April King

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

No deprivation the doner is dead.

I am talking about trust setup long BEFORE the donor dies.

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

Does not apply to tenants in common and life interests

Your reply is opposite to what councils claim.

getmore4less

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

I am talking about trust setup long BEFORE the donor dies.

In those cases the doners may have deprivation if their share is needed for their care, but the tax changes make them less effective for IHT mitigation.

getmore4less

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Your reply is opposite to what councils claim.

Where do councils say they can access assets never belonging to the person that needs care.?

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

Where do councils say they can access assets never belonging to the person that needs care.?

As per the link in post #32.

getmore4less

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

As per the link in post #32.

You have not understood the contents of the link.

Yorkshireman99

Care to explain please?

Tom99

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Care to explain please?

The article referred to says:
"However, if the Local Authority considers a transfer of an asset away from a person’s ownership to be a ‘deliberate deprivation’ of that person’s assets then they have the power to challenge such transfer."
But this thread is talking about the 50% which was never owned by the person wanting care, not the other 50% they do own, so I don't see how deliberate deprivation could apply.

Yorkshireman99

Tom99 wrote: »

The article referred to says:
"However, if the Local Authority considers a transfer of an asset away from a person’s ownership to be a ‘deliberate deprivation’ of that person’s assets then they have the power to challenge such transfer."
But this thread is talking about the 50% which was never owned by the person wanting care, not the other 50% they do own, so I don't see how deliberate deprivation could apply.

Thank you. Point taken. However, I was making a wider point. If ONE OF A couple as TIC place one half of the house into a trust for the deliberate purpose of avoiding future care fees does that count as deprivation? It seems to me there is a strong case for the Council to say it does. AIUI a number of companies have been pedalling this sort of trust with exactly that objective.

AnotherJoe

YM99 IANAL but seems to me that since the couple own the house 50/50 then the LA cannot coherently argue that the 50 that doesn't belong to the party who needs to pay for care, can be confiscated in order to do so. Each party has free reign to leave to whoever (or whatever) they want.
To argue otherwise would in essence be arbitrary confiscation of assets. They may not even be married or in a partnership. And Why stop at the house? Why not take the other partner's investments or their car or whatever ? This is not a joint asset. If the government doesn't want people to hold assets separately they will need to legislate and I can't see that flying.