Transferring “Tenants in Common” share after death

bigadaj

xylophone wrote: »

You should see the owner's car......:rotfl:

Probably a company expense.....

Pinkflamingo*

xylophone. It's good that someone else is in touch with reality. As I mentioned, our Millionnaire friend certainly doesn't run a charity with his care homes. It's not rocket science to figure out that it's big business and money mucho. He owns an Aston Martin, a helicopter, has his own mansion, helicopter pad etc Granted not everyone can run successful businesses as statistics prove. Some people like to go through life as 'downers' and seem in denial that anyone can be successful. Instead of pulling themselves up out of the rut they are in, they try to drag successful people down or try to convince themselves that others are failing and can't really make much money. I guess it's a comfort thing:rotfl:

Pincher

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-main-residence-nil-rate-band-and-the-existing-nil-rate-band/inheritance-tax-main-residence-nil-rate-band-and-the-existing-nil-rate-band

If the idea is to avoid inheritance, the threshold is rising to £1million, in 2020, combining both parent's allowances.

If you own 50%, from 2016, using tenants in common, but you do not live in it, the capital gains is taxable. Deliberate deprivation of asset may not work anyway, especially if she still lives in the house, so the council is bound to ask.

So, If the property is below £1miilion, it makes sense to wait till 2020. Well, she has to live that long, of course. Vitamins?

Ideally, the house is worth £999k in 2020, when she hops it. No IHT, no capital gain.


In the 1980s, there was a cool line: "My accountant told me to."

Hotblack Desiato had to die, for tax reasons.

Keep_pedalling

The number of care homes that are dependant on LA funded residents is in free fall as more of them close as they can't run at a profit.

There is no way we will transfer our major assets to our children, because if we need care, we want good care and we want it in a place and time of our choosing and the only way to guarantee that is to self fund. As with many boomers we bought cheap housing which has left us sitting on a substantial asset which if nessasary will pay for our declining years, but chances are that all or most of the eguity will still go to our children as most people don't actually end their days in a care home, and even when they do it is usually for a period under 2 years.

Pincher

With such low interest rates around, what you really want is to mortgage the house. I wish I could have borrowed Japanese YEN100million at 1.5%, fixed for ten years, when the exchange rate was GBP1:JPY130.

None of that Equity Release non-sense.

Sjmb

This is supposed to be a money saving site. I wonder why do so many people object to the fact that a degree of financial planning had been put in place here? Changing a property to tenants in common is sensible advice, it does not mean that relatives intend to see their patents destitute and out on the street for goodness sake!!

Keep_pedalling

Sjmb wrote: »

This is supposed to be a money saving site. I wonder why do so many people object to the fact that a degree of financial planning had been put in place here? Changing a property to tenants in common is sensible advice, it does not mean that relatives intend to see their patents destitute and out on the street for goodness sake!!

That may not be their intention but it can happen if someone gives all their assets away. There are also risks that need to be pointed out i.e. if the OP and her mother put the property into joint ownership but the OP dies first her mother will be the sole owner and the whole value of the house could be lost due to long term care needs instead of just half of it.

I don't see anything wrong with passing half the house on to children when the first partner dies, but I strongly feel that the surviving partner is foolish to take action which leaves them with little choice in what can be peoples darkest times.

Chickereeeee

So the OP is fairly well off, and the OP's parent is asset rich. Plus the OP is planning to leave UK, thus not contributing to future welfare costs.

Remind me again why I have to help pay for the OP's parent's possible care costs?

Freecall

So, to summarise, the OP’s argument goes something like this :

1. OP’s parents may need/want to buy care home services.

2. OP’s parents have sufficient recourses to pay for this.

3. Those resources are the result of a productive life.

4. Therefore someone else should pay.


If I just change one small element of this argument so that ‘care home services’ becomes say, ‘Lamborghini’ (or whatever takes your fancy), does the OP think that the argument is still valid?

.