share properties after death?

getmore4less

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

It's not just the size of the joint estate, but the individual ones, as they are both planning to leave major assets to their children, if both properties are over the nil rate band then that will be used up on the first death. Which is likely to effect one set of beneficiaries more than the other.

Not if it goes into the trust it gets the spouse exemption on first death.

Other assets left to other than spouse use up the nil rate band.

jebervic

The figures aren't very high and the situation seems at first glance strange, we are married but i'm afraid the relationships between the various sections of the family aren't great, so it seemed simpler to avoid the risk of contesting wills etc to just split the assets between us now.

The small property in Cornwall is going to be small, no more than say 130k and looking for a flat no more than 30 miles from London at under 250k, so not massive amounts by any stretch of the imagination.

We both love the contrasting areas and it would be great to continue that after the other dies (but who knows if either of us would really want that if the other one wasn't alive?)

Regarding Health care costs, surely this arrangement means that the other person is fully protected, so say for example I needed care, she wouldn't lose her home and vice versa.

Keep_pedalling

jebervic wrote: »

The figures aren't very high and the situation seems at first glance strange, we are married but i'm afraid the relationships between the various sections of the family aren't great, so it seemed simpler to avoid the risk of contesting wills etc to just split the assets between us now.

The small property in Cornwall is going to be small, no more than say 130k and looking for a flat no more than 30 miles from London at under 250k, so not massive amounts by any stretch of the imagination.

We both love the contrasting areas and it would be great to continue that after the other dies (but who knows if either of us would really want that if the other one wasn't alive?)

Regarding Health care costs, surely this arrangement means that the other person is fully protected, so say for example I needed care, she wouldn't lose her home and vice versa.

With those sort of values IHT is not going to be an issue unless you have some other large assets.

As for care costs, while one person is still living in the main residence it is ignored as far as calculations for self funding are concerned even if the one requiring crew owns it outright. There are no such restrictions on what is in affect your holiday home. If your wife needed care then it would count as an asset that she could use to fund her care.

Mojisola

jebervic wrote: »

Regarding Health care costs, surely this arrangement means that the other person is fully protected, so say for example I needed care, she wouldn't lose her home and vice versa.

A couple can only have one residence - any other property owned is considered a capital asset.

If either of you needed to go into care, the value of the property you mainly live in (where you are registered with the GP, your car is insured at, etc) will be ignored.

Even if that home is in your name, your financial assessment will look at what other capital and income you have - the family residence will not be counted.

If your wife needed to go into care and the other property is in her name, the value of that will be taken into account and the property may need to be sold.