Tax Free Leasing of Land

Spanish Eyes

What's the story when some neighbour/stranger buys land next to yours.

And lets it out for five years tax free? (I know there are limits)

Ahem. I see my outlaws (FARMERS) raging. They could not afford to buy it.

Is there much objection to outsiders buying land?

I hope there isn't.

Panch18

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

What's the story when some neighbour/stranger buys land next to yours.

And lets it out for five years tax free? (I know there are limits)

Ahem. I see my outlaws (FARMERS) raging. They could not afford to buy it.

Is there much objection to outsiders buying land?

I hope there isn't.

It's a bloody disgrace is what it is

The most stupid tax rule (in relation to agriculture) ever made - but I don't really blame the government - there were farming organisations pushing hard for it

And I'm not sure farmers actually realise it yet

Nekarsulm

As far as I know, the reasoning behind it is to ultimately encourage transfer l and to more
Productive younger farmers.

ganmo

Nekarsulm wrote: »

As far as I know, the reasoning behind it is to ultimately encourage transfer l and to more
Productive younger farmers.

ya that was the intention but its open to ppl to speculate on land and earn a nice income from it. basically bringing back the landlord class

Buford T. Justice XIX

ganmo wrote: »

ya that was the intention but its open to ppl to speculate on land and earn a nice income from it. basically bringing back the landlord class

The landlord class is coming back anyway.

Instead of one landlord and many tenants, we will have many landlords and one tenant.

Panch18

Nekarsulm wrote: »

As far as I know, the reasoning behind it is to ultimately encourage transfer l and to more
Productive younger farmers.

Well that was the "thought" behind it

In reality it is going to create a tenant farmer system again - much like the UK

All of the land around us sold in the past 12 months has been bought by Coolmore - and what they haven't bought has been purchased has been purchased by local businessmen and leased immediately.

In what kind of f##ked up universe does it make sense to give a guy a tax free income for doing zero work and with zero risk whilst putting all of the risk onto the person leasing, who is also doing all of the work. And then has to hand back the place to the leasor at the end, often with the place in a lot better shape than it was initially given out

It is absolute insanity and needs amending asap

Nekarsulm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

What's the story when some neighbour/stranger buys land next to yours.

And lets it out for five years tax free? (I know there are limits)

Ahem. I see my outlaws (FARMERS) raging. They could not afford to buy it.

Is there much objection to outsiders buying land?

I hope there isn't.

To be fair, Spanish Eyes, if they couldn't afford to buy it, they couldn't afford to buy it, be it a neighbour or a stranger bidding against them.
And if the buyer decides to rent it out, well that's their business, no ones else's.
And even if they buy it for, let us say, 8000 Euro per acre, and rent it out tax free at 200 euro per acre, thats only between 3 and 4.5% return on investment (depending on tax band they are in) so its hardly a repeat of the 1700/1800's scenario of an unjust landlord rack-renting a starving population.

Panch18

Nekarsulm wrote: »

To be fair, Spanish Eyes, if they couldn't afford to buy it, they couldn't afford to buy it, be it a neighbour or a stranger bidding against them.
And if the buyer decides to rent it out, well that's their business, no ones else's.
And even if they buy it for, let us say, 8000 Euro per acre, and rent it out tax free at 200 euro per acre, thats only between 3 and 4.5% return on investment (depending on tax band they are in) so its hardly a repeat of the 1700/1800's scenario of an unjust landlord rack-renting a starving population.

Seriously Nerarsulm???

Open your eyes man.

This tax free treatment of leasing land puts the returns on the same level as renting out property

Nekarsulm

But thats all well and good until YOU want to sell a bit of land, and find that new regulations have been brought in to restrict sale to 1) Native born and resident Irish people, and 2) Active farmers only. Then you'd be crying because your land is only attracting half the number of bids you expected.
And anyone investing in any other type of commercial property would be aiming for 8 to 9% return at a minimum.

