Changes to Inheritance tax your will may need an update

[#1]

I have been to my solicitor to make changes to my will and was advised it was out of date because it did not mention the property.

Due to changes in Inheritance tax from April 2017 there is now an allowance called Family Home Allowance which is added to the £325K

From April 2017 it was £100K went up to  £125K this April then increasing by £25K each year until April 2020 when it reaches £175k

Anyone who owns property should read the article below and check their will is up to date

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/inheritance/update-will-lose-70000-inheritance-tax-perk/

Brian A

[#2]

Not affected by this as my little abode would be hard put to fetch more than £150k, handy for much of elsewhere I guess and hard to believe a house I once bought for £6000 in south London back in the early 70s is now worth at least three quarters of a million. 

Slight aside but other news is that here in Wales at least, the care saving limit has gone up to £40,000 - so less for the Council to grubby grab if you should have to go into care. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-43668877

[#3]

It'd be nice to own something to be able to put in a will, but I think I'd just be lazy and say "Fight amongst yourselves, I'm dead, I don't care any more!!!"...

[#4]

@twocvbloke - Me too, although I do have a will for reasons I'm not going into here. It is a simple one as my only major asset is my (paid for) house and even if I add everything up, I'm nowhere near IHT levels anyway.

[#5]

I tell my kids that if they're not careful and nice to their dribbling ol'man in his dotage, I'll put the estate in a trust.  The National Trust.

[#6]

There is a potentially bigger problem than IHT for married couples. If you home is owned as "joint tenants" the care home people can grab all of it even if only one of you goes care. By changing ownership to "tenants in common" you each own half of it individually and only that half can be confiscated for care fees. IHT at worst can only take 40% over the allowance!

You can also leave one half in trust to your beneficiries on first death with the survivor allowed to reside until their death. This means that that half is safe even if the survivor need to go into care.

Take advice from a competant solicitor who specialises in these matters.

[#7]

@TeeGee

We changed ours to tenants in common for that very reason about ten years ago, each leaving half to our kids but with control and tenancy rights left to the surviving partner. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe if you leave it to late (whenever that is) it can be deemed as intentional avoidance and overruled?

[#8]

Tricky one that but I would assume that if you are in good health and of sound mind (!) it would take quite a lot of challenging to be considered deliberate deprivation.  Apparently there is no specific time limit and each case is taken on its merits but AIUI there have been very few succesful contests by local authorities.

[#9]

If an individual has assets, and they need care, should they not expect to use those assets to fund the care?  And is it not the primary responsibility of their family to assist/provide resources for their care?

Why would one assume that all the responsibility for one's care rests with the state, to the point that one will take steps to 'hide' assets for the benefit of one's children and allow the state (i.e. other taxpayers) to fund your care?

Or more bluntly, why should I have to pay for someone's care so that their children might have a windfall?

[#10]

Or, looking at it from another way, why should someone who has been prudent through their life saving for those little luxuries in later life and to treat their children and grandchildren as they grow up have to pay for their own care when someone else who may have earned even more but spent it all in the moment gets their care paid for?

[#11]

@JPN

Why not?

Because I was promised 'cradle to the grave' care by a post war government and entered into a social contract that's why. 

Been here before with this argument. My house has been my investment and one over which I have rights - at one time I was paying a whopping 17% interest. They are my rights and I will pass the proceeds of them onto my kids for if I cannot, what's the point of striving for anything in this life. If you want responsibility and obligation to society turn your attention away from those that have saved and worked hard all their lives and focus instead on the ten percent that own and control ninety percent of this nations wealth.  

Don't support those vultures that circle the elderly, you'll be one of them sooner that you think.

Peace love and happiness - and step away from my house.   

[#12]

@JPN

As somebody with a more than passing interest in the subject, I can assure you that those who do have reasonable wealth will have made is absolutely certain that they will not be paying for your care either!

[#13]

Should you wish your children to receive your assets, then that is perfectly proper, as long as they look after you in return (in your home or theirs).  If they prefer not to do so personally then they should be prepared to pay for someone else to do so.

The 'cradle to grave' "promise" is generally taken to apply to NHS health care. Under the current system any medical care required by the elderly is not charged for in a nursing/care home - just the day to day 'hotel' (bed/food etc) costs are expected to be paid. 

There is an interesting essay by Frank Field that sets the picture.  I don't agree with his recommended solution, but he paints the context very well.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/11/cradle-grave

[#14]

I also have more than a passing interest in the subject and not to argue the finer points, cradle to the grave has come to encompass care across the entire spectrum of social provision going from education to employment, from health care to pensions. We know don't we that what was launched in 1948 bears little resemblance to the multi billion pound leviathan we observe to day.

OK, so the state robs me of my house which is worth little more than a hundred grand - with those other 'care home' robbers currently charging around thirty grand a year for residency, what I have gained in my seventy years will be gone in two.  

Great eh?

Anyways, for me at least along with the majority of the elderly, going into care is unlikely to happen and if it did, trust me I'd burn my house down first - and that is one right I will exercise.

Thanks for the link, it's been some times since I last read anything from that publication. It was required reading at one time!

[#15]

@TeeGee

Re: tenants in common, in discussion about this with somebody that had this arrangement and who sadly had recently lost their partner and because it was changed less than seven years ago, the house cannot yet be sold in order to release half of any proceeds from the sale.