Inability to cover inheritance tax bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
jpd said:
In essence, the OP was asking whether the tax payers would their relative's emotional attachment to the family home, presumably until such time as he/she died and the tax still due was then paid from the proceeds of the estate - assuming that there would be proceeds left.
I'm inclined to side with Gordon on this one - after all, I have an emotional attachment to having long trips to exotic places but I wouldn't expect the tax payer to fund these :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The taxpayer isn’t footing the bill though, not really, and certainly not in this case, given the high value of the property.

A first legal charge will be taken over the property, and the tax liability plus accrued statutory interest (at a tasty enough rate), will be recovered on any subsequent sale of the property or from the estate if necessary.
 
torblednam said:
the tax liability plus accrued statutory interest (at a tasty enough rate)
Click to expand...

Than the OP would be mad to consider this. And the other posters were incorrect. Revenue will get it's pounds worth and the taxpayars will be delighted.
 
I think Gordons posts are judgemental and childish. The op had a specific question he wasnt looking to be judged. If you cant be constructive no need to be rude and bordeline abusive ie. referring to the OP as a "deadbeat".
 
torblednam said:
A first legal charge will be taken over the property,
Click to expand...
This is where it might not work. OP is talking about both a mortgage & a deferred tax payment. So, it would have to be a 2nd legal charge as bank will only lend on 1st charge. Or, forget the mortgage, and have Revenue accrue at 8% on the entire amount. If 125k is max a bank would lend, it's unlikely the person could pay anything material above the 8% interest, so unlikely Revenue would entertain if there's no realistic way of the money being repaid in foreseeable future?
 
Engage the services of a good tax advisor would be my advice. My mother has just been through a similar situation and we had a tax advisor who deals with revenue on a regular basis conduct all communication on our behalf. We found them extremely fair to deal with and once all facts were established revenue even offered us more favourable payment terms than what we were originally seeking.

I am a qualified accountant and knew how to handle this myself but felt by engaging the services of a specialist who knows exactly how to phrase things when speaking to revenue was the best option. Overall very satisfied with the outcome.
 
RedOnion said:
This is where it might not work. OP is talking about both a mortgage & a deferred tax payment. So, it would have to be a 2nd legal charge as bank will only lend on 1st charge. Or, forget the mortgage, and have Revenue accrue at 8% on the entire amount. If 125k is max a bank would lend, it's unlikely the person could pay anything material above the 8% interest, so unlikely Revenue would entertain if there's no realistic way of the money being repaid in foreseeable future?
Click to expand...

I was kind of working off the assumption that the bank wouldn’t actually lend 125k to someone, knowing that it’s going towards a tax bill and the person will still owe the same again in tax...!

Overall it’s an insanely expensive way to deal with a situation that need not actually arise.
 
jim said:
I think Gordons posts are judgemental and childish. The op had a specific question he wasnt looking to be judged. If you cant be constructive no need to be rude and bordeline abusive ie. referring to the OP as a "deadbeat".
Click to expand...

You should probably read the posts properly before commenting on them. I did not refer to the OP as a deadbeat. I referred to the person who might seek to frustrate Revenue as a deadbeat. Your comments around the constructiveness or otherwise of my posts are also bizarre; I attempted to assist and only switched tack when it became clear that the OP was looking for a deadbeat’s playbook. It is a cousin of asking “how can I borrow money to buy a home and not pay it back?”
 
Instead of answering the OPs question Gordon you are chatising him.

You use silly phrases like "Intellectual masturbation" followed by "im out", implying that you no longer had a contribution to make to the thread but you then proceed to abuse the individual concerned (a relative or friend of the OP I presume) referring to them as a "deadbeat".

Its just a toxic contribution that goes nowhere towards answering the OPs specific question; however averse you might be to the wider context of the OPs situation.

Why not just answer the question if you can and hold back with the judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top