If the current tax regimen were changed (and it could at the stroke of a pen) then the land owner would jig up the rental price by 20% to protect his investment income. Basic market econimics.

Edit: I'll give you an example. If I were to buy a 3 bed semi in Cavan town, and they are available for 70,000 Euro, I could rent it for between 450 to 500 Euro per month. That's north of 11% return. That would equate to 800 Euro annual rent for each acre purchased at 8000 Euro.

Panch18

Nekarsulm wrote: »

But thats all well and good until YOU want to sell a bit of land, and find that new regulations have been brought in to restrict sale to 1) Native born and resident Irish people, and 2) Active farmers only. Then you'd be crying because your land is only attracting half the number of bids you expected.
And anyone investing in any other type of commercial property would be aiming for 8 to 9% return at a minimum.

If the current tax regimen were changed (and it could at the stroke of a pen) then the land owner would jig up the rental price by 20% to protect his investment income. Basic market econimics.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever

Native born resident irish farmers??? seriously? There is nothing to suggest that's pie in the sky regulations like that will ever be introduced in this country - and even if they were what's to there to stop them being introduced in other property or investment forms

as for talk of 8-9% return on other investments - take off your 50%+ income tax from it and suddenly tax free income land is more than attractive as an investment

ganmo

Panch18 wrote: »

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever

Native born resident irish farmers??? seriously? There is nothing to suggest that's pie in the sky regulations like that will ever be introduced in this country - and even if they were what's to there to stop them being introduced in other property or investment forms

as for talk of 8-9% return on other investments - take off your 50%+ income tax from it and suddenly tax free income land is more than attractive as an investment

there were such regulations in poland when they entered the eu but I they had to phase them out as part of entering the Eu

Nekarsulm

So whats your solution, Panch?
Are you seriously advocating MORE taxation on land rental income?
Dangerous road to go down, a government suddenly realises there is a fortune of tax to be gathered from land ownership.
So, you abandon the attractivness of a 5 year lease, and you're back to the Con-Acre again. The tenant has no security or tenure, and the owner is chopping and changing tenant for a few extra euro and the land is dis-improving all the time.

Panch18

Nekarsulm wrote: »

But thats all well and good until YOU want to sell a bit of land, and find that new regulations have been brought in to restrict sale to 1) Native born and resident Irish people, and 2) Active farmers only. Then you'd be crying because your land is only attracting half the number of bids you expected.
And anyone investing in any other type of commercial property would be aiming for 8 to 9% return at a minimum.

If the current tax regimen were changed (and it could at the stroke of a pen) then the land owner would jig up the rental price by 20% to protect his investment income. Basic market econimics.

Edit: I'll give you an example. If I were to buy a 3 bed semi in Cavan town, and they are available for 70,000 Euro, I could rent it for between 450 to 500 Euro per month. That's north of 11% return. That would equate to 800 Euro annual rent for each acre purchased at 8000 Euro.

firstly if you can get that kind of return on a house then you should buy as many as you can as fast as you can, because very soon that will have shot up in price. as an aside I think there is a lot of price upside in some of these properties in country towns.

Anyway taking your numbers into account 450 a month for 12 months is 5,400 per annum less property tax, idle periods and repairs and I think that 4,500 is probably a realistic income. Tax then on this @ 51% brings the income down to 49% of it or 2,200 approx. after tax. you also have the hassle of dealing with tenants (and from experience it can be the biggest pain in the ass you've ever had)

now a 10 acre field costing the same as the house - renting for 200 an acre (going for a lot more in our area but then the price is higher).

10 by 200 is 2000 euro tax free income, and no hassle of dealing with tenants, plumbers, electricians or any other problem that comes up. a 5 year lease and you don't even have to look at the place if you don't want to.

