Sisters lose IHT fight. By Dan Martin
You might also be interested in
Replies (6)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
A Daily Mail reader comments
The provisions, interpretation and application (or in this case the non-application) of the Human Rights Act has caused perhaps more than any other recent law to bring the law into disrepute with the man on the Clapham Omnibus. Criminals seem to have human rights and little old ladies do not. To be cynical (and ignoring the UK which seems to bend over backwards - or should that be forwards? - when the human rights of low-life scumbag complainants are involved) I see that the judges who decided against the ladies are from countries whose legal systems do not exactly ring in the annals of jurisprudence (Andorra, Bosnia and Albania) and that the strongest dissenting judgment came from Moldova of all places. Taking off my Daily Mail reader’s hat for a moment, however:
The sisters seem to want mainly not to have to sell the house to pay IHT when one of them dies. Presumably there is nothing to stop the sisters arranging with a finance provider for an equity share to be offered in return for a mortgage when, inevitably, one of them dies and IHT becomes payable? That will enable either of them to occupy the house until the later death and for the surviving sister to pay the IHT on the first death?
pedantry
I know it is, but we should be accurate - not all gay couples, only those in registered civil partnerships, will qualify.
But clearly this is a hard case. While I do not agree with the propostion that the family home should be automatically exempted, there is a case for it where a legatee actually lives there.
Buy now, pay later......
Just a typical example of someone failing to get the right advice at the right time, and then crying when it bites them on the backside.
Blah
Giving the IHT rights to gay couples was pushing it to the limit, these two old dears should concentrate on trying to get the PPR exemption back instead.
Civil partners?
Is there some legal reason why the sisters cannot enter into a civil partnership? The Marriage Acts prevent siblings from marrying in view of the risks to the health of children born out of close blood relationships. There are no such risks with a civil partnership of a same-sex couple, so logically they should be free to enter into a civil partnership.
Nice to see an Andorran Judge doing something useful on the international stage for a change.
Family home
If the legatee is actually going to live permanently in the family home, as opposed to keeping it for a holiday home or renting it out to earn an income, then I think there should be an exemption from IHT.
Death of a close relative is traumatic enough without having to sell what might be a well-loved and long-standing family home as well.
In this case, the sisters have lived together in the same home for 80+ years, and how many married couples / civil partners do that?
Making the family home exempt from IHT if the legatee is going to live there permanently, would spare them, and a lot of other people, a lot of heartache.
M