Dublin men to marry to avoid inheritance tax

holyhead

Fair play to them. Inheritance tax is wrong an any level you look at it. What they are doing while a bit left field makes perfect sense.

One_Of_Shanks

grumpy_mick wrote: »

some people view the state as being more entitled to the fruits of someones effort than that persons own children

which is frightening

Yep. I hadn't realised it so much until last night reading this thread.

splinter65

grumpy_mick wrote: »

some people view the state as being more entitled to the fruits of someones effort than that persons own children

which is frightening

Some people don’t want to pay any tax at all, or think that someone else should pay tax and not them,because they have no idea how public services are funded and expect to have schools and hospitals and doctors and teachers at zero cost to themselves.
Irish people are particularly prone to this and that’s why the country is the way it is.

grumpy_mick

splinter65 wrote: »

Some people don’t want to pay any tax at all, or think that someone else should pay tax and not them,because they have no idea how public services are funded and expect to have schools and hospitals and doctors and teachers at zero cost to themselves.
Irish people are particularly prone to this and that’s why the country is the way it is.

agree fully !

i find it irritating how many left wing politicians or commentators often call for ireland to be more scandanavian , in sweden those earning below 25 k pay about six times more in tax than someone on the same money here yet paul murphy thinks most workers should not pay for anything even water

in effect , they dont want the scandanavian system at all

holyhead

splinter65 wrote: »

Some people don’t want to pay any tax at all, or think that someone else should pay tax and not them,because they have no idea how public services are funded and expect to have schools and hospitals and doctors and teachers at zero cost to themselves.
Irish people are particularly prone to this and that’s why the country is the way it is.

Your missing the point. You speak as if assets were not already subject to tax. They were assuming they were legally obtained. It is a double tax. Losing a loved one is distressing enough without having revenue circling like vultures looking for their pound of flesh.

server down

grumpy_mick wrote: »

apart from the massive invasion of government , one of the problems with tax on inheritance is it would hit those in the cities so much harder regardless of wealth

take a modest three bed terraced house in somewhere like phibsboro , probably worth about 420 k today ( maybe more ) , a couple living in that house may have done since the seventies , they may be working class , not wealthy and neither may their kids be wealthy , lets say they leave the house to a son or daughter , that person is then hit with a 100 k plus bill from the government , they are then forced to sell the property , what good does that do in reality bar satisfy the idealogues ?

contrast this with someone who lives in a seven bed mansion in rural ireland with a swimming pool, the same house would cost no more than the house in dublin were it anywhere in the midlands

So what. This means more money for Dubliners when they(we) get the inheritance. Mostly houses will be sold with the exception of single children. This means most people wont pay any tax. If your parents house is worth 600k and there are 3 siblings that is 200k tax free.

Most people won’t inherit anyway until they are 50 given the way life expectancy is going. Don’t get the fuss.

server down

holyhead wrote: »

Your missing the point. You speak as if assets were not already subject to tax. They were assuming they were legally obtained. It is a double tax. Losing a loved one is distressing enough without having revenue circling like vultures looking for their pound of flesh.

It is no more a double tax than anybody else who receives income from a person or corporation who was already taxed.

brembo26

Deleted User wrote: »

Inheritance tax is not right anyway! When you earn your money you pay tax on it and then they want you to pay tax on it again? F**k off

fact my parents sold the home house at the start of the year. Parents split up years ago but both of their names were on the house. Mother was now liable for capital gains. She basically gave us (me and the sister) the whole amount (half) from the sale.

She died in June from an accident. Now I'm be hounded by an accountant and a tax man for 8 grand. Its a load of bollox.

server down

People who oppose inheritance tax are basically hoping for a return to feudalism. Some people will be born rich and untaxed. Tax will be on wages.

rgace

grumpy_mick wrote: »

some people view the state as being more entitled to the fruits of someones effort than that persons own children

which is frightening

It is hardly frightening now Mick. I absolutely agree with inheritance tax as a good way of redistributing wealth and providing more equal opportunity for all.
I can see the point regarding thresholds being a bit low though.

padd b1975

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

If I work my entire life it's my business what I do with my money, that's the point.

Spend the lot while you're still alive would be my advice, no inheritance tax bills then.

holyhead

server down wrote: »

It is no more a double tax than anybody else who receives income from a person or corporation who was already taxed.

