Reforming Agricultural Relief and Business Relief from CAT

[torblednam]

You think? I know of someone who in 2018 inherited a farm the guts of an hour's drive from where they live and it was only when the 6 year holding period ended this year that they could afford to consider its sale and replacement by purchasing another land holding in a location more convenient to them. They found the long drives to and from the inherited farm a total pain as they needed to tend to livestock there on a daily basis and sometimes more than once daily.

Ah come on now. Section 89(4) allows for the disposal within 6 years without clawback, to the extent that the proceeds are reinvested (within 12 months) in acquiring other agricultural property. If that is a true story, that person was very ill informed.

Anyway, unless they were already driving that hour to work the farm prior to inheriting it, they are definitely not the type of family farm scenario I was referring to. But even so, the carve out in S.89(4) allows that farming families can stay invested in farming assets, without losing their relief.

 

[T McGibney]

Ah come on now. Section 89(4) allows for the disposal within 6 years without clawback, to the extent that the proceeds are reinvested (within 12 months) in acquiring other agricultural property. If that is a true story, that person was very ill informed.

It does indeed and they knew and know that, and weren't in the least ill-informed.

But given the relative infrequency of available farms offered for sale close to them, they couldn't have put the inherited farm up for sale in the certain knowledge that another farm near to them would become available within that 12 month period.

It was only this year after the expiry of the 6-year period that they can comfortably sell the inherited farm without being under pressure to replace it within a very tight timeframe.

Anyway, unless they were already driving that hour to work the farm prior to inheriting it, they are definitely not the type of family farm scenario I was referring to. But even so, the carve out in S.89(4) allows that farming families can stay invested in farming assets, without losing their relief.

They were.

 

[torblednam]

Sounds like the definition of a first world problem TBH; I don't see a martyr in your tale. They were driving the hour to work someone else's farm before they inherited it, and they're still driving the hour now, except that it's their own farm.

They have options if they're unhappy with that,
move (most farms have a dwelling house, or failing that, the scope for one),
hire in help,
let it,
sell it and reinvest,
sell it and don't reinvest (and pay some tax).

 

[T McGibney]

Sounds like the definition of a first world problem TBH;

Wow, how negative!

Literally every issue mentioned on this site can be dismissed as "first world problem"

I don't see a martyr in your tale. They were driving the hour to work someone else's farm before they inherited it, and they're still driving the hour now, except that it's their own farm.

They have options if they're unhappy with that,
move (most farms have a dwelling house, or failing that, the scope for one),
hire in help,
let it,
sell it and reinvest,
sell it and don't reinvest (and pay some tax).

This farm didn't have a habitable dwelling house.

Any other red herrings you patronisingly wish to raise?

 

[torblednam]

Any other red herrings you patronisingly wish to raise?

What's patronizing about pointing out that a person has options? The fact that not all options are applicable in this case doesn't make them red herrings generally.

(As one of the most scathing posters on this site, it's a bit of a pot kettle for you to throw that at me BTW!!)

Literally every issue mentioned on this site can be dismissed as "first world problem"

Is this farm the main / sole source of income for this person's household? When they were doing this 2-hour round trip before they inherited it, so presumably they were being paid then by their parent / relative? I fail to see how there's a hardship being imposed or sustained by harshness in the tax code - as the proprietor now, they can choose to continue working it themselves, pay someone else to do it (or some of it), or let it for the clawback period.

 

[T McGibney]

I fail to see how there's a hardship being imposed or sustained by harshness in the tax code

Nobody mentioned hardship or harshness til you did.

You said

... a longer holding period (for agricultural relief) will have very little impact on the bona fide family farm situation.

I gave you an example of a case that contradicts that.

That's all.