Inheritance Tax - possible unused nil rate band from 1965?
Comments
-
Sorry to say there is no norm with HMR&C. They are a law unto themselves with an appalling record for obfustication. About the only way to get them moving is a complaint to your MP and the Parliamentary Ombudsman.0
-
Thanks Yorkshireman. I expected this sort of reply. The trouble is, going to my MP to complain is not a recipe for having the Revenue look favourably on this case is it
. More sitting on hands required I'm afraid... 0 -
We had the whole thing with HMRC completed within the six months of death that they ask for. Our solicitor dealt with it all. We didn't really see the dialogue at all. We needed the 1966 death cert and a statement that no assets were tranferred at that time (because there were no assets).0
-
I don't agree! I have had to do it twice with HMR&C and the result has been favourable with the matters sorted and compensaton paid for the delay. I have also taken them to the small claims court on three times with success. They are slow learners!eddyinfreehold wrote: »Thanks Yorkshireman. I expected this sort of reply. The trouble is, going to my MP to complain is not a recipe for having the Revenue look favourably on this case is it . More sitting on hands required I'm afraid...0 -
I don't agree! I have had to do it twice with HMR&C and the result has been favourable with the matters sorted and compensaton paid for the delay. I have also taken them to the small claiums court three times with success. They are slow learners!
There Yorkshireman99 we will have to agree to disagree.
Having already given an agreed five figure sum in IHT to the Revenue which nobody can argue with, the case now hangs on a 1970 Will and Probate, Estate Duty, the fact my father was the sole owner of a house in spite of being married and my mother was one of four parties to a bizarre trust or 'family agreement' from her father's Estate in 1955 which favoured her mother and brother. She predeceased by 14 years it's conclusion to confuse matters, and on it's conclusion the Trust funds had been exhausted. The 'family agreement' Trust documents, subsequent oaths of the Trust failing to provide, the inclusion of the Trust in my mother's Probate etc. means that the Law has to be examined line by line to calculate any percentage unused portion of her transferable IHT threshold in spite of the fact it didn't exist 47 years ago.
The consequence, depending upon the whim of the Revenue is either we pay them a further nothing or anything, including IHT interest, a significant six figure sum.
Hence I am willing for them to wait for a kind day to have a look at the case rather than threaten them with litigation. Surely you must agree?0 -
Of course I accept that, as always, litigation should be the last resort. However, you stated that applying pressure via your MP was a bad idea. I can only say enphaticly that it is not. Any Government department that gets too many complaints via MPs, direct or using the Ombudsman, is not well regarded. You certainly will not get you case treated unfairly as a result but it will get sorted quicker.eddyinfreehold wrote: »I don't agree! I have had to do it twice with HMR&C and the result has been favourable with the matters sorted and compensaton paid for the delay. I have also taken them to the small claiums court three times with success. They are slow learners!
There Yorkshireman99 we will have to agree to disagree.
Having already given an agreed five figure sum in IHT to the Revenue which nobody can argue with, the case now hangs on a 1970 Will and Probate, Estate Duty, the fact my father was the sole owner of a house in spite of being married and my mother was one of four parties to a bizarre trust or 'family agreement' from her father's Estate in 1955 which favoured her mother and brother. She predeceased by 14 years it's conclusion to confuse matters, and on it's conclusion the Trust funds had been exhausted. The 'family agreement' Trust documents, subsequent oaths of the Trust failing to provide, the inclusion of the Trust in my mother's Probate etc. means that the Law has to be examined line by line to calculate any percentage unused portion of her transferable IHT threshold in spite of the fact it didn't exist 47 years ago.
The consequence, depending upon the whim of the Revenue is either we pay them a further nothing or anything, including IHT interest, a significant six figure sum.
Hence I am willing for them to wait for a kind day to have a look at the case rather than threaten them with litigation. Surely you must agree?0 -
I can see your side of the argument Y but it is not the way I will go...... for another year or so at least. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards