Inheritance

Andy From Sligo

Should, if you have an old person on their way out (sorry dont mean it as bad as it sounds) and they want to leave property or a tidy sum of money to their family or loved ones after they die, should they sort this out whilst they are still alive rather than put it in a will?

I have heard lots of stories of problems after the person has died of families squabbling over what they feel entitled too (especially more so if a will hasnt be made) and some families even contesting wills. - then it turns into big court cases a lot of the time.

Maximus Alexander

I wouldn't be arsed wasting any of my limited remaining time trying to sort it out while I was alive. If I'm on the way out and they're the sort to squabble over it, let them squabble. I won't be around to have to worry about it.

The Sidewards Man

Ffs Andy you will be asking us next what time in the morning it's best take a crap.

Andy From Sligo

The Sidewards Man wrote: »

Ffs Andy you will be asking us next what time in the morning it's best take a crap.

.. and the answer is?

Maximus Alexander

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

.. and the answer is?

Before you shower, obviously.

StupidLikeAFox

I would, it's more tax efficient if you do as far as I know. May as well be practical about it.

There is a certain poignancy about it, like closing down all your applications before shutting down your computer

The Sidewards Man

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I would, it's more tax efficient if you do as far as I know. May as well be practical about it.

There is a certain poignancy about it, like closing down all your applications before shutting down your computer

To take a crap in the morning?

Andy From Sligo

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I would, it's more tax efficient if you do as far as I know. May as well be practical about it.

There is a certain poignancy about it, like closing down all your applications before shutting down your computer

it might be comforting for the person whilst they are still alive and have some satisfaction that if they sort out who gets what before they pass away that everything is sorted - and of course if there are any questions about where bank accounts are kept this surely must be easier whilst the person is still alive just in case you need to ask them any details or need a signature on something, rather than something being sketchy in a will and having to be sorted out through a solicitor after they die.

I cant see why also if its amicable to both parties , that if someone says "this house will be yours when I die" that they cant hand over the house before they die and save a lot of hassle - do you know what i mean , its only being practical at the end of the day and at least the person leaving the stuff knows for sure their wishes will be fulfilled

ScouseMouse

I am aware of a real situation where the heir is an only child and the place will have to be sold to pay inheritance tax. Its a shocking carry on where the place is in the family since the 1700's, but the value is way over the tax free allowance - even for the only child.

Depending on the value, it may HAVE to be sold to avoid a big tax bill and the eventual sale anyway to pay the inevitable tax bill.

endacl

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99786399&postcount=5464

J Mysterio

Jesus christ, we had this thread like two weeks ago.

ProudDUB

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I would, it's more tax efficient if you do as far as I know. May as well be practical about it.

There is a certain poignancy about it, like closing down all your applications before shutting down your computer

It's not. The tax thresholds from what you can receive from someone are the same, regardless of whether or not they were dead or alive when they gave you the money/house/property.

So if Uncle Albert decides to give you a cash gift of 100,000 now, or leave you 100,000 in his will, (or a property to that value) you still owe the same amount of tax on it. It just has different names. It's called inheritance tax if they are dead. It's called capital gains tax (I think,) if they are alive. The rates of tax owed is the same.

ScouseMouse

ProudDUB wrote: »

It's not. The tax thresholds from what you can receive from someone are the same, regardless of whether or not they were dead or alive when they gave you the money/house/property.

So if Uncle Albert decides to give you a cash gift of 100,000 now, or leave you 100,000 in his will, (or a property to that value) you still owe the same amount of tax on it. It just has different names. It's called inheritance tax if they are dead. It's called capital gains tax (I think,) if they are alive. The rates of tax owed is the same.

So uncle Albert needs to sell it, enjoy life paying cash as he goes and give cash gifts now, so it's gone when he dies.

ProudDUB

ScouseMouse wrote: »

So uncle Albert needs to sell it, enjoy life paying cash as he goes and give cash gifts now, so it's gone when he dies.

The maximum you can receive per year, from Uncle Albert is 3000. Once he goes over that, you owe tax on it. It's easier to keep cash gifts hidden from Revenue, than a house, as you don't need to involve solicitors. But if the Revenue smell a rat over Uncle Albert's assets, they decide to go digging in the bank accounts of his nearest and dearest & they find cash deposits of 10,000 per year, going back 5 years, you'll have your work cut out for you trying to convince them that you just got fierce lucky at the dogs. :P

Andy From Sligo

J Mysterio wrote: »

Jesus christ, we had this thread like two weeks ago.

sorry

i should have checked

ProudDUB

Don't sweat it Andy. Topics get replicated here all the time.

If I had a euro for every time I've seen topics on here about Travelers, single mothers, Dublin gangland shootings, the round system, Ryanair, the most depressing/ugly/dreary town in Ireland, wedding present/First Communion etiquette, the Irish & funerals, bodily functions involving pooing or farting, favourite sammich creations..... and probably a few more that I am forgetting.....I'd be the wealthiest Boardsie ever.

B.A._Baracus

Before my dad retired he used to work in Cabra and it was the type of job where you'd hear everything going on in the area as most of the workers lived bloody 2 mins down the road. So a lot of banter, chat, gossip... you know yourself.

Anyways, this local eldery man dies and he owned the house. Que the daughters, sons and other family members rowing publically over who gets what.
While you would like to think most families would tend to keep squabbles to themselves and not air their dirty laundry, they didn't. Having shouting matches in the street. Letting everyone see and talk about.

