Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Messy farm inheritance issue

Options
1…1112131517

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackbox wrote: »
    If its not able to pay the interest, its not making a profit.

    The interest isn't the issue, that can be written off. its the massive capital repayments that are the problem. Of course a farm could be making a profit and not be able to service a massive debt. Someone could be pulling in 10k profit a year from the farm but that's not going to service a 30k per year debt.

    blackbox wrote: »

    If people really want to leave all their assets to one child, the only fair way to do it is to only have one child.

    Its not all their assets, they could give them a site each and I'm sure there is cash in the background too. You can't look on a farm the same as you would on say a large cash inheritance or even assets like a number of rental properties. Dividing up a farm is the end of the farm, buying people out is neither fair nor feasible. People need to get away from looking at the value of a farm, it's meaningless. If the parents gave 50k to each of the sons its likely worth more to them as a farm worth 700k is to the person receiving it as you are never ever going to earn a fraction of the land value from the business. You could very well just break even every year even without the loan.

    Expecting the daughter to buy out the brothers means she will spend decades spending any cent the farm makes and likely off farm income paying her brothers, she may never make a cent on the farm herself and they have gained massively. It's a terrible and backward idea.


  • Options
    #423
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    wrangler wrote: »
    That's the reason I said that she should get the farm as compensation, Grand parents childminding would also be an advantage.
    She can take over the farm and do the green cert after, she'll get back teh stamp duty when she as it done

    Follow it through, would you promote a person whose energys were divided between work and a family farm/pub/shop? I would rather have the former


  • Options
    #424
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wrangler wrote: »
    she'll get back teh stamp duty when she as it done

    Just as an aside, the stamp duty is only a minor reason for doing the green cert. You have to be under 35 to get the exemption and the stamp duty is only 1% anyway (not nothing but not a major amount either).

    The biggest advantage of the green cert is being able to avail of agri relief on CAT as this is a vastly bigger benefit than the stamp duty reliefs.


  • Options
    #425
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Follow it through, would you promote a person whose energys were divided between work and a family farm/pub/shop? I would rather have the former

    She shouldn't get the farm if she's going to stay working, she's no better entitled than the siblings that have jobs then.
    Parents should sell/farm or whatever and enjoy it as they wish in that case and the remainder split when they're finished with it.
    If you work on a farm all your life, you're entitled to do as you wish with it at the end, you owe no one anything


  • Options
    #426
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    Bentlee Kind Teapot wrote: »
    Just as an aside, the stamp duty is only a minor reason for doing the green cert. You have to be under 35 to get the exemption and the stamp duty is only 1% anyway (not nothing but not a major amount either).

    The biggest advantage of the green cert is being able to avail of agri relief on CAT as this is a vastly bigger benefit than the stamp duty reliefs.

    Your parents can give you €3.5m worth of agri assets tax free, not many farms are worth more than that and that allowance is not dependent on the green cert.
    You do have to farm it or lease it to a farmer for six years after


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wrangler wrote: »
    She shouldn't get the farm if she's going to stay working, she's no better entitled than the siblings that have jobs then.
    Parents should sell/farm or whatever and enjoy it as they wish in that case and the remainder split when they're finished with it.
    If you work on a farm all your life, you're entitled to do as you wish with it at the end, you owe no one anything

    Its a good job the vast majority would not hold this opinion. Working off farm is vital for the vast majority of farmers, if you think otherwise you haven't a clue. Her brothers dont work on the farm and have shown no interest in it while the daughter has massive interest and works on it, this is why she is the one who should get the farm.
    wrangler wrote: »
    Your parents can give you €3.5m worth of agri assets tax free, not many farms are worth more than that and that allowance is not dependent on the green cert.
    You do have to farm it or lease it to a farmer for six years after

    Yes, it is fully dependant on the green cert, it's the main reason I did the green cert. I am able to get some other advantages too like top ups and grants if I want to avail of them but the green cert is required to avail of agri relief (unless you rent out the farm on a long term lease to someone who qualifies).