Panch18

Nekarsulm wrote: »

So whats your solution, Panch?
Are you seriously advocating MORE taxation on land rental income?
Dangerous road to go down, a government suddenly realises there is a fortune of tax to be gathered from land ownership.
So, you abandon the attractivness of a 5 year lease, and you're back to the Con-Acre again. The tenant has no security or tenure, and the owner is chopping and changing tenant for a few extra euro and the land is dis-improving all the time.

Well 1 simple solution is to limit the tax free leasing to people who have presented farm accounts to revenue for each of the last 10 years - or basically limit it to farmers

Secondly - do away with it for leasing altogether - and make it available for farm partnerships or share farming. That way the leasor is getting some little bit of benefit from it as well.

The current structure is ridiculously weighted towards the land owner - when you think about it a young lad taking a huge financial risk, workings his balls off for 10-15 years to pay rent and, if he's doing well enough, to pay tax, whilst the landowner sits back and takes zero risk, does no work and reaps all the rewards - pure madness. And the land is still theirs at the end of the lease!!

And what's going to happen in reality is that once the current land owners die then their children will simply continue to lease out the land for tax free income, a nice top up on top of a job with out doing anything

This isn't freeing up land - it's just going to ensure that land will change hands even less, as the people who have left the land will hold on to it, and idiots of farmers paying them tax free income

freedominacup

Panch18 wrote: »

Well 1 simple solution is to limit the tax free leasing to people who have presented farm accounts to revenue for each of the last 10 years - or basically limit it to farmers

Secondly - do away with it for leasing altogether - and make it available for farm partnerships or share farming. That way the leasor is getting some little bit of benefit from it as well.

The current structure is ridiculously weighted towards the land owner - when you think about it a young lad taking a huge financial risk, workings his balls off for 10-15 years to pay rent and, if he's doing well enough, to pay tax, whilst the landowner sits back and takes zero risk, does no work and reaps all the rewards - pure madness. And the land is still theirs at the end of the lease!!

And what's going to happen in reality is that once the current land owners die then their children will simply continue to lease out the land for tax free income, a nice top up on top of a job with out doing anything

This isn't freeing up land - it's just going to ensure that land will change hands even less, as the people who have left the land will hold on to it, and idiots of farmers paying them tax free income

I really didn't think you had a point but now I see where you're coming from. Your first solution has some merit but the second one is messy and seeing as it's Ireland we're talking about there'll be ten ways of working around it in a month to ensure rents are good and high. One solution would be the French system which seems to facilitate long,20 years plus, leases at low rents. This gives farmers a chance to make a return without being too exposed in low price years.

There have been a few sales similar to the ones you outlined around here also in the past couple of years. We were just talking about one of them today. Sale completed last Autumn. Transfer only completed in the past month. Former owner just starting a seven year lease on it this month and has bought a piece of ground bounding his home farm and is in negotiations on another piece of land bounding his home farm. These rules are certainly benefiting this particular farmer.

Dawggone

freedominacup wrote: »

I really didn't think you had a point but now I see where you're coming from. Your first solution has some merit but the second one is messy and seeing as it's Ireland we're talking about there'll be ten ways of working around it in a month to ensure rents are good and high. One solution would be the French system which seems to facilitate long,20 years plus, leases at low rents. This gives farmers a chance to make a return without being too exposed in low price years.

There have been a few sales similar to the ones you outlined around here also in the past couple of years.

French system wouldn't work.
Totally in favour of the farmer...couldn't have that...

J.O. Farmer

Panch18 wrote: »

This isn't freeing up land - it's just going to ensure that land will change hands even less, as the people who have left the land will hold on to it, and idiots of farmers paying them tax free income

It's incentive for older farmers with no one interested in taking over to retire. Whether it's working is another story.

Your assuming that the next generation aren't interested in making a quick buck by selling off. In the situation you describe there may well be several people with their own families and getting all them to agree leasing out is a good idea might be easier said than done.

The fair deal might see places sold off too if the next generation aren't bothered about the farm and/ or minding elderly parents.

