Gift/Inheritance and Savings

eskbanker

iainmb said:
i only mentioned the fact she is on benefits to add to the advice that could be given.

That's not really true though, is it - it wasn't a peripheral issue, you specifically cited her being on benefits as the reason to want to dispose of the money:

iainmb said:

She is in receipt of means tested state benefits and so would like to transfer it into an account in my name.

TemporaryUsernameMay2020

eskbanker said:

iainmb said:
i only mentioned the fact she is on benefits to add to the advice that could be given.

That's not really true though, is it - it wasn't a peripheral issue, you specifically cited her being on benefits as the reason to want to dispose of the money:

iainmb said:

She is in receipt of means tested state benefits and so would like to transfer it into an account in my name.

So iainmb was, in effect, asking whether there was some rule (such as the deprivation of assets rule), which would prevent his mother from giving him her inheritance and then legitimately continuing to claim means-tested benefits. A perfectly fair question.

But instead of answering it, you suggested that his mother should act as if there was a rule preventing her from doing that, whether or not there actually was.

This doesn't happen with questions about tax. Nobody says: I'm not telling you whether or not there is some obstacle to your claiming this tax relief, because I don't think you should claim it even if you can!

EDIT: e.g. see the reply eskbanker just made in https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6138010/query-on-utilising-spouses-isa-allowance which just told the OP that they couldn't use their spouse's ISA allowance without just giving their spouse some cash to subscribe to it, instead of telling them it would be wrong to do that whether or not it would be lawful.

eskbanker

gays_on_crack said:

eskbanker said:

iainmb said:
i only mentioned the fact she is on benefits to add to the advice that could be given.

That's not really true though, is it - it wasn't a peripheral issue, you specifically cited her being on benefits as the reason to want to dispose of the money:

iainmb said:

She is in receipt of means tested state benefits and so would like to transfer it into an account in my name.

So iainmb was, in effect, asking whether there was some rule (such as the deprivation of assets rule), which would prevent his mother from giving him her inheritance and then legitimately continuing to claim means-tested benefits. A perfectly fair question.

If that's what OP wanted to ask, then he could have done so.  But he didn't - as you already pointed out, the question was specifically how to do it, rather than whether to do it....

Edit: your edit about an unrelated thread is irrelevant, inaccurate and off topic, so I'm not proposing to engage on that!

Albermarle

i only mentioned the fact she is on benefits to add to the advice that could be given.

The fact she is on means tested benefits is the most critical part of the equation on how she should handle the inheritance.

The original plan to gift the money to you is a non starter in this case.

Newly_retired

Let's not apportion blame or argue the toss.  Let’s give the OP information.
Some have already done so. To repeat.

OP, your mum must inform DWP of her change of circumstances and her means- tested benefits will stop as she will have capital well over the threshold. It will take some time to bring that capital down to the appropriate level, which for most benefits is £16 000. If she spends it frivolously that will be considered as deliberate deprivation of assets.  If she tries to give it to you , that is deliberate deprivation of assets as well,  and she will be considered as still having that capital, so will not be entitled to claim. She will be investigated for benefit fraud if she tries to conceal this money. 

So there are no suitable accounts  any of us can legally recommend.

it would seem that inheritance tax is unlikely to be an issue either as the amount of inheritance is too low. If mum already had more money, she would not be in receipt of benefits, would she?
NB she can still carry on claiming DLA or PIP as they are not means- tested.

TemporaryUsernameMay2020

eskbanker said:

If that's what OP wanted to ask, then he could have done so.  But he didn't - as you already pointed out, the question was specifically how to do it, rather than whether to do it....

I was not criticizing your decision to answer the whether question instead of the how question. It's perfectly reasonable to explain why somebody shouldn't do something, when the question was superficially about how to do it.

The problem is that you then didn't answer the whether question properly at all. You didn't explain that the gift would leave the OP's mother unable to continue to claim means-tested benefits legally, which is the key piece of information. You instead suggested that it would be inappropriate to do so even if legal. You supplied an irrelevant moral judgement instead of useful information.

This not how you, or any other regular posters on this board, respond to people asking about ways of paying less tax. If they suggest something that won't work legally, they are told so. They're not told that they shouldn't do it even if it is legal.

eskbanker

gays_on_crack said:

eskbanker said:

If that's what OP wanted to ask, then he could have done so.  But he didn't - as you already pointed out, the question was specifically how to do it, rather than whether to do it....

I was not criticizing your decision to answer the whether question instead of the how question. It's perfectly reasonable to explain why somebody shouldn't do something, when the question was superficially about how to do it.

The problem is that you then didn't answer the whether question properly at all. You didn't explain that the gift would leave the OP's mother unable to continue to claim means-tested benefits legally, which is the key piece of information. You instead suggested that it would be inappropriate to do so even if legal. You supplied an irrelevant moral judgement instead of useful information.

