Inheritance Tax Planning

cheerfulcat

sneekymum wrote:

I think you're referering to AiM quoted shares?

Shares that are NOT listed on a recognised stock exchange qualify for Business Property Relief. However, most are high risk - Bestinvest (an on-line IFA) advise that these are not worth considering if your totals assets are less than £500K - and even they advise not puting more than 20% of your wealth in them.

AIM shares are *not* high risk simply by virtue of their AIM listing. Some AIM-listed companies are riskier than main market ones because they are young and small; it is also easier to list on AIM and the conditions are not as strict as the main market so there may be a few, er, dodgy companies ( usually resource-based ). However, many of the larger companies are listed on AIM because it is cheaper, and there seems to be a growing interest by bigger companies in moving down to AIM. There are many sound companies which are AIM listed and perfectly suitable even for a small investor. The advice from Bestinvest is a little odd, I find; if the shares are high risk, why would anyone have as much as 20% of their portfolio in them?

sneekymum

cheerfulcat wrote:

The advice from Bestinvest is a little odd, I find; if the shares are high risk, why would anyone have as much as 20% of their portfolio in them?

That thought crossed my mind too

cheerfulcat

sneekymum wrote:

That thought crossed my mind too

LOL! I wonder if they know what they're talking about...going back to the idea of using AIM shares to avoid IHT- it is a perfectly acceptable practice. If chosen *carefully*, a portfolio of, say, 10-15 different AIM shares should not be much riskier than a similar portfolio of main market shares.

A word of warning, though; the favourable tax treatment of AIM listed shares was intended to encourage people to invest in small, new companies. The current interest from bigger companies in moving down to AIM may or may not make GB think again about the generous reliefs available.

sneekymum

cheerfulcat wrote:

LOL! I wonder if they know what they're talking about...going back to the idea of using AIM shares to avoid IHT- it is a perfectly acceptable practice. If chosen *carefully*, a portfolio of, say, 10-15 different AIM shares should not be much riskier than a similar portfolio of main market shares.

But it's not the sort of thing I would do. I like funds - I'm just not inclined to worry about individual companies. That's what fund managers are for.

Most people don't know the difference between various types of investment...
& people should not invest in products they don't understand.

anneANNE_3

£275,000 is taxed at 0% anyway

Paul_Varjak wrote:

BRANSTY said:




Because you are required to tell the Inland Revenue!

But the Inland Revenue could ignore up to £6,000 of the gift for IHT purposes, depending on what other gifts your mum made during the year she gave you £10,000 and the previous year.

That could just leave £4,000 to pay tax on. If that is the case and your mum survived 6 years you would have to pay IHT of:

£4,000 @ 8% = £320.



Would you really want to risk a heavy fine for £320?

sneekymum

The post you are quoting was made in July 2004.

don1982

I got a free advisor from Skipton BS via The Telegraph - he spent an hour discussing options

sabelu

My Mum sought advice from a financial advisor (friendly chat) she has about 500k, in property, shares, bonds etc. He advised her the following :

1. Life/other Insurances to pay IHT too expensively as she is only 72 (too young) and she could live another 20 years.
2. He feels this will be abolished in next few years anyway.
3. So what if she has to pay 90k IHT her beneficiaries should be happy with what they get.


Any comments ?

sneekymum

Are you sure this fellow was for real? This really doesn't sound like financial advice! I can't imagine any IFA saying these things.

sabelu

It was a pre enquiry.