The rules around leasing may well encourage investors but at least the farmer has some security with a 5 or 10 year lease. Is there any evidence of it driving up the price of land to buy as if the young guy can't afford to buy it in the first place he might get a chance to lease it.

Username John

I suppose I should declare at the outset that I'm the devil incarnate in this thread - as we leased out some of our ground on a 5 year (tax free) lease...

Panch - I don't know if your arguments are right or not in the long term, not sure I agree but I'm biased too I know the tax free rule benefits me, so I did it.

But if you say colmore are buying all the ground around you, and pricing you outa the market - have you done the sums for them buying you out and you setting up elsewhere?
If they paid you well over the odds, you might be able to get a better, bigger place in another location? I know it might mean moving counties, but it might be something worth considering... ?

MF290

Coolmore are hardly a prime example of this. They are buying land for hell of a lot more than 8k and they're not renting it out, thought they're farming it?
The far bigger issue is buying land as a way to pass on inheritance tax free.
Even if land was at 5-6k an acre there is very little scope for young farmers starting out to buy land,with the current returns, unless they're adding to an already subastantial lot.
I don't see much wrong with more farmers working off leased ground other than the fact if you were to add the cost of rent into the teagasc figures it would paint a grim realistic picture of farming, in particular beef and tillage.

Nekarsulm

I see where you're coming from Panch, but I think you are proposing a nationwide solution to combat a localised situation.
The less government interference there is in a free economy, the better, because the law of unintended consequence always strikes. look at Section 50 tax relief: estates of houses built in townlands where there hadn't been half a dozen houses built in the previous 100 years, now lying empty and vandalised.
Why should the land owner be prohibited from making an income from his asset?
Why so sore about someone earning money while "not lifting a finger"?
I took my own advise and bought in a county town, and so far, so good. Should I have bought land and rented it out instead?

key_maker

even allowing for the tax free status the yield on letting out land right now is terrible compared to other commercial property or residential property , as for this nonesense about the tenant taking all the risk , the landlord takes just as much risk , there are no real consequences for not paying rent in this country , even you are evicted , ( beit a residential or commercial tenant ) , its not like the landlord will be compensated for loss of income , its a complete myth that tenants have no protection in this country

land prices are only going one way in the next decade and thats down , subsidies are the only thing keeping a floor under farm land in much of the country and anyone with an ounce of wit knows subsidies are going to be reduced going forward , farm land has completely decoupled from the rest of the property market and in reality was the sector of the property market which went the craziest during the boom , land is cheaper in 2016 than it was in 2012 , housing is about 50% more expensive in dublin , cork or galway city

im thirty nine and i dont believe land will average twenty grand an acre again this century , what happened up to 2007 was japanese style bubble territory

Sam Kade

Panch18 wrote: »

Seriously Nerarsulm???

Open your eyes man.

This tax free treatment of leasing land puts the returns on the same level as renting out property

If it's so great why don't you jump on the bandwagon? You seem to have a serious gripe towards farmers leasing out land tax free.

key_maker

i want to declare that i made a fair bit of money on kerry , glanbia , paddy power and ryanair shares from 2009 to 2012 , with the proceeds from this investment , i then bought farm land in january 2013 and have it leased out for ten years to a dairy farmer for 200 euro an acre tax free

i wake up every day with deep regret that i didnt instead buy two houses in dublin in the summer of 2012 , i actually spent two months that summer looking at property in dublin 7 and dublin 9 , it was an appallingly bad bit of business but the land was in the family a good few years ago and sentimentality got the better of me , ( i paid 8300 per acre ) farm land in ireland will average around 5 k and acre within a decade , im absolutely certain of it , this doesnt mean farming has bleak future , in fact , its cheaper land which allow the industry to grow properly

i intend to break the lease after the fifth year ( both i and the tenant have this option ) , like i said , it was a boneheaded choice instead of buying in the economic engine of the country

Welding Rod

Panch18 wrote: »

Nekarsulm wrote: »

But thats all well and good until YOU want to sell a bit of land, and find that new regulations have been brought in to restrict sale to 1) Native born and resident Irish people, and 2) Active farmers only. Then you'd be crying because your land is only attracting half the number of bids you expected.
And anyone investing in any other type of commercial property would be aiming for 8 to 9% return at a minimum.