If its income they have received then the chances are they are earning their employer money for that income. They two situations are not comparable.

holyhead

server down wrote: »

People who oppose inheritance tax are basically hoping for a return to feudalism. Some people will be born rich and untaxed. Tax will be on wages.

Nobody in this country is untaxed unless your unemployed. Lets say I inherit a building from my parent which is rented and has three years left on its term of rent. I pay tax on the rental to the state. If my parent legally bought the building then it should be none of the states business who he/she gives it too. The change of ownership does not diminish the states coffers. Only on the possible lapse of the rental does the state possibly lose out.

Ok to all those who love people being taxed on inheritance. Lets say I get hit with a whopping tax on inheriting a building to the extent I must sell the building to meet this obligation. I will be taxed on any gain I make on selling the building and then after that is removed will I have money to meet inheritance obligation to the state. In every sense of the word Inheritance tax is a scam which those who have never paid it love to see others having to pay. This redistribution of wealth argument is nonsense. Inheritance tax is the greatest incentive ever invented not to be successful.

Annasopra

Geuze wrote: »

Joey,

please note that your series of posts [188-193] saying that the previous posts were wrong, was itself confused.

We are talking about an only child getting a 500k inheritance.

That only child will face CAT of (0.33)(190k) = 62,700

You are discussing 3 children recipients, which was mentioned, a good bit back.

Previous posts mentioned 3 children

Given that are a number of allowable expenses which can be claimed against CAT the 62700 isnt really an accurate figure though!!

Annasopra

grumpy_mick wrote: »

apart from the massive invasion of government , one of the problems with tax on inheritance is it would hit those in the cities so much harder regardless of wealth

take a modest three bed terraced house in somewhere like phibsboro , probably worth about 420 k today ( maybe more ) , a couple living in that house may have done since the seventies , they may be working class , not wealthy and neither may their kids be wealthy , lets say they leave the house to a son or daughter , that person is then hit with a 100 k plus bill from the government , they are then forced to sell the property , what good does that do in reality bar satisfy the idealogues ?

contrast this with someone who lives in a seven bed mansion in rural ireland with a swimming pool, the same house would cost no more than the house in dublin were it anywhere in the midlands

No

A 420,000 house will not be hit with 100,000 in tax maybe roughly 30,000 but it depends on each case. 100,000 is way off though

holyhead

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

A 420,000 house will not be hit with 100,000 in tax maybe roughly 30,000 but it depends on each case. 100,000 is way off though

Is that because it is only the portion of value beyond the threshold which is liable for inheritance purposes?

dxhound2005

holyhead wrote: »

Lets say I inherit a building from my parent which is rented and has three years left on its term of rent. I pay tax on the rental to the state. If my parent legally bought the building then it should be none of the states business who he/she gives it too.

Does the parent own the building in this example or are they renting it? If they are renting it, it is not theirs to bequeath. It belongs to the landlord.

Allinall

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Inheritance tax is not right anyway! When you earn your money you pay tax on it and then they want you to pay tax on it again? F**k off

Eh, no.

You don't pay tax on it again.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

If I work my tits off all my life and pay all my taxes and leave my daughter a house worth 500k then it's not right that revenue step in and take money from her inheritance.

I've already paid tax on all that money.

I'm with you if it hits huge amounts but 310k is not enough right now given the price of houses. And 33% is huge.

Irrespective of right and wrong, it's the fairest outcome for society for Revenue to step in. Your daughter has no right to the house, unless she lives there full time in which case she can inherit the house without paying any inheritance tax. That is fair. There are also far more people who will inherit a lot, lot less than a 500k house than those who will inherit the huge amounts you speak of.

Ah, but is that the case?

If it's sold then yes, fair enough. Then you have the means to pay the tax. I don't agree that it's fair she pays 67k to continue living in it.

Just before you have an assey doesn't mean you have a lot of cash lying around.

holyhead

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Does the parent own the building in this example or are they renting it? If they are renting it, it is not theirs to bequeath. It belongs to the landlord.

For clarification purposes the parent owns the building otherwise it is not an inheritance.

Annasopra

holyhead wrote: »

Is that because it is only the portion of value beyond the threshold which is liable for inheritance purposes?

