Bluff and bluster fails.

[motorbiking]

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

"I bought a field and I said to mum and Dad, this is for you". I've posted the interview.

If you bought someone a car and said this is for you - do you think they'd believe it was theirs?

 

[MNW67]

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

Funnily enough, two of them did ask me about my background.

 

[MNW67]

"I bought a field and I said to mum and Dad, this is for you". I've posted the interview.

If you bought someone a car and said this is for you - do you think they'd believe it was theirs?

It could mean a variety of things.

 

[noseall]

So we are left with failure to notify interest

What does that mean?

 

[motorbiking]

It could mean a variety of things.

Do you seriously think it means he both gave it away and didn't give it away?

 

[motorbiking]

What does that mean?

He "forgot" to declare it to the parliamentary authorities for some years while an MP.

 

[MNW67]

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….

Counsel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MNW67]

Do you seriously think it means he both gave it away and didn't give it away?

No, you are being silly.

I can easily imagine somebody buying a car and saying to a parent "This is for you (to use for as long as you want)". It doesn't mean they are being given ownership of the car. Rather, they are just being given the use of the car.

 

[MNW67]

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

I am not sure that makes sense. It can't be both a gift and a trust. Gifts are absolute. With trusts, only a beneficial interest is transferred, whilst legal ownership is retained.

 

[blup]

.

 

[MNW67]

He claims he gave it to his parents - so it should have become part of their estate - subject to IHT.

Something just rang a bell, so I had another quick Google. It seems that with life interest trusts set up pre-2006, the value of the trust assets (i.e. the land) would have been added to the parents own estate. So, that negates any IHT advantage.

If there is anything suspicious, it might be more to do with CGT. Do you know whether putting the land in trust would have had a CGT advantage.

 

[noseall]

He "forgot" to declare it to the parliamentary authorities for some years while an MP.

So irrelevant regards any tax liability then..

 

[Deleted member 317777]

Counsel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least you’ve been right once today!!

You’re a bit sad….

 

[Deleted member 317777]

I am not sure that makes sense. It can't be both a gift and a trust. Gifts are absolute. With trusts, only a beneficial interest is transferred, whilst legal ownership is retained.

You can gift to a trust!

Google Search

Maybe use Google before you talk about trusts and gifts etc.

It’s common practice to make a “gift” to a “trust”

 

[MNW67]

You can gift to a trust!

Google Search

Maybe use Google before you talk about trusts and gifts etc.

It’s common practice to make a “gift” to a “trust”

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.