eddyinfreehold wrote: »
I agree with Red Squirrel here ... the bottom line is that all taxation spreads the cost of running society across the tax paying population. What percentage is taxed and what that tax is spent on is where politics steps in. There is the famous Jean-Baptiste Colbert quote, "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."So eddyinfreehold, how did you reduce the IHT from 6 figures to 5 figures???
....Hoploz, it's complicated but bear with me.
Firstly the will was simple and the three executors were also the three beneficiaries and were empowered to dispose of the Estate as they jointly felt fit. A proportion of the IHT due was donated to either charities or CASCs of significance to the Executors. This doesn't mean the beneficiaries got any/much more, it's just that the IHT was reduced. The Charities and CASCs were able of course to reclaim Gift Aid at 25% as well. It's a bit like paying the tax but choosing how it is spent.
Secondly there was a major discrepancy when it came to sorting out the transferrable allowance of the deceased's spouse. Basically one of my parents had died about 50 years before the other in the days of Estate Duty. The surviving parent never remarried. When we called in all the wills and death certificates etc it transpired there was a major difference between the Probate Value on the first death and the actual estate value of the same because of a declared and inherited right to a share of a Trust on the death of the first parent's mother..........are you still with me? ......As the first death predeceased her mother and the Trust was exhausted when the time came, the first death never benefitted in spite of declaring it in Probate. We were able to have the 50 year old Probate reassessed and the Transferrable Allowance corrected. Does this make sense? It's a case that will almost never occur again I would think. It's also a good argument for keeping hold of important documents like solicitors correspondence and estate accounts for a very long time.
Yorkshireman99 wrote: »
Read the OP's original post. It does not even say that they are a beneficary so what right have you to judge them in this way? The purpose of this forum is to help people not to make snide remarks.
Keep_pedalling wrote: »
I think the OP was referring to the testator rather than the beneficiaries, although most estates hitting the IHT threshold do so because of house price inflation and or inheritances they received rather than the acquisition of large assets through work.
As far as the benificiaries are concerned it is an unearned windfall, so they hardly have room for complaint. My better half was the residuary beneficiary to her uncles estate, and the considerable IHT bill came out of her share, so we have been on the receiving end of an IHT hit, but have no problem with that.
If you want to do something about your own estate, then the solution is simple, be very generous to your family, freinds, charities and yourself while you have the chance don!!!8217;t leave it to your dotage.
Hoploz wrote: »
One thing I do know is that all of us dealing with this will be getting advice regarding our own affairs to try and ensure our children and grandchildren get as much as possible of what we've worked for in the future.
A bid to tackle poor service concerns
Grab 100+ quotes & cashback
Prime members only