Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,849
Do you think parents should be taxed on paying 30K for a child's wedding?
I know they do. Is that legal?No, and helpfully the tax authorities agree with me.
You are.Why shouldn't I be allowed give my child 30K tax free to buy a house?
Or a horse, or a yacht?
You left out that it is then deducted from your IH Tax allowance. Unlike a wedding payment.You are.
You left out that it is then deducted from your IH Tax allowance. Unlike a wedding payment.
Why would it not be legal?And you didn't address whether revenue's treatment of it is legal.
Do you think parents should be taxed on paying 30K for a child's wedding?
If a child had already reached their Cat A threshold they would be taxed on the 30K.That's irrelevant. You suggested you're not allowed give your child 30K tax free to buy a house.
That's patently untrue. The Group A CAT threshold is over 10 times 30K.
Why would it not be legal?
I'm sure the likes of Sean Quinn's or JP McManus's children might reach such thresholds easily.I understand and largely agree with the sentiment of your post there, and sorry to nitpick, but parents aren't taxes for paying for their child's wedding.
If anyone is (and I doubt in reality if it happens), it's the child, who will only be exposed if they've already received in excess of 335k of taxable gifts, over and above the 6k per annum that their parents could gift them tax free every year of their life (so now we could be hitting a cool half million for a person in their late 20's)...
I understand that about the revenue decision. But it's clearly actually a gift to the child. The 'hosting' it by revenue is a way to pretend it's not actually a gift. Because it wouldn't be accepted by the general public if it were treated as a gift.It's been a while since I've looked into the wedding exemption, but I believe the rationale is that a wedding is a family party and not just the couple marrying so Revenue take the view that the parents paying for it are hosting it and not the child.
Reduced to 2 years on appeal & from memory served 1/2 of it. Sums involved were considerably higher and the false accounting occurred several times over a number of years.6 or 7 years ago a lad ..... a long stretch in prison.
I understand that about the revenue decision. But it's clearly actually a gift to the child. The 'hosting' it by revenue is a way to pretend it's not actually a gift. Because it wouldn't be accepted by the general public if it were treated as a gift.
If it were me, I'd prefer to get a cash gift of 30K without eating into my Cat A allowance. And I'd no way pay 30K for a wedding.
The days of parents hosting children's weddings are long past. It's clear it's a 30K gift from parent to child. If you're sending out the invites, booking the hotel, picking the meal you are hosting it. The parents are not, they are merely paying. As a gift.But I’ll indulge you, briefly. The rationale for the wedding exemption is blindingly obvious. If I pay for my child’s wedding, the whole thing becomes “Mr & Mrs Gordon & Kate Gekko invite you to the wedding of their son/daughter…”. Revenue’s reasonable position is that it’s an expense of the parents, which it is if my wife and I host the thing.
I'd say it's more a tactical concession by Revenue.The days of parents hosting children's weddings are long past. It's clear it's a 30K gift from parent to child. If you're sending out the invites, booking the hotel, picking the meal you are hosting it. The parents are not, they are merely paying. As a gift.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?