This is me musing on my own IHT position and our next house move, but I may have misunderstood things so your collective wisdom is sought.
If I understand correctly (which I likely have not) if we downsize then my/my wife's RNRBs to be carried forward are currently £175k each, as current house is worth more than £350k.We are advised that RNRBs are to be indexed by CPI so will grow over next 20/30 years (I am 60 and an optimist), but they can only grow to the value of our most expensive house ever before we downsize? So if current house is say £450k when sold then once the RNRB in future gets over £225k we each will be capped at £225k if our subsequent houses are smaller/worth less?
Accordingly, and I likely need this argument to use with my other half who is currently viewing spending more on a house with disdain, I need to argue,
"For IHT planning, my dear, we really ought to, if we sell the Swedish house, buy a more expensive house here. We ought not to downsize (despite fact kids are leaving and current house will be too big) , say we buy a large bungalow in Edinburgh ( no stairs as we age) something with a much bigger garden, double garage, workshop etc, and once I then keel over maintaining it you can then downsize and whatever you sell it for will become the new upper cap re the future RNRBs available when you leave everything to the sprogs"
Ignoring how well the argument will sell with SWMBO, (eventual extra money to sprogs will be a strong selling point) is my interpretation correct, if we buy more expensive now do we create a higher possible maximum RNRB(subject to CPI) if either held to death(value then)or we later sell to downsize(price achieved) for the nursing homes , or is my logic flawed?
(Appreciate by time we need this the IHT legislation will likely have all changed, however I really want the double garage for my Scimitar , also somewhere to hide, and it is only cogent argument I can "create")