Signing house over to children?

GDB2222

bristol_pilot wrote: »

If she signs over the house but continues to live in it, this will not work.

Without any explanation of why, that is not a useful comment.

SailorSam

My mum wanted to sign her house over to me for the same reasons as the Op, she knew i would 'share it out' when the time came. I didn't want it and thought we should go to seek legal advice to see if it could go in some sort of trust between the whole family.
We decided 'cos the mortgage only had a couple of years to go we'd wait until then. Unfortunately my Mum died before that.

kinglewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by bristol_pilot
If she signs over the house but continues to live in it, this will not work.

Without any explanation of why, that is not a useful comment.

For inheritance tax purposes... (if your estate is over the relevant amount) if your mother gives away an asset.. but continues to live there.. this is known as a gift with reservation and therefore will usually be still liable for IHT indefinately. The seven year rule does not apply because it is clear that the gift has been made purely to avoid IHT. There can be no other logical reason for the gift.

In terms of long term care costs... there is no guaranteed way to avoid them. If it happens it happens.. even if your mother was to spend all of her money on cars and holidays.. the local authority would consider this to be avoidance and would charge your mother anyway!!!

Great world we live in isn't it!:D

donquine

kinglewis wrote: »

For inheritance tax purposes... (if your estate is over the relevant amount) if your mother gives away an asset.. but continues to live there.. this is known as a gift with reservation and therefore will usually be still liable for IHT indefinately. The seven year rule does not apply because it is clear that the gift has been made purely to avoid IHT. There can be no other logical reason for the gift.

You can escape the asset being treated as part of the donor's estate for IHT purposes if the donor pays a market rent to the donee - an option which I suspect won't be very popular with the OP and his mother.

IHT planning can be very complicated - it's sometimes worth discussing with an accountant who specialises in this area.

I can't comment on how to avoid the house being taken away by the government to fund the OP's mother's healthcare - but I suspect getting around this would actually be more difficult than resolving the IHT issues. Re the "leech" comments, the OP and his mother would probably feel less bitter if everyone was treated the same. As it stands, those who have worked hard and saved up are in a worse position than those who never bothered.

Ditto

donquine wrote: »

You can escape the asset being treated as part of the donor's estate for IHT purposes if the donor pays a market rent to the donee - an option which I suspect won't be very popular with the OP and his mother.

You give with one hand, and take back with the other...

newbie1980

Rob_Marx wrote: »

if she needs the care she should pay for it. why the hell should i pay for it you leech

what really anoys me is dole dossers and people who are supposedly disabled or ill dont pay !!!! all there life and then get FREE care.

i know someone whops mum in 100 and pays 2200 every 28 days when the two next to her pay !!!!

hows that fair

Errata

It's fair because a society is judged by how it looks after those who can no longer look after themselves.
What would you prefer - old people dead in the gutter ?

brixham

Would you not be able to buy the house off her for say £1 and then charge her rent of £1 pa ?

Acdarlin

kinglewis wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by bristol_pilot
If she signs over the house but continues to live in it, this will not work.



For inheritance tax purposes... (if your estate is over the relevant amount) if your mother gives away an asset.. but continues to live there.. this is known as a gift with reservation and therefore will usually be still liable for IHT indefinately. The seven year rule does not apply because it is clear that the gift has been made purely to avoid IHT. There can be no other logical reason for the gift.

Great world we live in isn't it!:D

Given the value of the residence and the current level of the nil-rate band, in all likelihood this would appear to be irrelevant.

Should the lady in question have sufficient other savings/assets to take her above the current threshold, this would further complicated the initial topic in hand ie State care provision.

googler

newbie1980 wrote: »

i know someone whops mum in 100 and pays 2200 every 28 days when the two next to her pay !!!!

hows that fair

It's unfair to the English language, certainly...... what ARE you saying here?

You know someone whose Mum is 100 years old?
She pays £2,200 every 28 days when 'the two next to her' pay?

Who are 'the two' ???