You opine that it's irrelevant - I disagree and personally feel that it is pertinent to question how morally legitimate it would be to claim state benefits while simultaneously trying to conceal a large lump sum, even if it was legal.  You're welcome to your opinion that the only answers acceptable to you are either details of how to do it or a clear explanation of the legal situation - fine, I'm not trying to stop you answering along those lines if you want, but to date your only posts have been criticisms of mine rather than anything constructive, so forgive me if I find it ironic that you accuse me of being unhelpful while 'contributing' nothing more than repetitive carping yourself.

gays_on_crack said:
This not how you, or any other regular posters on this board, respond to people asking about ways of paying less tax. If they suggest something that won't work legally, they are told so. They're not told that they shouldn't do it even if it is legal.

No idea why you keep trying to conflate this thread with views about legitimate money-saving matters elsewhere though, can you genuinely not see the difference?  Hint: see earlier post about the distinction between tax evasion and avoidance....

TemporaryUsernameMay2020

eskbanker said:

I ... personally feel that it is pertinent to question how morally legitimate it would be to claim state benefits while simultaneously trying to conceal a large lump sum, even if it was legal.

I.e. even if it was like tax avoidance (legal), you'd be passing moral judgement on it. Have you ever said that to posters who are hoping to pay less tax?

eskbanker said:

No idea why you keep trying to conflate this thread with views about legitimate money-saving matters elsewhere though, can you genuinely not see the difference?  Hint: see earlier post about the distinction between tax evasion and avoidance....

That distinction doesn't help you. Quite the opposite.

It is consistent to disapprove equally of tax evasion and benefit fraud. The issue is about how you (and other posters) sometimes respond to people with ideas that they think will let them pay less tax or claim more benefits, but which in fact don't work legally, and so would be tax evasion or benefit fraud if they carried it through. They are often not treated in the same way.

The people hoping to pay less tax are told it wouldn't work legally, and perhaps also told that it would be fraudulent to claim a tax reduction that they're not entitled to. But nobody tells them they shouldn't claim even if they were entitled to, as you did here.

The questions are no more or less legitimate in either case. Going ahead with the scheme, knowing it isn't allowed, would be illegitimate in either case. You (and many others) are quicker to criticize posters trying to claim benefits than posters trying to pay less tax.

eskbanker

gays_on_crack said:

eskbanker said:

I ... personally feel that it is pertinent to question how morally legitimate it would be to claim state benefits while simultaneously trying to conceal a large lump sum, even if it was legal.

I.e. even if it was like tax avoidance (legal), you'd be passing moral judgement on it. Have you ever said that to posters who are hoping to pay less tax?

That's not a logical conclusion from what I was saying - it's perfectly valid and consistent to object to egregious and deliberate deception without having to castigate everyone who aims to minimise tax bills by legitimate means, they're clearly at different points along a spectrum.  Granted, we may not all draw the line at exactly the same place though....

gays_on_crack said:

eskbanker said:

No idea why you keep trying to conflate this thread with views about legitimate money-saving matters elsewhere though, can you genuinely not see the difference?  Hint: see earlier post about the distinction between tax evasion and avoidance....

That distinction doesn't help you. Quite the opposite.

It is consistent to disapprove equally of tax evasion and benefit fraud. The issue is about how you (and other posters) sometimes respond to people with ideas that they think will let them pay less tax or claim more benefits, but which in fact don't work legally, and so would be tax evasion or benefit fraud if they carried it through. They are often not treated in the same way.

The people hoping to pay less tax are told it wouldn't work legally, and perhaps also told that it would be fraudulent to claim a tax reduction that they're not entitled to. But nobody tells them they shouldn't claim even if they were entitled to, as you did here.

The questions are no more or less legitimate in either case. Going ahead with the scheme, knowing it isn't allowed, would be illegitimate in either case. You (and many others) are quicker to criticize posters trying to claim benefits than posters trying to pay less tax.

I wasn't telling OP to do anything, merely asking if he felt it was appropriate to do what he was suggesting.  It's still not clear to me why you're so desperate to take this thread so much further off topic by making vague references to other threads about different topics and featuring other posters - the one you referred to earlier was clearly not comparable but it really isn't appropriate to derail this thread any more with stuff like that.

newatc

My mother had very little money throughout her life and received some benefits but a few years before she died, she received belated compensation relating to my father's death and basically just left it in a savings account. We will never know whether she realised that she should have disclosed it - she was unsurprisingly not finance savvy - but it could be she thought it should go to her children - a natural thought in my mind if not right. 
Of course it was picked up at will execution time (I can't remember what office picked it up) and money was paid back to the DWP (no hassle at all by either party).
Some things are just not black and white.