Dublin men to marry to avoid inheritance tax

splinter65

server down wrote: »

Agree. Totally irrelevant to the discussion. In fact in many countries the cities also pay for their own infrastructure.

Where do they get the money for the infrastructure though?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

splinter65 wrote: »

Where do they get the money for the infrastructure though?

You being sarcastic or genuinely don't know? I'll assume the later.

The manner of the taking of a financial contribution from a population to fund the state's upkeep. It's what we've been talking about all thread.

pitifulgod

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.

This can happen with a heterosexual marriage too and does, you do realise this?

wrangler

pitifulgod wrote: »

This can happen with a heterosexual marriage too and does, you do realise this?

+1,
The way marriages are gone now, some weddings are lasting longer than the marriage

splinter65

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You being sarcastic or genuinely don't know? I'll assume the later.

The manner of the taking of a financial contribution from a population to fund the state's upkeep. It's what we've been talking about all thread.

No. I know where the money for the infrastructure comes from.
I’m. It so sure you know.
That’s why I’m asking you.
You’ve not answered.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

splinter65 wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You being sarcastic or genuinely don't know? I'll assume the later.

The manner of the taking of a financial contribution from a population to fund the state's upkeep. It's what we've been talking about all thread.

No. I know where the money for the infrastructure comes from.
I’m. It so sure you know.
That’s why I’m asking you.
You’ve not answered.

Taxes play for the infrastructure. Or EU grants. Beyond that, you'll need to clarify the question.

jam_mac_jam

shivermetimber wrote: »

Is it possible for my Dad to divorce my Mam so I can then marry him before he dies? If so I'd do it to get out of the moronic inheritance tax that's in place.

No. You can't marry your mother.

server down

splinter65 wrote: »

Where do they get the money for the infrastructure though?

From local taxes. A New Yorker will pay federal, state and city taxes. Sales taxes are kept locally though.

By and large the local infrastructure is locally funded.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ToddyDoody

How will the marriage be consummated?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ToddyDoody

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Lucky them.

LynnGrace

amtc wrote: »

I was born april 5, my friend april 4, my cousin april 6 (but registered as april 5).... in the time when the tax ran from april 6. We were all induced to come out before the end of the tax year so parents got refunds!

Is that tax fraud? Was suggested by consultant in all cases.

Btw I'm an only child. No cousins. Nada. Two parents. No children. I'm in for a tax bill!

Intrigued by this, what refunds did they get?

JustShay

What about, like in the movie, 'I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry'. Send out some investigators to see if the partnership is legit. It would be pretty easy to check their FBs / Instagrams / Snapchats to see if they are legit 'in love'.

HeidiHeidi

JustShay wrote: »

What about, like in the movie, 'I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry'. Send out some investigators to see if the partnership is legit. It would be pretty easy to check their FBs / Instagrams / Snapchats to see if they are legit 'in love'.

Do you have to be 'in love' to marry?

c_man

Just further proof that the state backed concept of 'marriage' is meaningless beyond some very bland legal whatnots.

I don't agree with the concept of inheritance tax at all. The super rich have ways and means around it, the poor don't really experience it and the middle class are the ones whom it hits.

A Little Pony

It was never about marriage itself as an idea, it was the business which is now called "equality". The concept of marriage is dying out, it means little every year. So why not scam the tax payers because it was never about marriage to begin with.

KellyXX

WHIP IT! wrote: »

I wonder, can they not be 'done', so to speak, for being so open about this loophole they are taking advantage of? In the same way you hear people having sham marriages for 'Green Card' issues which are investigated. Is the fact they have no problem announcing the fact they are only doing this to avoid a taxt leaving them open to legal challenge?

EDIT: Damn you Sparko and your quicker, more concise typing!

Their cards have been marked.
Revenue will stay quiet for now. Them when he croaks , they will make their move. No way will these guys get away with this now.

pitifulgod

A Little Pony wrote: »

It was never about marriage itself as an idea, it was the business which is now called "equality". The concept of marriage is dying out, it means little every year. So why not scam the tax payers because it was never about marriage to begin with.

Hey, you and many others appears to have missed that this scenario has existed prior to any marriage referendum.... Marriage equality came into law over 2 years ago and this is the only questionable marriage that can be cited. The reality is, that this scenario has most likely played out many times in the past before marriage equality.

RoboRat

Fair play to them.
You work, you pay your tax on the earnings.
You buy a house you pay tax either through VAT on the build or stamp duty.
You also pay household tax now.
Then, after you have already paid your tax to get the house (at least twice), the taxed house is subject to more tax when you pass away and leave it to someone else.

Revenue will stay quiet for now. Them when he croaks , they will make their move. No way will these guys get away with this now.

How so? This isn't tax evasion, its tax avoidance and Revenue seem to be happy to allow companies work the law to maximise their avoidance practices.

Annasopra

wrangler wrote: »

+1,
The way marriages are gone now, some weddings are lasting longer than the marriage

Not with our current constitution making 4 year divorce mandatory

Annasopra

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Do you have to be 'in love' to marry?

No

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

pitifulgod

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yep, I meant it's unrelated to marriage equality if that wasn't clear

seamus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A "sham" marriage though implies no long-term connection between the two parties, nor any intention to maintain one beyond obtaining a legal marriage.

Many couples do marry purely for financial reasons, so that alone cannot be a reason for calling a marriage a "sham". And these two men have a long-standing relationship which will continue until one of them dies.

So I see no issue with it.

eviltwin

The only reason I got married was to avoid inheritance tax. We were quite happy to stay as we were but the tax bill was worth getting married. Fair play to these guys, they are on the radio at the moment and I can't see why people are giving out. More power to them both.