Yes

310,000 tax free

Less maybe solicitors costs, funeral expenses, other costs so these are allowable which would mean your tax bill gets lowered again

One_Of_Shanks

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ah, but is that the case?

If it's sold then yes, fair enough. Then you pay have the means to pay the tax. I don't agree that it's fair she pays 67k to continue living in it.

If the person has been living there for a few years then I don't think they have to pay tax at all, as far as I'm aware.
Different kettle of fish if they were not living there.

Someone else might confirm though. I'm not 100% sure.

dxhound2005

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ah, but is that the case?

If it's sold then yes, fair enough. Then you have the means to pay the tax. I don't agree that it's fair she pays 67k to continue living in it.

Just before you have an assey doesn't mean you have a lot of cash lying around.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cat-exemptions-and-reliefs/exemption-for-dwelling-house/index.aspx

Exemption for Dwelling House
If you inherit a house and you qualify for the Dwelling House Exemption, you will not have to pay Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT) on that inheritance.

The Finance Act 2016 introduced changes to the qualifications which apply to inheritances on or after 25 December 2016. You will be exempt from CAT on a house you inherit if:

the house was the only or main home of the person who died
you lived in the house as your main home for the three years before the person’s death
you do not own, have an interest or a share in any other house, including one you acquired as part of the same inheritance
the house is your main home for six years after you receive the inheritance. This does not apply if you are over 65.
If you receive a gift of a house on or after 25 December 2016, you will be exempt from CAT if:

you are a dependent relative of the person making the gift because you are:
permanently and totally incapacitated due to a physical or intellectual disability, and you are unable to earn a living
65 years or older at the date of the gift
the house was your main home for the previous three years
you do not own, have an interest or a share in any other house
the house is your main home for six years after you receive it. This does not apply if you are over 65.
Qualifying conditions pre 25 December 2016
If you received a house as a gift or inheritance between 1 December 1999 and 25 December 2016 you will be exempt from CAT if:

the house was your main home for the previous three years
you did not own, have an interest or a share in any other house
you continued to use the house as your main home for six years. This does not apply if you were over 55 at the date of the gift or the inheritance.
If you received the house as a gift, the following also apply:

Unless you lived with the occupant due to their ill health or old age (65 or over), any period of time the person making the gift lived in the house will not count towards the three years required.
The house must have been owned by the person giving it to you for three years before you received it.

holyhead

padd b1975 wrote: »

Spend the lot while you're still alive would be my advice, no inheritance tax bills then.

Most parents, where they can seek to leave their children in a good place financially especially if they (the parents) have been self employed. Very often they will seek to set their children up in business or have them carry on the business they started. So while your advice is in jest in all seriousness the state unnecessarily intrudes on what are essentially private matters assuming the parents have been tax compliant down the years.

Let's say the child (obviously an adult) needs to take money out of the business to meet an inheritance obligation. It will cost him double i.e. to meet a tax obligation of 40k will cost 80k if the money has come out of the business. Being asset rich does not equal being liquid rich.

noel100

Why should the government be allowed to receive tax on inheritance. You work all your life paying tax for a home to live in for it to be taxed on gifting to family or friends.
The government are crooks.

If you have extreme wealth you don't pay any sort of tax because of some loophole.

dxhound2005

holyhead wrote: »

Most parents, where they can seek to leave their children in a good place financially especially if they (the parents) have been self employed. Very often they will seek to set their children up in business or have them carry on the business they started. So while your advice is in jest in all seriousness the state unnecessarily intrudes on what are essentially private matters assuming the parents have been tax compliant down the years.

Let's say the child (obviously an adult) needs to take money out of the business to meet an inheritance obligation. It will cost him double i.e. to meet a tax obligation of 40k will cost 80k if the money has come out of the business. Being asset rich does not equal being liquid rich.

The State also intrudes by paying out €30K Child Benefit tax free for each child.

A good idea would be for people who object to taxes, to also opt out of benefits and services and pay their own way.

Annasopra

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The State also intrudes by paying out €30K Child Benefit tax free for each child.

A good idea would be for people who object to taxes, to also opt out of benefits and services and pay their own way.

Exactly pay for your own roads schools and hospitals

dxhound2005

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exactly pay for your own roads schools and hospitals

Private education and medical care is easily arranged. I propose a charge for those using private vehicles on public roads who opt out of the taxation system.

