Deed of variation to avoid future IHT

thestens

Going back to what the original poster said, using a deed of variation sounds a good idea. My solicitor arranged this for me after my mum died, leaving more money to my son. We put some of it into trust for his children for the future too. Not avoiding tax, perfectly legal. I think some posters with sour grapes above?

AylesburyDuck

thestens wrote: »

Going back to what the original poster said, using a deed of variation sounds a good idea. My solicitor arranged this for me after my mum died, leaving more money to my son. We put some of it into trust for his children for the future too. Not avoiding tax, perfectly legal. I think some posters with sour grapes above?

Sour grapes on what exactly?
Absolutely baffled by your enormous assumption, again rude!:eek:

Detroit

I think the issue of contention here are the different attitudes and values people hold around taxation.

There are people who genuinely believe that those who can afford to do so should contribute to the costs of running the country, and this belief tends to be stronger when the taxation is on wealth that the person has acquired through no effort of their own.

The view can be that it is somewhat avaricious to accept a significant sum one has not earned, and on top of this, seek ways to avoid making a contribution from this 'windfall' to the country.

Those in opposition feel equally strongly that a person's earned income, already taxed, should go to whomever they choose upon their death, without 'the government' taking what they see as another bite of the pie.

The reason this always causes controversy is which side of the debate one is on, depends usually on deeply held beliefs about an individual and their responsibilities to society.

To accuse people of holding their views due to sour grapes, envy or their own lack of material advantage is therefore, I think unfair.

AylesburyDuck

Detroit wrote: »

I think the issue of contention here are the different attitudes and values people hold around taxation.

There are people who genuinely believe that those who can afford to do so should contribute to the costs of running the country, and this belief tends to be stronger when the taxation is on wealth that the person has acquired through no effort of their own.

The view can be that it is somewhat avaricious to accept a significant sum one has not earned, and on top of this, seek ways to avoid making a contribution from this 'windfall' to the country.

Those in opposition feel equally strongly that a person's earned income, already taxed, should go to whomever they choose upon their death, without 'the government' taking what they see as another bite of the pie.

The reason this always causes controversy is which side of the debate one is on, depends usually on deeply held beliefs about an individual and their responsibilities to society.

To accuse people of holding their views due to sour grapes, envy or their own lack of material advantage is therefore, I think unfair.

Thankyou Detroit,
The only addition i would put to the above, which i 100% agree with is that i also hold the view that Wills should not be alterable for the purpose of tax avoidance. I find it disrespectful to the deceased and their wishes. Maybe its a discussion for while they are still alive, it doesnt make it disrespectful then, it makes it common sence.
I'm afraid my inner child got the better of me yesterday, i would have replied with my reason had the question not been asked in litterally the last but one paragraph after[STRIKE] two preachy posts [/STRIKE]that claimed i was ridiculous.:(

Edit, Three preachy posts

Detroit

AylesburyDuck wrote: »

Thankyou Detroit,
The only addition i would put to the above, which i 100% agree with is that i also hold the view that Wills should not be alterable for the purpose of tax avoidance. I find it disrespectful to the deceased and their wishes. Maybe its a discussion for while they are still alive, it doesnt make it disrespectful then, it makes it common sence.
I'm afraid my inner child got the better of me yesterday, i would have replied with my reason had the question not been asked in litterally the last but one paragraph after two preachy posts that claimed i was ridiculous.:(

Hmmm... I am just imagining the reaction of my staunchly socialist grandfather to anyone changing his will in order to pay less tax...:)

Kynthia

AylesburyDuck wrote: »

Thankyou Detroit,
The only addition i would put to the above, which i 100% agree with is that i also hold the view that Wills should not be alterable for the purpose of tax avoidance. I find it disrespectful to the deceased and their wishes. Maybe its a discussion for while they are still alive, it doesnt make it disrespectful then, it makes it common sence.
I'm afraid my inner child got the better of me yesterday, i would have replied with my reason had the question not been asked in litterally the last but one paragraph after two preachy posts that claimed i was ridiculous.:(

If you had said that instead of making accusations of tax dodging, which is illegal and immoral, and i thought it rude i would have reacted differently. Most people are happy to discuss opposing points of view and agree to disagree after points have been made.