  • Options
    #428
    roosky
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭roosky


    The last group of comments discussed the green cert being a issue, she has the required agricultural education as her college degree and off farm work are in the agricultural sector, id sooner not give out her job title as Its not my place to do so and I would sooner keep some level of anonymity on the thread....thanks for all opinions


  • Options
    #429
    minerleague
    Registered Users Posts: 1,043 ✭✭✭minerleague


    roosky wrote: »
    The last group of comments discussed the green cert being a issue, she has the required agricultural education as her college degree and off farm work are in the agricultural sector, id sooner not give out her job title as Its not my place to do so and I would sooner keep some level of anonymity on the thread....thanks for all opinions

    your friend will have to be the one who comes up with a workable solution as she is the person looking to change the parents mind. what about limited company( 20% to each 2 parents 3 children Shares only traded inside) maybe too complicated for 80 acres. Times have changed in that children who moved away from farm years ago often had a better life( cheaper housing, jobs for life, good pension etc) compared to today, coupled to increase in land values means giving farm completely to one child may not be as common from now on. Is the farm to be physically split? now or in will?


  • Options
    #430
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    Bentlee Kind Teapot wrote: »
    Its a good job the vast majority would not hold this opinion. Working off farm is vital for the vast majority of farmers, if you think otherwise you haven't a clue. Her brothers dont work on the farm and have shown no interest in it while the daughter has massive interest and works on it, this is why she is the one who should get the farm.



    Yes, it is fully dependant on the green cert, it's the main reason I did the green cert. I am able to get some other advantages too like top ups and grants if I want to avail of them but the green cert is required to avail of agri relief (unless you rent out the farm on a long term lease to someone who qualifies).

    I didn't say she shouldn't work off farm, I said she was no better entitled than her siblings. 25% of the farm would do the same job as in satisfying her graw for farming and the rest would be a huge back shove to the others. You cannot ignore the chance of a mortgage free home each for your family in these times.
    You mightn't agree with my opinion but it's the same opinion as the parents and that is all that matters


  • Options
    #431
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wrangler wrote: »
    I didn't say she shouldn't work off farm, I said she was no better entitled than her siblings. 25% of the farm would do the same job as in satisfying her graw for farming and the rest would be a huge back shove to the others. You cannot ignore the chance of a mortgage free home each for your family in these times.
    You mightn't agree with my opinion but it's the same opinion as the parents and that is all that matters

    The horse has most likely bolted at this stage as they have now suggested it but it's a terrible decision by the parents. 20 acres is only going to cost you money, at least with 80 you could make some money on it (once you weren't servicing debt).

    I would personally not want to see the farm split up even if I was not interested in farming it so I would opt out of a share if I was one of the brothers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    Bentlee Kind Teapot wrote: »
    The horse has most likely bolted at this stage as they have now suggested it but it's a terrible decision by the parents. 20 acres is only going to cost you money, at least with 80 you could make some money on it (once you weren't servicing debt).

    I would personally not want to see the farm split up even if I was not interested in farming it so I would opt out of a share if I was one of the brothers.

    I was involved in a messy will years ago, trying to be a referee.
    One thing I was surprised at was the fact if one brother opted out in favour of another, For Capital Aquisition Tax purposes it would be treated as a brother to brother gift and the allowance is only 325000 worth of land, I can't remember what the allowances were then but the guy taking it over had to pay €100000 at the time.
    I don't know how it finished but it didn't go to the courts which is what it was looking like for a while.

    On another note
    What amuses me is that the childless couples, bachelors, spinsters are all prone to leaving big farms to people that have loads of land already, a friend with 300 acres has just got over 100 acres and others seem to be queueing up to be giving him theirs


  • Options
    #433
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    wrangler wrote: »
    What amuses me is that the childless couples, bachelors, spinsters are all prone to leaving big farms to people that have loads of land already, a friend with 300 acres has just got over 100 acres and others seem to be queueing up to be giving him theirs

    "Success is the father of many children". You wouldnt give your most precious possession to a complete loser?