If the current tax regimen were changed (and it could at the stroke of a pen) then the land owner would jig up the rental price by 20% to protect his investment income. Basic market econimics.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever

Native born resident irish farmers??? seriously? There is nothing to suggest that's pie in the sky regulations like that will ever be introduced in this country - and even if they were what's to there to stop them being introduced in other property or investment forms

as for talk of 8-9% return on other investments - take off your 50%+ income tax from it and suddenly tax free income land is more than attractive as an investment

You can rent out a room in your gaff tax free!!!

roosky

Panch18 wrote:

It is absolute insanity and needs amending asap

Should have included the clause that land needs to be owned for 10 years or in the family activly farmed for that time thus allowing older farmers or farmers with other employment to lease it out and stop big shots buying to lease

Farrell

roosky wrote: »

Should have included the clause that land needs to be owned for 10 years or in the family activly farmed for that time thus allowing older farmers or farmers with other employment to lease it out and stop big shots buying to lease

It's there a clause with inheritance that you must have farmed or leased for 5/6 years before selling or you have a tax to pay

rangler1

Leasing as to be made more attractive than the old conacre system if you want land released to young farmers.
If an older farmer has a good easy managed farm there's few inducements for him to hand it on at the moment apart from the tax concessons.......don't see too many well minded rented farms around anyway.
It's like the housing crisis at the moment.....there's a proportion of the homeless that'd show no respect for a house if they got them, even though the taxpayers'd be paying their rent

ganmo

rangler1 wrote: »

Leasing as to be made more attractive than the old conacre system if you want land released to young farmers.
If an older farmer has a good easy managed farm there's few inducements for him to hand it on at the moment apart from the tax concessons.......don't see too many well minded rented farms around anyway.
It's like the housing crisis at the moment.....there's a proportion of the homeless that'd show no respect for a house if they got them, even though the taxpayers'd be paying their rent

Would leasing(even without tax incentives ) not be more attractive than conacre once ya had a half decent lease agreement.

Tenant can't plan for next year and landlord doesn't have to search for a new tenant every year

Buford T. Justice XIX

ganmo wrote: »

Would leasing(even without tax incentives ) not be more attractive than conacre once ya had a half decent lease agreement.

Tenant can't plan for next year and landlord doesn't have to search for a new tenant every year

I've seen land leased for a number of years with the rent paid on time for the first few years but nothing paid for the last year and the land absolutely stripped of P&K with no slurry applied. Nothing happens the guy leasing the land because it isn't worth the trouble and very little of the rent due would actually be paid in the end.

In conacre, you get paid every year up front?

rangler1

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I've seen land leased for a number of years with the rent paid on time for the first few years but nothing paid for the last year and the land absolutely stripped of P&K with no slurry applied. Nothing happens the guy leasing the land because it isn't worth the trouble and very little of the rent due would actually be paid in the end.

In conacre, you get paid every year up front?

I was talking to some retired farmers on sunday, one woman told me that her tenant stopped paying when her husband died......, as if she hadn't enough grief,
The other couple had to use some of their SFP to pay their tenant in a tillage profit sharing enterprise last year and they're dreading what the outcome will be this year

Cattlepen

Panch18 wrote: »

Well 1 simple solution is to limit the tax free leasing to people who have presented farm accounts to revenue for each of the last 10 years - or basically limit it to farmers

Secondly - do away with it for leasing altogether - and make it available for farm partnerships or share farming. That way the leasor is getting some little bit of benefit from it as well.

