Tax on inheritance after inheritance tax

John_Pierpoint

SeniorSam wrote: »

barak,

This seems most unfair as the fund never was theirs, but as they have had the 'benefit' of it, it counts as part of their assets and may add considerably to the remaining beneficiaries IHT liability when they eventually die.

Sam

You never have been able take it with you, when you go - you can give it away before you die but that is risky

That is probably why Gordon Brown clamped down on trusts with any discretion and now capital taxes ones with more than the nil rate band in them at an annual rate of IHT.
(Complete nonsense for kids aged 18 - 25, as beneficiaries of trusts, in my opinion)

Is the rate of taxation of family capital, as against the government's alternative uses for the money, in the interests of the country ? - hum a very moot point.

jonny2510

SeniorSam wrote: »

Not all Solicitors have this qualification, so be selective, but Trusts are a great tool to use to mitigate taxes provided they are used efficiently. I have seen some Trusts set up that have far to many income producing assets and shares, which may not as tax efficient as growth producing, which are not taxed. However, the Trustees need to consider risk when investing.

Hope this helps

Sam

Many thanks Sam.

Looks like we'll need to find a STEP solicitor in the first instance then, and work from there.

dzug1

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

[I will now hide under a rock as the brick bats are thrown and point out that something similar happens if the first partner dies intestate; while we all wonder if we want serious amounts of national wealth in the hands of very old people]

No brickbats from me, John.

If we want those old people to pay for their own care then maybe we have to leave serious amounts of wealth in their possession.