HeidiHeidi

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Do you have to be 'in love' to marry?

Just to be clear, that was a rhetorical question!!

Geuze

eviltwin wrote: »

Fair play to these guys, they are on the radio at the moment and I can't see why people are giving out. More power to them both.

Are people giving out about them?

I spoke to people about this case, but nobody gave out about them.

Nabber

It’s terrible that the act of marriage is being used to bypass a horrendous tax system.

This devalues marriage. That said, I don’t blame them trying to avoid inheritance tax.
Yet another tax designed to restrict the working class from acquiring wealth

wrangler

Nabber wrote: »

It’s terrible that the act of marriage is being used to bypass a horrendous tax system.

This devalues marriage. That said, I don’t blame them trying to avoid inheritance tax.
Yet another tax designed to restrict the working class from acquiring wealth

I don't think it devalues marriage as much as the broken marriages that are out there. Marriage is for ''as long as you both shall live'', sure breaking that vow devalues it a lot more.
On saying that I'm glad that it's a civil ceremony, it's just a legal vow between two men to love and respect ''as long as they both shall live'' a contract really with no religion

Ronaldinho

Nabber wrote: »

It’s terrible that the act of marriage is being used to bypass a horrendous tax system.

....I don’t blame them trying to avoid inheritance tax.
Yet another tax designed to restrict the working class from acquiring wealth

Sons and daughters can inherit up to 310k without paying any inheritance tax so I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.

splinter65

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No it doesn’t. It was covered in detail on Claire Byrne Live last night. Totally in order and no laws being broken

anewme

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Nabber wrote: »

It’s terrible that the act of marriage is being used to bypass a horrendous tax system.

....I don’t blame them trying to avoid inheritance tax.
Yet another tax designed to restrict the working class from acquiring wealth

Sons and daughters can inherit up to 310k without paying any inheritance tax so I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Is the issue not that this gentleman does not have any sons or daughters ?

Not everything he has children. Why should they have to give their money away because of that. Single people don’t get extra tax credits.

I’ve no children and hate the thought of the Govt. getting more money from me I’m just a PAYE worker and it’s my after tax income I’m talking about.

Anyone I’ve said it to says more power to them,

dxhound2005

If Michael dies first, then 85 year old Matt will be left a widower and minus his carer. He will be entitled to a big chunk of Michael's estate, especially if Michael has not made a will. Matt could marry again, or he might have to rely on the State to provide his care, which would be ironic.

But maybe Matt will live to be 100 and Michael will very happily continue to care for him, while patiently waiting for his inheritance.

Cookie_Monster

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The general point is that homosexual marriage provides no benefit to society worth requiring other people to pay more tax for fund it. This episode simply exposes the logic of that.

what benefit does straight marriage provide, I presume you're going for the producing children angle?. Well that. in the current world, is a huge disadvantage, due to the over population problem we current have...

badboyblast

[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

What this chap said and when you get to there , go f.... Off again

dxhound2005

The nuptials are now complete. It is an affirmation of what marriage law is all about. The passing on of property after death in a strictly regulated manner. Marriage law makes no reference to romantic love.

I hope the Grim Reaper does not intervene in their plans, and remove the younger party first.


http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-straight-best-friends-marry-11739904

Uboat

Never Say Never Again wrote: »

a bunch of indian fellas who work in my local gala shop all have wife's from east europe, that must be some sort of scam ?

I am sure it is scam. Visa and passport marriages.

splinter65

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The nuptials are now complete. It is an affirmation of what marriage law is all about. The passing on of property after death in a strictly regulated manner. Marriage law makes no reference to romantic love.

I hope the Grim Reaper does not intervene in their plans, and remove the younger party first.


http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-straight-best-friends-marry-11739904

If he does, the older man will be free to marry again.
And get a widowers pension.

wrangler

Uboat wrote: »

I am sure it is scam. Visa and passport marriages.

It's our duty as a taxpayer to screw the system every way we can........they're only wasting our taxes anyway and we're getting nothing like value for money

splinter65

wrangler wrote: »

It's our duty as a taxpayer to screw the system every way we can........they're only wasting our taxes anyway and we're getting nothing like value for money

Tell us ways in which they are wasting your taxes.

Vronsky

[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

People hate inheritance tax hey decry the fact that the rich get richer, and that the lucky few get a privileged start in life.

Inheritance tax is important because it is an extremely important way for the state to redistribute wealth for the greater good.

NewApproach

There are laws which are in place where Revenue ignore arrangements which are put in place for the principal purpose of avoiding tax. Hard luck lads.

wrangler

NewApproach wrote: »

There are laws which are in place where Revenue ignore arrangements which are put in place for the principal purpose of avoiding tax. Hard luck lads.

Those guys were better that they didn't bring attention to themselves

dxhound2005

NewApproach wrote: »

There are laws which are in place where Revenue ignore arrangements which are put in place for the principal purpose of avoiding tax. Hard luck lads.

Many marriages could be for that purpose. There is no law against it, as long as the marriage is legal.

The taxman will get his share after the two of them are dead.

Hector Bellend

It wasnt me123

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But if two elderly men get married (or an elderly mixed sex marriage) and both die within a few months, what happens the estate of the second one to die?

Depends on his Will. If no Will, his nearest and dearest get it One of these men have children, the younger man, so they would inherit if he had no Will.

dxhound2005

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Many marriages could be for that purpose. There is no law against it, as long as the marriage is legal.

The taxman will get his share after the two of them are dead.

Not if it’s passed on to the children.

Does a marriage not have to be consummated in order to be legal?