Now you could say they are just dysfunctional... and you'd be right :pac: But this happens all the time. But behind closed doors. So if someone has assets? make a will. Let those who you want to have things have them. Even write people out of a will should you choose. The claws will come out otherwise.

Jayop

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I wouldn't be arsed wasting any of my limited remaining time trying to sort it out while I was alive. If I'm on the way out and they're the sort to squabble over it, let them squabble. I won't be around to have to worry about it.

This this and this again. I have no idea what my father is worth and I honestly couldn't give a ****. I hope he spends every penny he has before he goes enjoying himself. He never got any big boost inheritance and made a decent life for him and us so let him spend what bit he has now on fun.

If he does leave a few quid behind then he'll go to his grave knowing that Noone will be fighting about it.

Andy From Sligo

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Should, if you have an old person on their way out (sorry dont mean it as bad as it sounds) and they want to leave property or a tidy sum of money to their family or loved ones after they die, should they sort this out whilst they are still alive rather than put it in a will?

I have heard lots of stories of problems after the person has died of families squabbling over what they feel entitled too (especially more so if a will hasnt be made) and some families even contesting wills. - then it turns into big court cases a lot of the time.

But equally they can challenge a will or an inter vivos transfer for pretty much the same reasons, undue influence, a constructive trust or estoppel etc.

A transfer does not immunise against litigation. Plus, unlike a will, it may give rise to Capital Gains Tax and Stamp Duty, so there is no hard and fast rule. Both may give rise to Capital Acquisitions Tax.

The main difference is between a transfer or will on one hand and intestacy on the other. That may have unforeseen consequences.

Ri_Nollaig

ScouseMouse wrote: »

I am aware of a real situation where the heir is an only child and the place will have to be sold to pay inheritance tax. Its a shocking carry on where the place is in the family since the 1700's, but the value is way over the tax free allowance - even for the only child.

Depending on the value, it may HAVE to be sold to avoid a big tax bill and the eventual sale anyway to pay the inevitable tax bill.

There are various reliefs and exemptions though, like for businesses/farms etc for them to be passed on with very limited Capital Acquisition Tax
Or in the case of a property, if the person receiving it doesn't already have another property and is living there, they should get it tax free.

All info here... http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/cat/.

My knowledge of law is low - especially inheritance law. But I wonder what would happen if people implemented what the OP describes and it went backwards. For example - A person _thinks_ they are on the way out - and so sells or transfers everything to their sole child before dying - but then it turns out they are NOT on the way out after all - but a day after "sorting" it all out - the _child_ dies with everything in their name.

What would happen then?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

My knowledge of law is low - especially inheritance law. But I wonder what would happen if people implemented what the OP describes and it went backwards. For example - A person _thinks_ they are on the way out - and so sells or transfers everything to their sole child before dying - but then it turns out they are NOT on the way out after all - but a day after "sorting" it all out - the _child_ dies with everything in their name.

What would happen then?

If it's a simple transfer, tough. It's gone. You can't really give with one hand and then claw it back on the basis of health.

ProudDUB

ProudDUB wrote: »

It's not. The tax thresholds from what you can receive from someone are the same, regardless of whether or not they were dead or alive when they gave you the money/house/property.
.

It is different in that you can get 3000 per year per person tax free in a gift but you don't get this 3k tax free in an inheritance. So lets say Uncle Albert has his money in a joint account with aunt Betty, boom that's 6k per year you can receive tax free (3k from each) and lets say you have a joint account with your wife/gf/partner then that's 12k per year you can receive tax free as its 3k each from both people gifting.

Keeping in mind the tax free threshold from an uncle is 30,150 (assuming you haven't used any threshold before) if you inherit that 100k in one go after death you pay 23k in CAT.

In the scenario I described above say you are gifted the 12k for just 3 years you reduce your tax liability on the final inheritance to under 12k, do it for 5 years and you will only pay just over 3k on the final inheritance. So yes it's makes a massive difference to gift smartly rather than leave it to an inheritance and letting revenue get their grubby hands on money they should rightly not be let near. Tax on tax on tax on tax.....

allibastor

I dont get the whole inheritance tax thing.

I mean the person who initially bought/saved what ever had to pay tax on this, then you go and leave your hard earned money/house etc to someone, and they have to Fúcking pay MORE tax on it.

What a joke.

smash

allibastor wrote: »

I dont get the whole inheritance tax thing.

I mean the person who initially bought/saved what ever had to pay tax on this, then you go and leave your hard earned money/house etc to someone, and they have to Fúcking pay MORE tax on it.

What a joke.

The secret is to take up residency in Gibraltar.

Geuze

ProudDUB wrote: »

It's not. The tax thresholds from what you can receive from someone are the same, regardless of whether or not they were dead or alive when they gave you the money/house/property.

So if Uncle Albert decides to give you a cash gift of 100,000 now, or leave you 100,000 in his will, (or a property to that value) you still owe the same amount of tax on it. It just has different names. It's called inheritance tax if they are dead. It's called capital gains tax (I think,) if they are alive. The rates of tax owed is the same.

Yes, same tax, but it's called Capital Acquisitions Tax [CAT].

Geuze

allibastor wrote: »

I dont get the whole inheritance tax thing.

I mean the person who initially bought/saved what ever had to pay tax on this, then you go and leave your hard earned money/house etc to someone, and they have to Fúcking pay MORE tax on it.

What a joke.

I see your point.

Though note that people who support higher CAT, and even 100% inheritance taxes, are being elected in Ireland.

The electorate has swung to supporting politicians that support higher CAT.

However, FG support some cuts/reliefs to CAT.