inheritance tax annoucement

sloughflint

margaretclare wrote: »

Partly tongue-in-cheek,

Oh good.

Chesky seems to be hoping for a legacy from this estranged and long-separated husband.

I didn't interpret it like that. I thought her post was an interesting one with an innocent intention;hoping to be able to legitimately increase her IHT allowance to maximise what she can pass on to her beneficiaries.

margaretclare

sloughflint wrote: »

I didn't interpret it like that. I thought her post was an interesting one with an innocent intention;hoping to be able to legitimately increase her IHT allowance to maximise what she can pass on to her beneficiaries.

Why are people so bothered about what they can pass on to their beneficiaries? Why not maximise for yourself, your own life, own needs and own enjoyment?

Margaret

chesky369

Margaret - I'm rather cross with you. I certainly do NOT expect anything from my husband in the way of an inheritance and am surprised that you should think so. The reason we've never bothered to get divorced is that it hasn't suited us to do so and, quite honestly, I don't want to spend money on solicitors' fees unnecessarily. I get on fine with him (so long as I don't actually have to live with him) and I think he would be rather offended if I started divorce proceedings at this stage, which would have a knock-on effect with my children and grandchildren. And what would it accomplish at this date? Is that sufficient reason for you? I have made my way on my own and don't need any inheritance from him - I should imagine most will go to our children and quite right too.

The only reason I posted was that I wondered if, still having marital status and if he died before me, I could be entitled to the £600k figure. Seems not - oh well.

margaretclare

sloughflint wrote: »

Oh Margaret, you do keep saying this sort of thing. Why do you keep homing in on these sorts of threads in view of your thoughts on the topic?

Because this topic keeps coming up, and others 'keep saying this sort of thing'.

Of course people should maximise for themselves. One can never predict how much they need/will be left but sadly some people reach the stage when they can't spend much and have lots left over. How I wish my folks had spent a lot more when they were physically capable.

If people have 'lots left over' then there is no shortage of people or good causes out there who would make good use of it. I can think of a dozen or so, off the top of my head without even trying.

Margaret

chesky369

I happen to think that my children are good causes; they're not rich and they struggle to keep up with whatever life throws at them. So I think I would be an unnatural parent if the relatively small amount I'm likely to leave when I've popped off this mortal coil, were not left to improve their lives.

margaretclare

chesky369 wrote: »

Margaret - I'm rather cross with you. I certainly do NOT expect anything from my husband in the way of an inheritance and am surprised that you should think so.

This was what you wrote:

I've been separated from my husband for twenty years, but not divorced. I'm sure he won't leave me anything in his will but, if he dies before me, does it mean that my inheritance allowance will be £600k instead of £300k?

and localhero wrote:

if he makes a Will and leaves his estate to anybody but you, then you will not receive the benefit of his 'unused IHT allowance' as he will have used it.

If he doesn't make a Will (which would be incredibly stupid) then you would inherit quite a bit of his estate under the intestacy laws, and on top of that the percentage of his allowance which was unused.

The reason we've never bothered to get divorced is that it hasn't suited us to do so and, quite honestly, I don't want to spend money on solicitors' fees unnecessarily. I get on fine with him (so long as I don't actually have to live with him) and I think he would be rather offended if I started divorce proceedings at this stage, which would have a knock-on effect with my children and grandchildren. And what would it accomplish at this date? Is that sufficient reason for you? I have made my way on my own and don't need any inheritance from him - I should imagine most will go to our children and quite right too.

As you've lived apart for so long it would cost you very little to go through the DIY route for a divorce, so it would not cost anything at all in solicitors' fees, just the court fees. However, you've explained that you're happy being married and not living together. Obviously neither of you have ever met someone else that you'd like to marry.

The only reason I posted was that I wondered if, still having marital status and if he died before me, I could be entitled to the £600k figure. Seems not - oh well.

Further information has come to light since that headline-grabbing announcement on Wednesday. It's not as it appeared. You wouldn't inherit £600K. All it means is that each spouse has a £300K IHT-free band, which they can leave to each other. Apparently that has always been the case - what has changed is the need to set up a special trust to 'save' the IHT band when one spouse dies. I've also heard that the new measures will only apply if a property is held in joint names rather than as tenants-in-common, but I'm not clear on that point. Willman Rodders, who posts here, said that it may not be all as it was trumpeted on Wednesday - wait and see.

It's explained more fully here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pbr2007/pbrn16.pdf

Margaret

margaretclare

chesky369 wrote: »

Margaret - I'm rather cross with you. I certainly do NOT expect anything from my husband in the way of an inheritance and am surprised that you should think so.

This was what you wrote:

I've been separated from my husband for twenty years, but not divorced. I'm sure he won't leave me anything in his will but, if he dies before me, does it mean that my inheritance allowance will be £600k instead of £300k?

and localhero wrote:

if he makes a Will and leaves his estate to anybody but you, then you will not receive the benefit of his 'unused IHT allowance' as he will have used it.

If he doesn't make a Will (which would be incredibly stupid) then you would inherit quite a bit of his estate under the intestacy laws, and on top of that the percentage of his allowance which was unused.

The reason we've never bothered to get divorced is that it hasn't suited us to do so and, quite honestly, I don't want to spend money on solicitors' fees unnecessarily. I get on fine with him (so long as I don't actually have to live with him) and I think he would be rather offended if I started divorce proceedings at this stage, which would have a knock-on effect with my children and grandchildren. And what would it accomplish at this date? Is that sufficient reason for you? I have made my way on my own and don't need any inheritance from him - I should imagine most will go to our children and quite right too.

As you've lived apart for so long it would cost you very little to go through the DIY route for a divorce, so it would not cost anything at all in solicitors' fees, just the court fees. However, you've explained that you're happy being married and not living together. Obviously neither of you have ever met someone else that you'd like to marry.

The only reason I posted was that I wondered if, still having marital status and if he died before me, I could be entitled to the £600k figure. Seems not - oh well.

Further information has come to light since that headline-grabbing announcement on Wednesday. It's not as it appeared. You wouldn't inherit £600K. All it means is that each spouse has a £300K IHT-free band, which they can leave to each other. Apparently that has always been the case - what has changed is the need to set up a special trust to 'save' the IHT band when one spouse dies. I've also heard that the new measures will only apply if a property is held in joint names rather than as tenants-in-common, but I'm not clear on that point. Willman Rodders, who posts here, said that it may not be all as it was trumpeted on Wednesday - wait and see.

It's explained more fully here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pbr2007/pbrn16.pdf

Margaret

sloughflint

I'm getting cross with you too now, Margaret.

If people have 'lots left over' then there is no shortage of people or good causes out there who would make good use of it. I can think of a dozen or so, off the top of my head without even trying.

You do what you like with your money as will everyone else.

Because this topic keeps coming up, and others 'keep saying this sort of thing'.

You don't have to read them. Why don't you "buzz off" away from this theme.
I'm not surprised poor chesky was upset. You do post very frequently on the topic and often jump to conclusions ( usually the negative) about people you've never met!
edit: that was rude so sorry but can't think/haven't the time to put it any more diplomatically.

margaretclare

Well, you don't have to read any of my posts either!

Margaret

chesky369

Margaret - I'm perfectly capable of reading local hero's response myself, don't need it repeated by you. And yes, you're so right, neither of us have met anyone we want to marry - fairly obvious I'd have thought and didn't need saying. You can find your own good causes to leave your money to, I wouldn't presume to advise you, just as I can make my own mind up about where I want my money to go.