The current structure is ridiculously weighted towards the land owner - when you think about it a young lad taking a huge financial risk, workings his balls off for 10-15 years to pay rent and, if he's doing well enough, to pay tax, whilst the landowner sits back and takes zero risk, does no work and reaps all the rewards - pure madness. And the land is still theirs at the end of the lease!!

And what's going to happen in reality is that once the current land owners die then their children will simply continue to lease out the land for tax free income, a nice top up on top of a job with out doing anything



Well I worked my balls off for 25 years, took the financial risks and got the money to buy land that I now have leased out to a happy tenant. I would like to think I deserve the tax break. Welcome to the real world. Business works that way. Some succeed, some fail. These investors that apall you so much may be buying with their own or borrowed money. Either way there is a risk carried by them.
Also, did you inherit or buy your land yourself????
If you inherited you have an enormous sense of entitlement to say investors shouldn't have tax breaks

ganmo

Cattlepen wrote: »

Well I worked my balls off for 25 years, took the financial risks and got the money to buy land that I now have leased out to a happy tenant. I would like to think I deserve the tax break. Welcome to the real world. Business works that way. Some succeed, some fail. These investors that apall you so much may be buying with their own or borrowed money. Either way there is a risk carried by them.
Also, did you inherit or buy your land yourself????
If you inherited you have an enormous sense of entitlement to say investors shouldn't have tax breaks

if the tax break wasn't there would you have sold the land?
It all stems back to the attachment to the land

Panch18

Username John wrote: »

I suppose I should declare at the outset that I'm the devil incarnate in this thread - as we leased out some of our ground on a 5 year (tax free) lease...

Panch - I don't know if your arguments are right or not in the long term, not sure I agree but I'm biased too I know the tax free rule benefits me, so I did it.

But if you say colmore are buying all the ground around you, and pricing you outa the market - have you done the sums for them buying you out and you setting up elsewhere?
If they paid you well over the odds, you might be able to get a better, bigger place in another location? I know it might mean moving counties, but it might be something worth considering... ?

sorry I shouldn't have even mentioned Coolmore - different topic altogether
It's more the other purchasers that are non farmers that I am talking about

And you are dead right to avail of the tax break, its there to be availed of and is the best money you'll make from the land.

I am questioning the tax break itself - not those that are using it

Panch18

Sam Kade wrote: »

If it's so great why don't you jump on the bandwagon? You seem to have a serious gripe towards farmers leasing out land tax free.

I have no grip towards farmers leasing out land - to avail of tax free income, its the smart thing to do

I am trying to discuss the merits of having the tax break in the first place and am stating that it will actually have a 2 fold exact opposite impact to what might have been the initial desired impact of it

Panch18

Cattlepen wrote: »

Well I worked my balls off for 25 years, took the financial risks and got the money to buy land that I now have leased out to a happy tenant. I would like to think I deserve the tax break. Welcome to the real world. Business works that way. Some succeed, some fail. These investors that apall you so much may be buying with their own or borrowed money. Either way there is a risk carried by them.
Also, did you inherit or buy your land yourself????
If you inherited you have an enormous sense of entitlement to say investors shouldn't have tax breaks

Tell me why exactly you think you are entitled to such a tax break??

Panch18

Cattlepen wrote: »

Well I worked my balls off for 25 years, took the financial risks and got the money to buy land that I now have leased out to a happy tenant. I would like to think I deserve the tax break. Welcome to the real world. Business works that way. Some succeed, some fail. These investors that apall you so much may be buying with their own or borrowed money. Either way there is a risk carried by them.
Also, did you inherit or buy your land yourself????
If you inherited you have an enormous sense of entitlement to say investors shouldn't have tax breaks

And just to clarify - there was 85 owned acres here in 1979. We have been paying for land purchase every single year since then and have 300 owned and paid for now - so this is no gripe about missing out on land or anything like that. Also we only have an additional 50 acres rented - 25 on a conacre basis and 25 on a 7 year lease - so this topic really has no financial impact on me at all

This is simply an effort to make people realise that the current system is screwing them (unless you are one of the smart ones like yourself and availing of it)

Sam Kade

Panch18 wrote: »

I have no grip towards farmers leasing out land - to avail of tax free income, its the smart thing to do

I am trying to discuss the merits of having the tax break in the first place and am stating that it will actually have a 2 fold exact opposite impact to what might have been the initial desired impact of it

The tax break is to encourage older farmers to lease out their farms it came in soon after the early retirement was scrapped.

