https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/son-wipes-out-inheritance-and-owes-100k-after-family-feud/
[1]
or archive version for non-subscribers:
https://archive.is/NgOqn
Nick
[1]Let's see if I get as many brickbats for quoting the Telegraph[2]
as I did for the Guardian in a previous thread
[2]The Daily T's turned a tad (more) White Supremacist[3] over the
past couple of days so I jolly well ought to.
[3]Or Great Replacement theorist - take your pick.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/son-wipes-out-inheritance-and-owes-100k-after-family-feud/
[1]
or archive version for non-subscribers:
https://archive.is/NgOqn
Nick
[1]Let's see if I get as many brickbats for quoting the Telegraph[2]
as I did for the Guardian in a previous thread
[2]The Daily T's turned a tad (more) White Supremacist[3] over the
past couple of days so I jolly well ought to.
[3]Or Great Replacement theorist - take your pick.
On 05/06/2025 08:53, Nick Odell wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/son-wipes-out-inheritance-and-
owes-100k-after-family-feud/
[1]
or archive version for non-subscribers:
https://archive.is/NgOqn
Nick
[1]Let's see if I get as many brickbats for quoting the Telegraph[2]
as I did for the Guardian in a previous thread
[2]The Daily T's turned a tad (more) White Supremacist[3] over the
past couple of days so I jolly well ought to.
[3]Or Great Replacement theorist - take your pick.
Thanks for the links. What stands out for me is that the claimant, Mr Changizi, represented himself as a litigant in person in his futile
attempt to argue that the existing law was wrong.
Thank goodness he didn't have an incompetent lawyer telling him he had a chance of winning.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/1659.html
On 05/06/2025 10:02, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 08:53, Nick Odell wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/son-wipes-out-inheritance-and-
owes-100k-after-family-feud/
[1]
or archive version for non-subscribers:
https://archive.is/NgOqn
Nick
[1]Let's see if I get as many brickbats for quoting the Telegraph[2]
as I did for the Guardian in a previous thread
[2]The Daily T's turned a tad (more) White Supremacist[3] over the
past couple of days so I jolly well ought to.
[3]Or Great Replacement theorist - take your pick.
Thanks for the links. What stands out for me is that the claimant, Mr
Changizi, represented himself as a litigant in person in his futile
attempt to argue that the existing law was wrong.
Thank goodness he didn't have an incompetent lawyer telling him he had a
chance of winning.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/1659.html
having read the proceedings, AIUI, the father died and left money to his
3 children.
It appears that his estate was over the IHT limit so IHT would have been
due.
However, two of the children did a deed of variation on their legacy effectively handing their legacy to their mother. SO that took their
legacies out of scope for any liability to IHT as legacies left to
spouses are IHT exempt.
The 3rd refused to do the same and this led to the court cases as there
was an argument over who was liable for the IHT bill and the IHT bill on
his less than 7 year old PET gift.
This at first glance appears to be a way of minimsing the IHT bill there
and then.
What I struggle to understand (apart from love for their mother) is the
point behind doing this as eventually the surviving spouse will pass away.
If the legacies are passed back to the 2 children via the 2nd will, they
will still have a IHT liability unless its all been spent in the
meantime or if its been invested, an even bigger liability and also the estate at 2nd death could possibly be bigger than at 1st death?
And whats to stop the survivng spouse from remarrying and leaving it all
to the new partner?
The only way I can see it making sense if the spouse was several decades younger and thus the mother could pass it back as a PET gift and hope to
live for a further 7 more years?
Or would it be used to invest for income and the surplus income
distributed to the children as this would be outside the scope for IHT
or the 7 year rule?
On 6 Jun 2025 at 12:51:35 BST, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
On 05/06/2025 10:02, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 08:53, Nick Odell wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/son-wipes-out-inheritance-and-
owes-100k-after-family-feud/
[1]
or archive version for non-subscribers:
https://archive.is/NgOqn
Nick
[1]Let's see if I get as many brickbats for quoting the Telegraph[2]
as I did for the Guardian in a previous thread
[2]The Daily T's turned a tad (more) White Supremacist[3] over the
past couple of days so I jolly well ought to.
[3]Or Great Replacement theorist - take your pick.
Thanks for the links. What stands out for me is that the claimant, Mr
Changizi, represented himself as a litigant in person in his futile
attempt to argue that the existing law was wrong.
Thank goodness he didn't have an incompetent lawyer telling him he had a >>> chance of winning.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/1659.html
having read the proceedings, AIUI, the father died and left money to his
3 children.
It appears that his estate was over the IHT limit so IHT would have been
due.
