Living in old family home.

If sibs 2,3 and 4 each sell his/her share to sib 1 for less than 25% of the fair market value, the Revenue people could see that as a gift between siblings. Which could attract CAT.

Your solicitor may be trying to tell you that to avoid tax complications, the place should be put on the market and sib 1 can go and bid for it. Another reason a solicitor might be telling you to put it on the market is because, in financial terms, it is sound advice.

You've sat in front of a solicitor and outlined a plan which will see you dispose of an asset for less than it's market value. The solicitor is fullfilling his/her professional responsibility in telling you that the place should be sold on the open market. Because sometimes a solicitor has to advise you against a course which is not in your best interests.

There is nothing in law to stop each of the sibs selling their 25% share to sib 1, just don't expect a solicitor to approve the plan.

The only issue I can see is the tax implication.

There are plenty of people living in their childhood home after buying out siblings.

Obviously the more siblings there are the more awkward it gets.

I would get the house valued by an estate agent, that way you will have written proof of market value and then sibling 1 can buy out the others at market rate. Once everything is at market rate it shouldn't trigger a tax liability other than the usual stamp duty.

Once under threshold CAT shouldn't be triggered for siblings 2/3/4 as they are just getting their inheritance as if a stranger was buying the house.

If sibling 1 needs a mortgage the bank will also look for a valuation from their approved panel. So the sale will have to be market rate.

The sibling can of course buy out the others, its been done in my family no issue

OP, who is currently the legal owner of the house? Is it (A) the deceased parent's estate or (B) siblings 1-4? That is, has the will been executed yet? If it hasn't, then I can certainly see where the solicitors are coming from - siblings 2-4 can not gift something they do not yet own. As part of the distribution of an estate, the only options for a property are joint ownership or sell and split the proceeds.

If that is the case, you need to proceed with the estate distribution first, meaning the siblings will be liable for CAT. When that is complete, siblings 1-4 can make a new arrangement.

If option (B) is the case and the siblings are the current legal owners, then you need to investigate why multiple solicitors believe it's not possible. You said you got multiple different opinions, but haven't posted any of them here. It's most certainly possible for a person to gift items to their sibling in a general sense. There are also plenty of specific scenarios where it may not be possible

You still haven't answered a critical question: who is currently the legal owner of the house?

Right, so the issue is likely what I said above: siblings 2-4 are attempting to gift something that they do not yet own. Complete the distribution of the will, then engage a solicitor to organise the sale to sibling 1. You can't skip over that part. As Peregrinus pointed out, there could be debts on the estate that may require sale of the house to clear. There could be an as-yet-unknown sibling 5 who only enters the picture at probate. Uncle X could contest the estate distribution. Any of these things and more could drastically change the scenario

Surely it's okay for siblings to agree to the sale of a family home to another sibling at a very slightly discounted price? The siblings don't have the hassle of paying estate agent selling fees (I understand entirely that a professional valuation is required) and it's also a small gesture of goodwill to the sibling who is buying.

There can be a lot of work clearing and cleaning a house for sale. It's very convenient to all parties if a family member buys out the other siblings' share.

Any thoughts?

I agree with what Clawhammer says.

There is a chance, though, that — depending on the value of the property and the amount of the discount being given to the purchasing sibling — between the cost of having a deed of arrangement prepared and executed, getting independent advice for all those involved, dealing with any resulting tax liability, etc, the cost of all this will outweigh the value of the discount, and that simply selling to the sibling concerned at full market value may be the cheapest option; it could be that this is what underlies the advice the family has received so far.

You can't state that the advice being given by a number of legal professionals is incorrect without knowing all of the facts. We are slowly seeing some more facts being disclosed but they are in no way the facts a solicitor would need to make a call on something like this.

Questions for the OP.

Is the executor one (or more) of the 4 siblings?

Has probate been applied for or granted yet?

I ask because I, as executor, extracted probate of my late mother's will as a personal applicant. It was a very straightforward estate, including the family home as the main asset. It was a little time consuming but also a rewarding experience. The beneficiaries were my siblings and myself.

With the prior agreement of the remaining siblings the house was subsequently sold to the remaining (5th) sibling at a price that could have been regarded as a little below market value. If any questions had arisen with Revenue I was quite confident that I, as executor, could justify the sale price based on the house needing modernisation, and also prices of similar properties in the area gleaned from the Property Price Register.

Once probate was extracted we had no difficulty with the sale / conveyance of the house from the estate to the 5th sibling.

There were two solicitors required, one for me as executor and one for the 5th sibling. One poster above suggested 3 to 5 solicitors would be needed. I believe that's not the case as you say all siblings in your instance are in agreement.

When it came time to close the sale the 5th sibling transmitted 4/5ths of the sale price from his solicitor to mine, along with a formal letter drafted to indicate that the 1/5th not transmitted was his share of the sale proceeds.

With clear communication, and evidence based assurances that all siblings (beneficiaries) are in agreement, I can see no reason why you shouldn't be able to proceed as above.