Panch18

Sam Kade wrote: »

The tax break is to encourage older farmers to lease out their farms it came in soon after the early retirement was scrapped.

The retirement scheme was a much better way of having land transferred to the younger generation for a number of reasons - firstly because a son/daughter was eligible, this is a huge problem with the current system. I am sure that everybody here knows a family where the auld fella is desperately clinging onto the land and not passing it over to the son. The current system completely excludes a father/son lease. Secondly it kept the relief entirely within the farming sector as the person leasing had to be a qualified farmer or they were ineligible

Cattlepen

Panch18 wrote: »

Tell me why exactly you think you are entitled to such a tax break??

Because I am doing what the scheme is designed for and leasing it to a younger farmer. But if it was some other tenant that was taking a punt I would have no objection to that either irrespective of age

Cattlepen

ganmo wrote: »

if the tax break wasn't there would you have sold the land?
It all stems back to the attachment to the land

No. I wouldn't have sold the land at the time I leased it as the market was dead. I would have no problem selling the land if it was prudent or I was making a handsome profit. Buying or selling land is no different than buying or selling any other commodity.

Cattlepen

Panch18 wrote: »

And just to clarify - there was 85 owned acres here in 1979. We have been paying for land purchase every single year since then and have 300 owned and paid for now - so this is no gripe about missing out on land or anything like that. Also we only have an additional 50 acres rented - 25 on a conacre basis and 25 on a 7 year lease - so this topic really has no financial impact on me at all

This is simply an effort to make people realise that the current system is screwing them (unless you are one of the smart ones like yourself and availing of it)

Congratulations. That is very impressive. I genuinely mean that. Many people would like to be able to copy you.
But I don't see why this tax break should be just made available to "proven" farmers. If they use their capital to buy land that they lease they should be entitled to the break as much as any auld farmer. And I can say that Coz I am one

tractorporn

Panch18 wrote:

The retirement scheme was a much better way of having land transferred to the younger generation for a number of reasons

I know of 4 farmers within a stones throw of here who all availed of the early retirement scheme and are still running the farms. Their sons/daughters are still in the same position they where before their father "retired". At least round here now there is land available, which we have availed of, which was never available before the tax breaks.

kowtow

I'd be inclined to encourage the leasing tax break... anything which makes land more liquid is good for new entrants.. and investment buyers will be more rational (quicker) sellers than family farms when interest rates rise which will help keep land prices closer to an economic level.

But with one big caveat.. which I think has largely been covered in recent budgets.. the active farmer rule must apply. I wouldn't be in favour of the ten years or similar, I haven't got ten years farming accounts but I still get covered in sh##t in the parlour twice a day and new blood is good for farming.

Edit: what I would do is tighten up the SFP rules so it can't be claimed by the landlord. Difficult I know but the taxpayer would be aghast if they realised what passed for normal practice... it's akin to fostering out a child and claiming the child benefit.

Timmaay

tractorporn wrote: »

I know of 4 farmers within a stones throw of here who all availed of the early retirement scheme and are still running the farms. Their sons/daughters are still in the same position they where before their father "retired". At least round here now there is land available, which we have availed of, which was never available before the tax breaks.

Is that basically benefit fraud so? And if so it's your duty to report them ha...

tractorporn

Timmaay wrote:

Is that basically benefit fraud so? And if so it's your duty to report them ha...

Never s**te on your on own doorstep!!!