I actually think it's a good point that changing someone's will after their death could be controversial or disrepectful. However If person A left their wordly goods to person B and person B wants to give it to person C, then they can as it becomes theirs to do with as they wish. So is it so bad if they legally miss out the middle step to stop losing some of it? I personally think not but I can definitely see why some would think it would be and perhaps it would depend on whether person A would have disliked person C getting their inheritance and in that case it could be viewed as disrepectful either way and again the deed of variation is not the important factor.

I don't disagree necessarily with inheritance tax and think people should pay what tax they are liable for (I can't stand cheats and dodgers). I just think like with any form of tax there may be legal ways to pay less and it's mad not to use them as the government put them in place and could end them if it wanted. I don't like it when people accuse others of illegality or immoral behaviour for using these methods when they themselves use methods for other forms of tax (I mean in general and not anyone on this thread as we haven't gone into any detail of general tax views), and that has nothing to do with views on the individual and their responsibility to the state but with fairness.

AylesburyDuck

Kynthia wrote: »

If you had said that instead of making accusations of tax dodging, which is illegal and immoral, and i thought it rude i would have reacted differently. Most people are happy to discuss opposing points of view and agree to disagree after points have been made.

I actually think it's a good point that changing someone's will after their death could be controversial or disrepectful. However If person A left their wordly goods to person B and person B wants to give it to person C, then they can as it becomes theirs to do with as they wish. So is it so bad if they legally miss out the middle step to stop losing some of it? I personally think not but I can definitely see why some would think it would be and perhaps it would depend on whether person A would have disliked person C getting their inheritance and in that case it could be viewed as disrepectful either way and again the deed of variation is not the important factor.

I don't disagree necessarily with inheritance tax and think people should pay what tax they are liable for (I can't stand cheats and dodgers). I just think like with any form of tax there may be legal ways to pay less and it's mad not to use them as the government put them in place and could end them if it wanted. I don't like it when people accuse others of illegality or immoral behaviour for using these methods when they themselves use methods for other forms of tax (I mean in general and not anyone on this thread as we haven't gone into any detail of general tax views), and that has nothing to do with views on the individual and their responsibility to the state but with fairness.

You seem to be getting hung up by the use of the word Dodge,and prefer Avoid as in your second post.
mmmmm
dodge
dɒdʒ/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: dodging; noun: dodging
1.
avoid (someone or something) by a sudden quick movement.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on the matter.

LilElvis

It would be interesting to know if those who disagree with financial planning to minimise IHT are likely to be either recipient's of a bequest, or have estates themselves, which would be liable to the tax.

AylesburyDuck

LilElvis wrote: »

It would be interesting to know if those who disagree with financial planning to minimise IHT are likely to be either recipient's of a bequest, or have estates themselves, which would be liable to the tax.

But would it really, i'm of the view that peoples financial situations dont always dictate a stereotypical response, if thats where you headed with your thoughts.... life and individual attitudes to life just arnt like that.

2010

I`m all for tax "efficiency" and it`s only right that people should do so.

Recently the Duke of Norfolk died and left an estate valued at nine billion pounds but there is not one penny of IHT to be paid.
Big companes like Google,Starbucks etc., all use tax avoidance methods.

I don`t blame these companies or ordinary individuals.
If there are loopholes in the law then it`s up to the government to close them.
Although I don`t think G.Osborne was too concerned as he`d rather look after his city and uppercrust friends.

You also get the situation where the government "cuts back" and retires, with golden handshakes and big pensions, top tax officials, who then go to the private sector and are retained on huge fees to advise big companies on tax planning.