End inheritance tax exemptions

I know this topic has been discussed here many times before and tends to lead to the conversation getting a bit heated, but I think it's too important of an issue to shy away from continuing to talk about it.

I understand the reasoning behind the exemptions to inheritance tax. There are societal and economic benefits from businesses and farms being handed down to children. It is unpleasant to force someone from the house they have lived in all of their life because they can't pay the inheritance tax on it. However, I feel the negative consequences of these exemptions are not given enough attention.

One obvious issue is the unfairness of the system. It seems inequitable that someone can inherit a substantial estate with little or no tax liability simply because they meet the exemption criteria, while others who inherit smaller amounts face significant tax burdens. Furthermore, the qualification for the relief can depend on an interpretation of the rules that results in artificial distinctions between businesses producing substantial differences in tax liabilities. If your parent owns furnished caravans that they rent out, you either get all or none of the business relief when you inherit it depending on the level of service provided to the renters.

Perhaps less obvious are the societal and economic harms caused by people's actions being constrained by the need to comply with the exemption criteria. I know of several cases where children aren't interested in farming or the family business, and their parents would be fine with them doing something else, but they feel forced into it because the inheritance tax savings are, in some cases, worth hundreds of thousands of euros. I also personally know people who are living in their parents' house, even though they would prefer to be elsewhere and being stuck there limits their job opportunities, purely in order to qualify for the inheritance tax exemption. I believe the high price of farmland and low turnover of ownership, which makes it hard for new farmers to enter, is in part directly caused by the agricultural relief exemption.

If your parents own a farm, business, or property that you wish to inherit, what’s wrong with planning ahead for the inheritance tax? Saving in anticipation of this tax and getting a loan to cover any shortfall seems like a reasonable approach.

These exemptions are worth a substantial amount to the people who qualify for them, so any attempt to remove or even reduce them will always be met with very vocal opposition from those people. We saw an example of this when the €10m/€3m cap on business relief was proposed. I think those of us who see the problems of these exemptions need to start being more vocal about our opposition to them.

Is this, perhaps, a contrary argument to this?

It’s generally true that tax rules affect people’s behaviour or choices.

Often, that’s the point of them. We want people to save for their retirement; hence, tax deductions and deferrals for pension contributions and pension funds. We want people to stop smoking; hence, swingeing rates of excise on tobacco.

But, even where that’s not the goal, tax rules will affect behaviour. The OP points to people living in a house they wouldn’t otherwise live in, or pursuing a career they wouldn’t otherwise pursue — things we don’t particularly want them to do — in order to obtain CAT relief.

In fact, he talks about them “feeling forced” into this. They’re not forced, of course; they are free to move to another house or follow a different career and give up the CAT relief. Their judgment, clearly, is that taking advantage of the CAT relief confers more value or benefit on them, or improves their life to a greater degree, than would changing their home or their career. It follows that, if we abolished the reliefs, they’d be (in their own judgment) worse off. We couldn’t claim to be doing it for their benefit — unless we are prepared to take a “They don’t know what’s good for them!” line.

Even if we did take that line, we can’t abolish the reliefs only for those people who we think would be better off — the ones who would rather live elsewhere or do another job, but haven’t the courage to take the CAT hit involved. We’d also be abolishing the relief for those who really want to stay in the family home, and/or want nothing more than to farm the family land or run the family business. They’d clearly be made much worse off if the relief were abolished — they’d be poorer and they’d be forced out of the home/the career that they love.

You could still come up with other arguments to justify abolishing the relief — the detriment to those adversely affected is outweighed by the wider societal benefits (the extra tax revenue, a policy that generally discourages inherited wealth and encourages homes/farms to be placed on the market, to go those who can exploit them to best advantage). But those arguments tend to look pretty left-wing (inheritance bad!) or pretty neoliberal (the market knows best!) and I suspect won’t have huge popular appeal. Plus they tend to overlook any societal detriment that comes from effectively forcing the breakup of family farms and family businesses or the sale of family homes every generation or so — what does this do to communities?

So I reckon CAT reliefs of this kind are here to stay.

As for abolishing CAT altogether? Wildly unlikely, in my opinion. In Ireland we think of ourselves as a highly-taxed country when, in fact, by comparison with other OECD countries we’re about mid-range. But we do have unusually high income taxes, particularly for people in the middle income brackets. This is balanced by unusually low taxes on capital. If any rebalancing of the tax burden is required, it’s not still lower taxes on capital. The only way I’d see CAT being reduced is in the context of an increase in other capital taxes, such as rates, annual property tax, etc.

basilbrush said:

. I know of several cases where children aren't interested in farming or the family business, and their parents would be fine with them doing something else, but they feel forced into it because the inheritance tax savings are, in some cases, worth hundreds of thousands of euros

Click to expand...

Can't they just rent it out to a farmer to meet this requirement?

ClubMan said:

Is this, perhaps, a contrary argument to this?

Alan Shatter's campaign to abolish Inheritance Tax

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/09/17/shatter-hasnt-given-thought-to-election-bid-as-he-seeks-revolt-over-inheritance-tax/

www.askaboutmoney.com

Click to expand...

Thank you, but for the purpose of this discussion I would like to make the assumption that inheritance tax remains in place and only discuss the specific topic of exemptions.

Thank you also, @TomEdison, for your thoughtful contribution.

TomEdison said:

You could still come up with other arguments to justify abolishing the relief — the detriment to those adversely affected is outweighed by the wider societal benefits (the extra tax revenue, a policy that generally discourages inherited wealth and encourages homes/farms to be placed on the market, to go those who can exploit them to best advantage). But those arguments tend to look pretty left-wing (inheritance bad!) or pretty neoliberal (the market knows best!) and I suspect won’t have huge popular appeal. Plus they tend to overlook any societal detriment that comes from effectively forcing the breakup of family farms and family businesses or the sale of family homes every generation or so — what does this do to communities?

Click to expand...

I think this is the centre of your argument. As you note, some would benefit and some would be disadvantaged by a removal of the exemptions. You indicate, however, that the financial loss to those who currently receive the exemptions, and the harm to communities due to reduced stability, might outweigh the total benefits. Although it is difficult to predict all of the outcomes of a change of policy, I think this is far from clear. I am even more doubtful of your assertion that there is no popular support for removing the exemptions. Outside of those who receive the exemptions, I expect that there is widespread opposition to the idea of perpetuating family wealth by reducing or eliminating inheritance tax for those who are already likely to be among the wealthiest.

Fortune said:

Can't they just rent it out to a farmer to meet this requirement?

Click to expand...

Only if the conditions are met, including that at least 80% of their wealth after the inheritance is agricultural. The reason for that condition is unclear to me. If they are not interested in farming the land themselves, wouldn't it be better for the land to be bought by someone else who does want to farm it? It seems specifically designed to benefit only the very largest landowners, where the inherited farm is worth so much that any other assets the children may have or inherit, including savings, cars, or a house, are negligible compared to the land that they do not even plan to farm themselves.

I believe these farm and small-business CAT exemptions really are a curse.

Family members are often the best people to keep a farm/small business ticking over, but they're highly unlikely to grow it substantially.

Meanwhile someone else bought Apple shares 30 years ago and funded some of the most amazing products of all time will see their shareholding taxed if they leave it to their children.

From an economic perspective we should encourage entrepreneurial activity and high-risk, high-reward investment. That's what leads to long-run growth and prosperity. Imagine Ireland still had half the population working on farms like in the 1920s.....it would be poverty.

Dr Strangelove said:

From an economic perspective we should encourage ...high-risk, high-reward investment.

Click to expand...

Bitcoin?