good starting point when gifting them.

I imagine they are going after people with several millions rather than the old dear who gave her grandson a Morris Minor.

I am hugely in favour of such a move as if you set up a new unit you can measure exactly what they cost and what they bring in. You could keep adding resource until you reach the optimum level.

kingstongraham

There's something to cheer everyone there - it says "Last year HMRC opened 4,258 enquiries into families who owed inheritance tax, up from 3,574 the year before, when lockdown restrictions affected its ability to carry out investigations."

Doesn't say that in 2019/20 there were 5,638. Or that in 2018/19 there were 5,537, in 2017/18 there were 5,354 etc etc

pangolin

rjsterry said:

No Brian, it would not.

Although I do think they should rebrand IHT as Death Tax. Maybe with a 💀 added beneath the HMRC logo. A little black humour would cheer me up.

Rebranding would be good. How about "Paying the ferryman"?

rjsterry

pangolin said:

rjsterry said:

No Brian, it would not.

Although I do think they should rebrand IHT as Death Tax. Maybe with a 💀 added beneath the HMRC logo. A little black humour would cheer me up.

Rebranding would be good. How about "Paying the ferryman"?

Excellent!

And maybe some Death Metal as the hold music when you phone the helpline.

kingstongraham

Do I have to post a dog again?