| Lottery Winner [message #390332] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 16:01 |
|
I just wonder what sort of advice Camelot gave to the 83 year old who
won =A33.5m and is spending all the money on his family. I hope that he
lives to more than 90 or his family won't be best pleased.
Surely if he is giving the money away he should have said it was a
family syndicate ticket.
Kevin
|
|
|
| Re: Lottery Winner [message #390343 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 16:45 |
|
Kev wrote:
> I just wonder what sort of advice Camelot gave to the 83 year old who
> won £3.5m and is spending all the money on his family. I hope that he
> lives to more than 90 or his family won't be best pleased.
> Surely if he is giving the money away he should have said it was a
> family syndicate ticket.
Interesting point.
If he spends all of his winning on his family and dies within seven
years (not forgetting taper relief etc), presumably the inheritance tax
bill falls on the estate (so indirectly the beneficiaries would get
less/nothing but they wouldn't be paying the inheritance tax). What
happens if he's spent all his money, and there's no money in the estate?
Is there a subtle difference between him spending all his winnings on
his family and him having no money left, and simply giving them the
money (where I believe they might be liable for the inheritance tax on
the PET)?
I can't conceive there's any difference or else everyone would be doing it!
|
|
|
| Re: Lottery Winner [message #390372 ] |
Mo, 22 Mai 2006 23:53 |
|
In message <4de13dF1a3eu1U1 [at] individual.net>, Allan Gould
<invalid [at] invalid.invalid> writes
>Kev wrote:
>> I just wonder what sort of advice Camelot gave to the 83 year old who
>> won £3.5m and is spending all the money on his family. I hope that he
>> lives to more than 90 or his family won't be best pleased.
>> Surely if he is giving the money away he should have said it was a
>> family syndicate ticket.
>
>Interesting point.
>If he spends all of his winning on his family and dies within seven
>years (not forgetting taper relief etc), presumably the inheritance tax
>bill falls on the estate (so indirectly the beneficiaries would get
>less/nothing but they wouldn't be paying the inheritance tax). What
>happens if he's spent all his money, and there's no money in the estate?
The CTO will go for whoever is next, i.e. the beneficiaries.
>Is there a subtle difference between him spending all his winnings on
>his family and him having no money left, and simply giving them the
>money (where I believe they might be liable for the inheritance tax on
>the PET)?
>I can't conceive there's any difference or else everyone would be doing it!
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