Mrs OBumble

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We got married for two reasons, neither to do with tax (we were earning pretty much the same and brought pretty much the same assets into the relationship)

(a) We wanted to make a public declaration of our commitment in front of our families, friends and society (represented by the civil celebrant)

(b) to provide the best legal basis for the children we went on to have. I didn't want to be an unwed father applying for guardianship of my own kids and still having feck all rights.

Yes there was a nice day out and a white dress (for her) but no bloody chocolate fountains!

that's kinda my point.

People can enter into a contract of lifelong commitment, aka marriage, for various reasons. You had you reasons (very good reasons IMHO). But they're not relevant for us: it would take a lot more than immaculate conception for us to have children now, and we don't really care how anyone else sees our commitment.

Under the law as it stands, we are still free to marry: there's no requirement that we're having sex, sleeping in the same bed or even living in the same house. And could you imagine the chaos which would ensure if the government tried to enforce such a law.

dxhound2005

There has to be a danger of elder financial abuse. Not an issue with this case.

But vulnerable old people are suffering from this, and it is only a small step to make an arranged marriage with someone on their last legs.

Heres Johnny

Big disagreement with the morality of inheritance tax on this thread but most won't pay it ever. I won't, I have 2 siblings and parents house is worth about 400k I doubt they have more than 500k in other assets.

Any one that's worried they will leave a bill behind them or get a bill themselves you can get a special life insurance policy which is for the sole purpose of paying a tax bill

bodice ripper

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We got married for two reasons, neither to do with tax (we were earning pretty much the same and brought pretty much the same assets into the relationship)

(a) We wanted to make a public declaration of our commitment in front of our families, friends and society (represented by the civil celebrant)

(b) to provide the best legal basis for the children we went on to have. I didn't want to be an unwed father applying for guardianship of my own kids and still having feck all rights.

Yes there was a nice day out and a white dress (for her) but no bloody chocolate fountains!

Wait, didn't you spend a year dead for tax reasons..?

holyhead

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The State also intrudes by paying out €30K Child Benefit tax free for each child.

A good idea would be for people who object to taxes, to also opt out of benefits and services and pay their own way.

The likelihood is that the said child who gets the benefit will end up paying multiple times the same figure back in taxes over the course of their working life so Im not accepting that as a valid retort to the inequity of inheritance tax.

dxhound2005

holyhead wrote: »

The likelihood is that the said child who gets the benefit will end up paying multiple times the same figure back in taxes over the course of their working life so Im not accepting that as a valid retort to the inequity of inheritance tax.

Or said child could be disabled from birth and unable to contribute to the economy as a taxpayer.

wakka12

Are you against marriage in general for straight people too so straight people can't have sham marriages for the same reason as these men?just a ridiculous post!

suicide_circus

Inheritance tax is fair enough but I think family homes should be exempt. Cash is fair game though.

dxhound2005

suicide_circus wrote: »

Inheritance tax is fair enough but I think family homes should be exempt. Cash is fair game though.

Family homes are exempt if the person getting the house has been living there.

If that person has house of their own the sensible thing would be to sell one of them and that would convert into a whole load of cash.

Billy86

Dr Brown wrote: »

This is one of the reasons I didn't vote for same sex marriage.

It was inevitable people would use it to avoid paying tax but anyone who tried to say this around the time of the referendum would been branded a "homophobe" by the PC brigade.

I said at the time that same sex marriage would cost the tax payer millions of euro in lost tax.




https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/1215/927697-tax-marriage/

Why do you appear under the impression that it's impossible for a man and a woman to do this to avoid inheritance tax, or is it just that you feel women are too altruistic to do so?

Either way, a pretty ridiculous line of reasoning.

One_Of_Shanks

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Family homes are exempt if the person getting the house has been living there.
.

Quick question.... Does that same rule apply to unmarried couples? As opposed to inheriting from a parent.

I'm asking because I'm in that situation.

So let's say I die tomorrow but I'm not married to my good lady.
Does she then qualify for exemption?
Living in the house over 3 years, dont own any other houses.

Am I right in thinking she would be exempt?

dxhound2005

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Quick question.... Does that same rule apply to unmarried couples? As opposed to inheriting from a parent.

I'm asking because I'm in that situation.

So let's say I die tomorrow but I'm not married to my good lady.
Does she then qualify for exemption?
Living in the house over 3 years, dont own any other houses.

