Another Inheritance Tax question

Do you think you might remarry in due course?

If so, the nil rate band arragments would work for you.

Robert_Sterling wrote:

So what I suggest is that your father leave a third of the house to you and you vary the will after his death if at that time that is what you want to do.

Why is this a better idea than what the OP suggested - she says she has asked Dad to leave her share to his grandson?

I can't see the point in one generation leaving money/property/assets to the next generation who maybe don't need it, only for it to be immediately given/willed to the next generation i.e. the grandchildren. I'm all in favour of grandparents leaving directly to their grandchildren if their own children don't need it. It's obvious that the next generation i.e. the children don't need it otherwise there wouldn't be the need to vary a will and the need for all the discussion about how to avoid paying taxes.

We are nowhere near any of these tax levels, but we're leaving what remains of our assets to 5 grandchildren, 3 of mine and 2 of his. Reason: the next generation, i.e. our children, have no need of anything at all from us, and this seemed the fairest way.

I agree with EdInvestor - there's always the possibility of remarriage. I never thought I would remarry when I was widowed in 1992, but almost exactly 10 years later I walked up the aisle again. Some people, in those circumstances, take steps to protect 'their' assets for 'their' children as opposed to step-children/step-grandchildren. I don't take that view. I meant it when I said in church 'all that I have I share with you'. That's the way it's gotta be for us, but not everyone thinks that way.

Margaret

margaretclare wrote:

Why is this a better idea than what the OP suggested - she says she has asked Dad to leave her share to his grandson?
Margaret

Because we do not know in advance what the future my bring as you found when you remarried.
My suggestion is more flexible.
If it continues to be the case that the daughter would prefer her son to have the money the variation will allow this. If it is no longer the case she does not have to pass the money to her son.

pbradley936 wrote:

If we did not own other property my husband would never have agreed to it because he would not even consider doing that to our home. The reason being that if you get old and are widowed your kids can pressure you into moving or selling when you really would not want to because they “own” part of your home. He would not make either of us uncomfortable to save a greedy child a bit of tax – rather leave it to the cats' home!

I completely agree with your husband, and I shudder when I read of people desperate to leave their home to their children to avoid tax and/or care costs. Being widowed is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, having been there already, in 1992 (now happily remarried) and the last thing you need is, as you put it, a 'greedy child' eyeing up his/her 'inheritance'. I feel very strongly that what's yours is yours, it remains yours, for your use and comfort according to your own choice and own needs, until the very moment when you pop your clogs. Then, and only then, does it become someone else's inheritance. They should not make assumptions about what they may have coming to them.

Margaret

From P Bradley's post

The reason being that if you get old and are widowed your kids can pressure you into moving or selling when you really would not want to because they “own” part of your home. He would not make either of us uncomfortable to save a greedy child a bit of tax – rather leave it to the cats home!

End of quote

This is not the case if the will is done correctly. I was going to leave half of the house (my tenant's in common half) to my daughter but then had some advice and will now do things properly. It is explained in full on the Bestinvestor site. It involves using the nil rate band and a discretionary trust.
I will not allow my husband to be disadvantaged in any way.