However, two of the children did a deed of variation on their legacy
effectively handing their legacy to their mother. SO that took their
legacies out of scope for any liability to IHT as legacies left to
spouses are IHT exempt.
The 3rd refused to do the same and this led to the court cases as there
was an argument over who was liable for the IHT bill and the IHT bill on
his less than 7 year old PET gift.
This at first glance appears to be a way of minimsing the IHT bill there
and then.
What I struggle to understand (apart from love for their mother) is the
point behind doing this as eventually the surviving spouse will pass away. >>
If the legacies are passed back to the 2 children via the 2nd will, they
will still have a IHT liability unless its all been spent in the
meantime or if its been invested, an even bigger liability and also the
estate at 2nd death could possibly be bigger than at 1st death?
And whats to stop the survivng spouse from remarrying and leaving it all
to the new partner?
The only way I can see it making sense if the spouse was several decades
younger and thus the mother could pass it back as a PET gift and hope to
live for a further 7 more years?
Or would it be used to invest for income and the surplus income
distributed to the children as this would be outside the scope for IHT
or the 7 year rule?
There is (in general, I don't claim knowledge of this case) the point that on the second death the exempt amount doubles to 650,000, with an automatic saving of 40% of 325,000. As well as the possibility of further exempt gifts.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 12:51:35 BST, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
On 05/06/2025 10:02, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 08:53, Nick Odell wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/son-wipes-out-inheritance-and-
owes-100k-after-family-feud/
[1]
or archive version for non-subscribers:
https://archive.is/NgOqn
Nick
[1]Let's see if I get as many brickbats for quoting the Telegraph[2] >>>>> as I did for the Guardian in a previous thread
[2]The Daily T's turned a tad (more) White Supremacist[3] over the
past couple of days so I jolly well ought to.
[3]Or Great Replacement theorist - take your pick.
Thanks for the links. What stands out for me is that the claimant, Mr
Changizi, represented himself as a litigant in person in his futile
attempt to argue that the existing law was wrong.
Thank goodness he didn't have an incompetent lawyer telling him he had a >>>> chance of winning.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/1659.html
having read the proceedings, AIUI, the father died and left money to his >>> 3 children.
It appears that his estate was over the IHT limit so IHT would have been >>> due.
However, two of the children did a deed of variation on their legacy
effectively handing their legacy to their mother. SO that took their
legacies out of scope for any liability to IHT as legacies left to
spouses are IHT exempt.
The 3rd refused to do the same and this led to the court cases as there
was an argument over who was liable for the IHT bill and the IHT bill on >>> his less than 7 year old PET gift.
This at first glance appears to be a way of minimsing the IHT bill there >>> and then.
What I struggle to understand (apart from love for their mother) is the
point behind doing this as eventually the surviving spouse will pass away. >>>
If the legacies are passed back to the 2 children via the 2nd will, they >>> will still have a IHT liability unless its all been spent in the
meantime or if its been invested, an even bigger liability and also the
estate at 2nd death could possibly be bigger than at 1st death?
And whats to stop the survivng spouse from remarrying and leaving it all >>> to the new partner?
The only way I can see it making sense if the spouse was several decades >>> younger and thus the mother could pass it back as a PET gift and hope to >>> live for a further 7 more years?
Or would it be used to invest for income and the surplus income
distributed to the children as this would be outside the scope for IHT
or the 7 year rule?
There is (in general, I don't claim knowledge of this case) the point that on
the second death the exempt amount doubles to 650,000, with an automatic
saving of 40% of 325,000. As well as the possibility of further exempt gifts.
Your logic seems, partly correct.
Depending on the numbers, some / all of the husband’s allowance will have been ‘used’ if the third child had ‘kept’ their inheritance, only any ‘spare’ left would pass to the wife for (possible) later use.
That said, the scope for gifts if she lives more than 7 years is unlimited.
Likewise, she could invest and make gifts from the income PROVIDED she can demonstrate those gifts don’t reduce her standard of living. ( Gifts from such income are free of IHT and there is no limit, no 7 year rule etc. )
What I never understand about these cases, is how can the estate be used
for legal fees concerned with it's own dispersal ?
If the surviving spouse had assets in excess of their IHT allowance then doing a deed of variation still does not make sense as all you are doing
is deferring the IHT due.
On 07/06/2025 14:57, SH wrote:
If the surviving spouse had assets in excess of their IHT allowance then
doing a deed of variation still does not make sense as all you are doing
is deferring the IHT due.
The surviving spouse can make lifetime gifts, and hopefully survive them
by 7 years.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 67:58:50 |
| Calls: | 9,814 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,755 |
| Messages: | 6,189,352 |