Bluff and bluster fails.

[Deleted member 317777]

This is getting very confusing. Let's go back to basics, first, to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Sir Keir bought the field.
He wanted his parents to have use of the field during their lifetimes.
When they died, he wanted the field for himself.

Can we agree this is the starting point.

I’m not as invested as you. I’ve just explained a bit about how a life interest trust works on the second death. As by your own admission, you didn’t know.

I’ll leave it there.

 

[MNW67]

@MNW67 Mentioning a life interest trust actually proved you right!

The irony is brilliant

I have no interest in winning an argument. I just want a grown up discussion where we try to get to the bottom of things. In that spirit, could you look at my post #59.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

I have no interest in winning an argument. I just want a grown up discussion where we try to get to the bottom of things. In that spirit, could you look at my post #59.

I’ve replied as much as I need to.

Hopefully you understand a little bit more about life interest trusts now.

 

[MNW67]

I've posted what I wrote - its there for anyone to read.

It's fairly obvious that starmer was concerned about the land tipping his parents estate in to IHT, which he wanted to avoid.

Somebody wants to avoid IHT, the OP is renowned for claiming tax avoidance is tax dodging. its that simple.

So, why didn't he just keep the field in his own name. Then there would have been no issue about IHT at all. How would putting the field in trust benefit them, as compared to him retaining full ownership himself. This is the question which nobody seems to have been able to answer.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

So, why didn't he just keep the field in his own name. Then there would have been no issue about IHT at all. How would putting the field in trust benefit them, as compared to him retaining full ownership himself. This is the question which nobody seems to have been able to answer.

How would Mbk know why Starmer did what he did?

He posted an article, I enlighten you on the trust.

Don’t be a poor loser.

But if I had to guess, Starmer knew the field would go up in value, the trust was to avoid capital gains tax.

Quite a slippery move, he avoided both.

 

[motorbiking]

This is getting very confusing. Let's go back to basics, first, to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Sir Keir bought the field.
He wanted his parents to have use of the field during their lifetimes.
When they died, he wanted the field for himself.

Can we agree this is the starting point.

That is not what he has claimed.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

And it it was a gift via a trust he couldn’t maintain ownership of the land either.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

That is not what he has claimed.

He’s just trying to conflate the issue now.

 

[MNW67]

How would Mbk know why Starmer did what he did?

He posted an article, I enlighten you on the trust.

Don’t be a poor loser.

But if I had to guess, Starmer knew the field would go up in value, the trust was to avoid capital gains tax.

Quite a slippery move, he avoided both.

That was what I suggested originally!

But I didn't know the rules about CGT and trusts. Do any of the articles cover the CGT implications in the PM's case.

I actually do know quite a lot about life interest trusts, but I am happy to admit that I wasn't aware of the survivorship rule. Trusts are often complex. Funnily enough, I have been speaking with three very experienced STEP (full member) solicitors this week and they all gave me completely different advice. Only one actually got it right. Which was rather scary.

 

[motorbiking]

I actually do know quite a lot about life interest trusts, but I am happy to admit that I wasn't aware of the survivorship rule. Trusts are often complex. Funnily enough, I have been speaking with three very experienced STEP (full member) solicitors this week and they all gave me completely different advice. Only one actually got it right. Which was rather scary.

Did you tell them you had a 2:1 in law?

 

[Deleted member 317777]

That was what I suggested originally!

But I didn't know the rules about CGT and trusts. Do any of the articles cover the CGT implications in the PM's case.

I actually do know quite a lot about life interest trusts, but I am happy to admit that I wasn't aware of the survivorship rule. Trusts are often complex. Funnily enough, I have been speaking with three very experienced STEP (full member) solicitors this week and they all gave me completely different advice. Only one actually got it right. Which was rather scary.

Giving via a trust and maintaining over ship can really only point to one thing.

I’m no expert, but I imagine it’s a very grey area, Good job he took King’s council….

 

[motorbiking]

going back to the issue.

Starmer could have bought the field and just allowed his parents to keep donkeys in it. So we are left with failure to notify interest and possible failure to declare CGT.
He claims he gave it to his parents - so it should have become part of their estate - subject to IHT.

I think we can work out why he did what he did.

 

[MNW67]

That is not what he has claimed.

Yes, that is exactly what he has claimed. I think that is where you are getting confused.

 

[MNW67]

going back to the issue.

Starmer could have bought the field and just allowed his parents to keep donkeys in it. So we are left with failure to notify interest and possible failure to declare CGT.
He claims he gave it to his parents - so it should have become part of their estate - subject to IHT.

I think we can work out why he did what he did.

That was my original question, really. Is it more of a CGT issue than an IHT issue. Do you know the rules.

 

[noseall]

So we are left with failure to notify interest

Eh?