Bluff and bluster fails.

[Deleted member 317777]

Not in the type of cases we are discussing today. It is either a gift of the land absolutely to the parents, or the land is put into trust for the benefit of the parents during their lifetime, with the PM retaining legal ownership.

And after the second death they pay IHT, you’ve got it now!

If he wasn’t trying to save money/tax he would have let his parents use the land and no trust/gift would have been needed.

 

[transam]

Not a dime. It's a mere drop in the ocean regards Tory chummy pocket lining. The stolen money was quickly squirreled away in kids trust funds and the like.

Greedy lying Tory scum.

Yawn

 

[MNW67]

And after the second death they pay IHT, you’ve got it now!

If he wasn’t trying to save money/tax he would have let his parents use the land and no trust/gift would have been needed.

I think I may have stumbled across his motivation. Trusts aren't my specialty, but I know enough to Google the correct information. Have a read of this! Does it mean there would have been a CGT tax advantage. It might mean the bit in bold is wrong, though.

AI Overview

A "life interest reverts to settlor" on the death of the life tenant under a trust created before March 22, 2006, means the trust fund returns to the original creator of the trust, who receives tax benefits including a no-gain, no-loss Capital Gains Tax (CGT) uplift on the assets and an Inheritance Tax (IHT) exemption, preventing the property from being included in the life tenant's estate for IHT purposes. This type of trust was a common estate planning tool, but new trusts created after the 2006 date face different tax rules.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

Does it mean there would have been a CGT tax advantage:

I’ve already said it was to avoid CGT!!

You got there on your own though, nice work.

 

[MNW67]

I’ve already said it was to avoid CGT!!

TBF, I was the first person to suggest it! Everyone in the media seems to be concentrating on IHT. But I did wonder whether it was about CGT as well. I am not exactly sure what the "uplift" means, but it seems to be classed as an advantage.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

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.

As above. It’s been obvious all along.

Probably why I avoid debates.

 

[MNW67]

As above. It’s been obvious all along.

Probably why I avoid debates.

I had the initial idea, though. You just ran with it. See below. Anyway, we both seem to be doing better at getting to the bottom of this than the mainstream media!

So, if he actually remained the owner, how has he dodged inheritance tax. Or is it, perhaps, about capital gains tax or other taxes. Can you just explain a bit more about how tax was avoided.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

I had the initial idea, though. You just ran with it. See below. Anyway, we both seem to be doing better at getting to the bottom of this than the mainstream media!

I didn’t read you post, I skim most when I’m not interested.

I’m going through a life time trust at the minute, so it was obvious to me.

I’d say most people understood it was about avoidance

 

[MNW67]

I didn’t read you post, I skim most when I’m not interested.

I’m going through a life time trust at the minute, so it was obvious to me.

I’d say most people understood it was about avoidance

As part of this discussion, it became clear that the rules are different depending on whether it was set up pre-2006 and also depending on whether it arose on death.

 

[MNW67]

If he wasn’t trying to save money/tax he would have let his parents use the land and no trust/gift would have been needed.

That is the crucial question. What advantage was gained over just letting his parents use it.

It doesn't look like there was an IHT advantage.

But there might have been a CGT advantage.

Good job!

 

[MNW67]

TBH, stepping back from all the tax stuff for a moment, Starmer's explanation makes most sense. There never was a trust or a gift. He simply let his parents use the field but it remained fully under his ownership. This way isn't as much fun, though!

Interviewed by the BBC on the Sunday with Laura Kuennsberg programme Sir Kier Starmer said he had not created a trust:

“I didn’t create a trust, I simply bought a field and said to mum and dad, ‘This is for you’. I bought a field for £20,000 at the back of their house and said, ‘Here’s your field, it’s yours for as long as you may live, you can put your donkeys in it’.”

 

[blup]

So it’s man buys field, some donkeys graze it, man sells field and pays tax on the profit. Donkeys go somewhere else. Very intelligent people create a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[MNW67]

So it’s man buys field, some donkeys graze it, man sells field and pays tax on the profit. Donkeys go somewhere else. Very intelligent people create a mountain out of a molehill.

When we were all discussing the tax bit earlier, I hadn't actually realised where this story had sprung from. But it looks like Starmer didn't declare the field on the MPs register. And when asked to explain why, he said he had "gifted" the field to his parents, but had kept the legal ownership himself. The Sunday Times declared that this meant it must be a trust. And everyone else just went along with that. Starmer now seems to be saying that what he meant was that he "gifted" the use of the field , not the ownership of the field.

As you say, mountain out of a molehill.

 

[blup]

When we were all discussing the tax bit earlier, I hadn't actually realised where this story had sprung from. But it looks like Starmer didn't declare the field on the MPs register. And when asked to explain why, he said he had "gifted" the field to his parents, but had kept the legal ownership himself. The Sunday Times declared that this meant it must be a trust. And everyone else just went along with that. Starmer now seems to be saying that what he meant was that he "gifted" the use of the field , not the ownership of the field.

As you say, mountain out of a molehill.

He's partly responsible for the confusion. He’s a lawyer/politician who knows how to say one thing knowing that it will be taken one way (the implication of a trust) then later plausibly argues he meant something else (there was never a trust). We may never know if there was a written trust that he tore up when it wasn’t needed, or if he simply let his parents use the land. Bliar was the same at the Chiilcott inquiry when he justified the war on the basis he thought it was the right thing to do, having sold a lie to the parliament and the electorate that there were WMD’s. Misleading people is morally worse than lying when it buys it time or creates confusion.
But there has been a successful diversion from the original thread.

 

[MNW67]

But there has been a successful diversion from the original thread

True dat! I got a bit carried away trying to work out what the tax benefits of the various ways of owning the field were.