  • Options
    #434
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wrangler wrote: »
    I was involved in a messy will years ago, trying to be a referee.
    One thing I was surprised at was the fact if one brother opted out in favour of another, For Capital Aquisition Tax purposes it would be treated as a brother to brother gift and the allowance is only 325000 worth of land, I can't remember what the allowances were then but the guy taking it over had to pay €100000 at the time.
    I don't know how it finished but it didn't go to the courts which is what it was looking like for a while.

    I cant see how that would be the case as I have a fairly good understanding of CAT and that does not align well with how it works. The brother would never have taken possession so it could not be considered anything other than from the parents to their child. In fact CAT specifically watches out for things that are gifted/inherited and then immediately regifted/inherited and if there isnt considerable time between the second gifting they consider it as being from the original person to the final person. i.e. if A gifts to B and a few weeks later B gifts to C, revenue consider that a gift from A to C.

    Also farms should not be left to inheritance they should be transferred while everyone is living so that would remove any doubt if someone wanted to opt out.


  • Options
    #435
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    Bentlee Kind Teapot wrote: »
    I cant see how that would be the case as I have a fairly good understanding of CAT and that does not align well with how it works. The brother would never have taken possession so it could not be considered anything other than from the parents to their child. In fact CAT specifically watches out for things that are gifted/inherited and then immediately regifted/inherited and if there isnt considerable time between the second gifting they consider it as being from the original person to the final person. i.e. if A gifts to B and a few weeks later B gifts to C, revenue consider that a gift from A to C.

    Also farms should not be left to inheritance they should be transferred while everyone is living so that would remove any doubt if someone wanted to opt out.

    As I said I don't know how it finished, we got them together, which took over a year, and after a lot of hours wrote it down and let them off to the solicitors.
    That was mentioned in the row though


  • Options
    #436
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    "Success is the father of many children". You wouldnt give your most precious possession to a complete loser?

    He's older than I am, plenty of younger farmers would've appreciated it


  • Options
    #437
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    wrangler wrote: »
    He's older than I am, plenty of younger farmers would've appreciated it

    I am sure they would.


  • Options
    #438
    Who2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Who2


    wrangler wrote: »
    He's older than I am, plenty of younger farmers would've appreciated it

    Some would others would run a mile with the tax bill they would end up with.


  • Options
    #439
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    Who2 wrote: »
    Some would others would run a mile with the tax bill they would end up with.

    Sell enough to pay the tax, you'd still have 70% of it


  • Options
    #440
    doc22
    Registered Users Posts: 870 ✭✭✭doc22


    Who2 wrote: »
    Some would others would run a mile with the tax bill they would end up with.

    Tax of less than a 30th of the market value, they'd come out alright from it


  • Options
    #441
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    doc22 wrote: »
    Tax of less than a 30th of the market value, they'd come out alright from it

    Forgot that it'd be only valued at 10% of it's value


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    JeffKenna
    Registered Users Posts: 4,535 ✭✭✭JeffKenna


    Bentlee Kind Teapot wrote: »
    I cant see how that would be the case as I have a fairly good understanding of CAT and that does not align well with how it works. The brother would never have taken possession so it could not be considered anything other than from the parents to their child. In fact CAT specifically watches out for things that are gifted/inherited and then immediately regifted/inherited and if there isnt considerable time between the second gifting they consider it as being from the original person to the final person. i.e. if A gifts to B and a few weeks later B gifts to C, revenue consider that a gift from A to C.

    Also farms should not be left to inheritance they should be transferred while everyone is living so that would remove any doubt if someone wanted to opt out.

