Is there a formula?

Thebrokererer

A person takes a gift of value x. They do the work, put more money in, and in time an offer in excess of the original value is made. The person who gave the gift should be compensated now.
But the question is whether this is at the original value, indexed, value after work. Is there a formula for working this out?

Carawaystick

A gift is a gift. There's no strings attached and no compensation.
Otherwise its an investment

Thebrokererer

But if one wanted to compensate fairly, is there a moral or legal way/ formula?
I am tending towards the original value minus the startup costs, split and indexed at 1.5%?
Is that fair?

Beano

your question makes no sense. why would the receipt of a gift require work?

Is that fair?

fair to who?

Thebrokererer

It was something that required work to be made viable.
Fair to party that gave.

Anyway, I'm trying to come up with an objective method of fairness as I do believe something is due.

Zambia

A gives b a car

B fixes car ands sells it for a tidy profit

A comes looking for his cut.

Formula is below

A is a sh1t bloke

Thebrokererer

While that's pretty funny it's not really the road I want to go down.

endacl

Question is weird. You gave a gift. The gift was received.The gift is gone. end of.

leeroybrown

It's a gift. Unless a "contract" of some form accompanying the "gift" then there's no comeback. The giver should accept this and rethink how they handle the "gift" process in future.

Thebrokererer

OK, I feel an obligation here to be fair.
So , considering the person giving the gift could have sold....for example, the food truck for a small amount themselves at any point but gave it generously.
But it's now worth a lot more after the passage of time and the work involved, and I'd like to equalize things. Is this really that out of the ordinary?

endacl

Thebrokererer wrote: »

Is this really that out of the ordinary?

Yes.

Thebrokererer

endacl wrote: »

Yes.

Oh

shanered

Probably not a legal question here, more you looking for opinions of fair compensation.

It wouldnt be a gift if their looking for a return on the gift so you may want to change your language when refering to the object.

A fair outcome could be the portion of the price of the object when it was received.
Its a fairly subjective question anyway...

Help!!!!

no formula, just give what you want

AndonHandon

Thebrokererer wrote: »

A person takes a gift of value x. They do the work, put more money in, and in time an offer in excess of the original value is made. The person who gave the gift should be compensated now.
But the question is whether this is at the original value, indexed, value after work. Is there a formula for working this out?

The person who gave the gift doesn't need to get anything, hence why they gave the item as a 'gift'.

What's fair is not objective in this situation, if you must repay the gift.

johnnyskeleton

There is biblical precedent, whereby the original gift is repaid 100 fold. Mark 10:31.

The bible is spiritual rather than temporal law, but a kind of law nonetheless.

The bible also has a stern injunction to pay your capital gains tax on all gifts - "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, at a rate of 33%"

Hope that helps.

Bepolite

I think the OP is looking for a discussion on constructive trusts. :pac:

Mr. Incognito

The question is dependent on the gift.

From a tax perspective if you get something for nothing you may have to pay gift or inheritance tax.

When you dispose of it if there has been an increase in value you pay capital gains tax on the increase.

If you put work into it, and it costs you such enhansement expenditure can be deducted for the costs. The owners Labour to improve cannot be deducted.

The above only applies to capital assets such as land etc.

Chattels or moveable property like cars, animals etc dont attract CGT.

Hope that helps

Thebrokererer

I'm ok on the CGT side, I don't think 100 fold will work either.

I would simply like to do the right thing. So I think so far my proposal of the original minus startup, indexed is looking like a good starting point.
Thank you all.

Peregrinus

The person who gave the gift has no reasonable expectation of getting anything back, and if he gets nothing back that's entirely fair. That's what "gift" means.

The person who received the gift, and who subsequently enjoyed good fortune which he would have missed out on if the gift had never been given, may wish to express his gratitude by making a new gift of his own. That's up to him. The question of how much that new gift should be is not a matter of "fairness", but of what kind of gesture the person concerned thinks proper to express his gratitude.