Am I right in thinking she would be exempt?

I posted the link earlier. At a glance it does not rule out non relatives. But if there are surviving relatives, they could have a claim on the estate (my opinion).

https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cat-exemptions-and-reliefs/exemption-for-dwelling-house/index.aspx

One_Of_Shanks

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I posted the link earlier. At a glance it does not rule out non relatives. But if there are surviving relatives, they could have a claim on the estate (my opinion).

https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cat-exemptions-and-reliefs/exemption-for-dwelling-house/index.aspx

Sound, cheers! Yeah we did a will too and the other relatives wouldnt be that way inclined anyhow.
So should be ok.

I read the link and we meet all the criteria and as you said it doesn't seem to rule out non-relatives or unmarried etc so hopefully it applies to us.

Cheers for the link btw.

NollagShona

https://twitter.com/deasy_rascal/status/941905339158618113

splinter65

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

that's kinda my point.

People can enter into a contract of lifelong commitment, aka marriage, for various reasons. You had you reasons (very good reasons IMHO). But they're not relevant for us: it would take a lot more than immaculate conception for us to have children now, and we don't really care how anyone else sees our commitment.

Under the law as it stands, we are still free to marry: there's no requirement that we're having sex, sleeping in the same bed or even living in the same house. And could you imagine the chaos which would ensure if the government tried to enforce such a law.

People romantically associate marriage with physical and emotional intimacy and co dependency to the point where they assume it’s a requirement.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mod note:

RayM wrote: »

I'm talking about the fact that you're a racist and, as it now appears, also a homophobe.

RayM banned from posting on this thread.

Buford T. Justice.

animaal

noel100 wrote: »

Why should the government be allowed to receive tax on inheritance. You work all your life paying tax for a home to live in for it to be taxed on gifting to family or friends.

The state taxes all transfers of money/goods in the state. Money circulates around and around the economy, and at each step the state takes a cut.

- If you "give" €10000 to a builder in return for him doing up your house, it's (earned) income for him and he pays tax on it.

- If you give somebody €10000 for him being a great friend to you in your time of need, then it's (unearned) income for him and he pays tax on it.

There are few exceptions. A husband and wife were traditionally viewed as a single entity by the authorities. One of them, traditionally the wife, had to forego the opportunity to earn income in order to maintain the home and family. Assets and liabilities were shared between them. It was not really seen as a transfer since both constituted a single party in the eyes of the tax man. (Continual tax individualisation may eventually end that).

The further from this core husband/wife relationship, the lower the exception to taxation on transfers. So a parent-child relationship receives a lesser benefit, and uncle-neice receives little or no additional benefit.

The exemption can be taken advantage of (as in the case described by the OP), and it's no different to other perfectly legal situations people give out about:

- tax exiles basing themselves abroad to avoid Irish income tax
- "artists" (U2/Celia etc) using the artist tax exemption
- companies like Google using every mechanism available to bring their taxes close to zero

I think the state takes too much tax from too few citizens for the insufficient services it provides. Inheritance tax is no more or less unfair than all the other taxes on transfer of money/goods.

NollagShona

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Mod note:
RayM banned from posting on this thread.

Buford T. Justice.

He wasn’t incorrect tbf

Gbear

animaal wrote: »

I think the state takes too much tax from too few citizens for the insufficient services it provides. Inheritance tax is no more or less unfair than all the other taxes on transfer of money/goods.

There's no moral amount of tax.

The state takes what it can get away with and what the people will bear, through whatever means it can think of.

The only questions are whether all are taxed equitably and whether the things the tax is for are worth taking money out of people's pockets to support.

holyhead

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Or said child could be disabled from birth and unable to contribute to the economy as a taxpayer.

Thankfully that possibility is remote. I would rather pay inheritance tax anyday than see a child born disabled from birth.

holyhead

It is fair to say that these men will be taking the pish out of marriage should they go through with this. This was always a possibility once same sex marriage was approved. Financially it makes sense but you can't help but feel the profoundness of marriage has been diminished.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

holyhead wrote:

It is fair to say that these men will be taking the pish out of marriage should they go through with this. This was always a possibility once same sex marriage was approved. Financially it makes sense but you can't help but feel the profoundness of marriage has been diminished.

It's been a possibility for as long as marriage and tax have been linked