    I don't think you can opt out of inheritance but stipulate it needs to go to someone else which seems to have happened. You can opt out but it goes back into the initial pot. If there were 3 brothers and one brother gave up his inheritance in favour of another then it would be a gift between those two brothers. If the brother gave up his inheritance with no stipulations then his share would go from the parents to the other two brothers.


  • Options
    #443
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    JeffKenna wrote: »
    I don't think you can opt out of inheritance but stipulate it needs to go to someone else which seems to have happened. You can opt out but it goes back into the initial pot. If there were 3 brothers and one brother gave up his inheritance in favour of another then it would be a gift between those two brothers. If the brother gave up his inheritance with no stipulations then his share would go from the parents to the other two brothers.

    If you stipulate it's a seen as a gift, you can however decline an inheritance or part of it and then it is put back into the will and is dealt within the framework of the will

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Options
    #444
    K.G.
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭K.G.


    The longer im going im going the more i think we have too many hangups about selling land.unless there is a clear successor who invested in the business (by that i mean
    time and commitment ) and the keeping it intact is fundamental to it continuing,sale and division is the best way of dealing with the situation .there may be places that have been in family names for years but there s only one thing sure sooner or later its going to change.


  • Options
    #445
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    K.G. wrote: »
    The longer im going im going the more i think we have too many hangups about selling land.unless there is a clear successor who invested in the business (by that i mean
    time and commitment ) and the keeping it intact is fundamental to it continuing,sale and division is the best way of dealing with the situation .there may be places that have been in family names for years but there s only one thing sure sooner or later its going to change.

    I've really no near relatives and I'd be keen to give it to the tenants at the time to help to make them more viable, The OH, on the other hand, has loads of near relatives and ........
    So I suppose it'll depend on who is last person standing . It doesn't really worry me either way.


  • Options
    #446
    Who2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Who2


    wrangler wrote: »
    Forgot that it'd be only valued at 10% of it's value

    Not if he’s not a spouse


  • Options
    #447
    wrangler
    Registered Users Posts: 11,103 ✭✭✭✭wrangler


    Who2 wrote: »
    Not if he’s not a spouse

    I was sure that land was always valued at 10% of it's value if farmed on for six years,
    Is money allowed to be valued at 10% if it's specified in the will to be spent on land


  • Options
    #448
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Who2 wrote: »
    Not if he’s not a spouse

    If you meet the criteria of agri relief its valued at 10% (green cert, you have to farm the land for 6 years, 80% of your assets including cash have to be considered agri assets etc). I was under the impression myself that this was for parents to their children only but on reading again it does not appear to specific any relationship criteria.

    Spouses are totally exempt from CAT, you could hand your spouse a billion euro and they would pay no tax on it.


  • Options
    #449
    K.G.
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭K.G.


    wrangler wrote: »
    I've really no near relatives and I'd be keen to give it to the tenants at the time to help to make them more viable, The OH, on the other hand, has loads of near relatives and ........
    So I suppose it'll depend on who is last person standing . It doesn't really worry me either way.

    There was a man near us used to say"a penny left after you is bad management ".maybe you should just blow it


  • Options
    #450
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    K.G. wrote: »
    There was a man near us used to say"a penny left after you is bad management ".maybe you should just blow it

    I think that's the difference between both sides.

    One side is focused on building up and providing an increased security and base to develop for the next generation.

    The other side seems, to me, to be focused on providing security and assets for today.

    I don't see myself owning land, all I have is a chance to provide a living for today and try to develop what's there to provide a better chance for the next generation to do the same. The land is just in trust with me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    kevthegaff
    Registered Users Posts: 6,917 ✭✭✭kevthegaff


    I think if I started with zero and bought a farm I would have a different perspective than inheriting a farm from my parents. When inheriting I believe there is alot of unspoken rules you should try to keep. Why has your pare ts given it to u instead of spending it, their hoping it will be kept safe and passed along the generations as best as can


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement