|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » Q on inheritance tax
| Q on inheritance tax [message #375743] |
Di, 28 März 2006 20:42 |
|
Lets say there is a house to be sold as the result of a death.
The value of the house is, for sake of argument, well above the IHT
threshold.
Various expenses will be incurred on the sale....estate agents, solicitors,
stamp duty, etc. I understand that these will be allowableas expenses and
will contribute to lowering the final value of the estate for tax purposes.
What about other things done to make the house both more saleable, and
perhaps more valuable? This might be as trivial as repainting a tatty window
frame, or perhaps more involved, say redecoration throughout, or maybe very
expensive, say a new kitchen?
All of these expenses might quite legitimately be expended in order to get a
better final price (enough home improvement shows tell us this is so!) or
just a quicker sale, but are they generally allowable against the value of
the estate by our tight-fisted tax overlords?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375750 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 21:43 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> Lets say there is a house to be sold as the result of a death.
>
> The value of the house is, for sake of argument, well above the IHT
> threshold.
>
> Various expenses will be incurred on the sale....estate agents, solicitors,
> stamp duty, etc. I understand that these will be allowableas expenses and
> will contribute to lowering the final value of the estate for tax purposes.
>
> What about other things done to make the house both more saleable, and
> perhaps more valuable? This might be as trivial as repainting a tatty window
> frame, or perhaps more involved, say redecoration throughout, or maybe very
> expensive, say a new kitchen?
>
> All of these expenses might quite legitimately be expended in order to get a
> better final price (enough home improvement shows tell us this is so!) or
> just a quicker sale, but are they generally allowable against the value of
> the estate by our tight-fisted tax overlords?
>
> --
> Tumbleweed
>
> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
The value of the house for IHT is the value of the house, AFAIUI.
Whatever costs are incurred in in selling it, or improving it, are
irrelevant.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375753 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 21:53 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> Lets say there is a house to be sold as the result of a death.
>
> The value of the house is, for sake of argument, well above the IHT
> threshold.
>
> Various expenses will be incurred on the sale....estate agents, solicitor=
s,
> stamp duty, etc. I understand that these will be allowableas expenses and
> will contribute to lowering the final value of the estate for tax purpose=
s=2E
>
> What about other things done to make the house both more saleable, and
> perhaps more valuable? This might be as trivial as repainting a tatty win=
dow
> frame, or perhaps more involved, say redecoration throughout, or maybe ve=
ry
> expensive, say a new kitchen?
>
> All of these expenses might quite legitimately be expended in order to ge=
t a
> better final price (enough home improvement shows tell us this is so!) or
> just a quicker sale, but are they generally allowable against the value of
> the estate by our tight-fisted tax overlords?
Say you have a ring which is valued at =A3200.
You take it to auction where it fails to meet it's reserve. You sell it
shortly afterwards for =A350. Auctioners fees =A325. Transport etc =A320.
Value for IHT purposes? =A3200.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375757 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 22:16 |
|
"Troy Steadman" <troysteadman [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1143575620.212273.92700 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tumbleweed wrote:
> Lets say there is a house to be sold as the result of a death.
>
> The value of the house is, for sake of argument, well above the IHT
> threshold.
>
> Various expenses will be incurred on the sale....estate agents,
> solicitors,
> stamp duty, etc. I understand that these will be allowableas expenses and
> will contribute to lowering the final value of the estate for tax
> purposes.
>
> What about other things done to make the house both more saleable, and
> perhaps more valuable? This might be as trivial as repainting a tatty
> window
> frame, or perhaps more involved, say redecoration throughout, or maybe
> very
> expensive, say a new kitchen?
>
> All of these expenses might quite legitimately be expended in order to get
> a
> better final price (enough home improvement shows tell us this is so!) or
> just a quicker sale, but are they generally allowable against the value of
> the estate by our tight-fisted tax overlords?
Say you have a ring which is valued at £200.
You take it to auction where it fails to meet it's reserve. You sell it
shortly afterwards for £50. Auctioners fees £25. Transport etc £20.
Value for IHT purposes? £200.
=====================================================
Interesting if not counter intuitive. So if the house is a bit of a mess and
is thus valued at say £200k, and I then pretty-it-up ala multiple TV shows,
and sell it for £300k , no one will complain?
Do you know who determines the value? Can I pick a few valuers and choose
the lowest one? Can I get my mate in? "<draws breath, shrugs shoulders> "no
more than £50 in that condition mate"
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375760 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 22:26 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Troy Steadman" <troysteadman [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1143575620.212273.92700 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> > Lets say there is a house to be sold as the result of a death.
> >
> > The value of the house is, for sake of argument, well above the IHT
> > threshold.
> >
> > Various expenses will be incurred on the sale....estate agents,
> > solicitors,
> > stamp duty, etc. I understand that these will be allowableas expenses a=
nd
> > will contribute to lowering the final value of the estate for tax
> > purposes.
> >
> > What about other things done to make the house both more saleable, and
> > perhaps more valuable? This might be as trivial as repainting a tatty
> > window
> > frame, or perhaps more involved, say redecoration throughout, or maybe
> > very
> > expensive, say a new kitchen?
> >
> > All of these expenses might quite legitimately be expended in order to =
get
> > a
> > better final price (enough home improvement shows tell us this is so!) =
or
> > just a quicker sale, but are they generally allowable against the value=
of
> > the estate by our tight-fisted tax overlords?
>
> Say you have a ring which is valued at =A3200.
>
> You take it to auction where it fails to meet it's reserve. You sell it
> shortly afterwards for =A350. Auctioners fees =A325. Transport etc =A320.
>
> Value for IHT purposes? =A3200.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Interesting if not counter intuitive. So if the house is a bit of a mess =
and
> is thus valued at say =A3200k, and I then pretty-it-up ala multiple TV sh=
ows,
> and sell it for =A3300k , no one will complain?
>
> Do you know who determines the value? Can I pick a few valuers and choose
> the lowest one? Can I get my mate in? "<draws breath, shrugs shoulders> "=
no
> more than =A350 in that condition mate"
Yep, if HMRC will accept it, of course you can.
1) You can't dispose of any of the assets until they are out of
probate.
2) You can't get out of probate without the the approval of HMRC and
the payment (or promise of payment in the case of house/land) of IHT.
3) You can't pay IHT without getting everything valued.
So value everything down.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375769 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 23:14 |
|
"Troy Steadman" <troysteadman [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1143577606.882036.89010 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Troy Steadman" <troysteadman [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1143575620.212273.92700 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> > Lets say there is a house to be sold as the result of a death.
> >
> > The value of the house is, for sake of argument, well above the IHT
> > threshold.
> >
> > Various expenses will be incurred on the sale....estate agents,
> > solicitors,
> > stamp duty, etc. I understand that these will be allowableas expenses
> > and
> > will contribute to lowering the final value of the estate for tax
> > purposes.
> >
> > What about other things done to make the house both more saleable, and
> > perhaps more valuable? This might be as trivial as repainting a tatty
> > window
> > frame, or perhaps more involved, say redecoration throughout, or maybe
> > very
> > expensive, say a new kitchen?
> >
> > All of these expenses might quite legitimately be expended in order to
> > get
> > a
> > better final price (enough home improvement shows tell us this is so!)
> > or
> > just a quicker sale, but are they generally allowable against the value
> > of
> > the estate by our tight-fisted tax overlords?
>
> Say you have a ring which is valued at £200.
>
> You take it to auction where it fails to meet it's reserve. You sell it
> shortly afterwards for £50. Auctioners fees £25. Transport etc £20.
>
> Value for IHT purposes? £200.
>
> =====================================================
>
> Interesting if not counter intuitive. So if the house is a bit of a mess
> and
> is thus valued at say £200k, and I then pretty-it-up ala multiple TV
> shows,
> and sell it for £300k , no one will complain?
>
> Do you know who determines the value? Can I pick a few valuers and choose
> the lowest one? Can I get my mate in? "<draws breath, shrugs shoulders>
> "no
> more than £50 in that condition mate"
Yep, if HMRC will accept it, of course you can.
1) You can't dispose of any of the assets until they are out of
probate.
2) You can't get out of probate without the the approval of HMRC and
the payment (or promise of payment in the case of house/land) of IHT.
3) You can't pay IHT without getting everything valued.
So value everything down.
=======================================
Just been looking at the website, amazingly it says;
The full market value of any house owned by the deceased should be shown
>>>>although a professional valuation is not normally required<<<< (my
emphasis).
How are you meant to know the FMV without getting a professional valuation?
Looks like a situation designed to encourage fraud. What a bizzarre govt we
have.
I suppose the obvious thing to do is to get a valuation, then look on the
land registry and value it by comparison, then choose the lower value. After
all, any difference must be down to the work done on it, and the elapsed
time?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375773 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 23:42 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Troy Steadman" <troysteadman [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1143577606.882036.89010 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> > "Troy Steadman" <troysteadman [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1143575620.212273.92700 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Tumbleweed wrote:
> > > Lets say there is a house to be sold as the result of a death.
> > >
> > > The value of the house is, for sake of argument, well above the IHT
> > > threshold.
> > >
> > > Various expenses will be incurred on the sale....estate agents,
> > > solicitors,
> > > stamp duty, etc. I understand that these will be allowableas expenses
> > > and
> > > will contribute to lowering the final value of the estate for tax
> > > purposes.
> > >
> > > What about other things done to make the house both more saleable, and
> > > perhaps more valuable? This might be as trivial as repainting a tatty
> > > window
> > > frame, or perhaps more involved, say redecoration throughout, or maybe
> > > very
> > > expensive, say a new kitchen?
> > >
> > > All of these expenses might quite legitimately be expended in order to
> > > get
> > > a
> > > better final price (enough home improvement shows tell us this is so!)
> > > or
> > > just a quicker sale, but are they generally allowable against the val=
ue
> > > of
> > > the estate by our tight-fisted tax overlords?
> >
> > Say you have a ring which is valued at =A3200.
> >
> > You take it to auction where it fails to meet it's reserve. You sell it
> > shortly afterwards for =A350. Auctioners fees =A325. Transport etc =A32=
0=2E
> >
> > Value for IHT purposes? =A3200.
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> > Interesting if not counter intuitive. So if the house is a bit of a mess
> > and
> > is thus valued at say =A3200k, and I then pretty-it-up ala multiple TV
> > shows,
> > and sell it for =A3300k , no one will complain?
> >
> > Do you know who determines the value? Can I pick a few valuers and choo=
se
> > the lowest one? Can I get my mate in? "<draws breath, shrugs shoulders>
> > "no
> > more than =A350 in that condition mate"
>
> Yep, if HMRC will accept it, of course you can.
>
> 1) You can't dispose of any of the assets until they are out of
> probate.
> 2) You can't get out of probate without the the approval of HMRC and
> the payment (or promise of payment in the case of house/land) of IHT.
> 3) You can't pay IHT without getting everything valued.
>
> So value everything down.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Just been looking at the website, amazingly it says;
>
> The full market value of any house owned by the deceased should be shown
> >>>>although a professional valuation is not normally required<<<< (my
> emphasis).
>
> How are you meant to know the FMV without getting a professional valuatio=
n?
> Looks like a situation designed to encourage fraud. What a bizzarre govt =
we
> have.
> I suppose the obvious thing to do is to get a valuation, then look on the
> land registry and value it by comparison, then choose the lower value. Af=
ter
> all, any difference must be down to the work done on it, and the elapsed
> time?
The method is the same method it has always been.
You are valuing a house with N beds, n receptions, n baths, A sized
garden, in a given area?
Look for *two* N beds, n receptions, n baths, A sized garden, houses
sold within a month or two in the same area, or an equivalent area. The
average of those two house's value is the value.
Get a surveyor who is used to arguing with the Revenue - so yes, get
professional help if IHT is involved.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375774 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 23:50 |
|
Tumbleweed <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote
>
>Just been looking at the website, amazingly it says;
>
>The full market value of any house owned by the deceased should be shown
> >>>>although a professional valuation is not normally required<<<< (my
>emphasis).
>
>How are you meant to know the FMV without getting a professional valuation?
>Looks like a situation designed to encourage fraud. What a bizzarre govt we
>have.
>I suppose the obvious thing to do is to get a valuation, then look on the
>land registry and value it by comparison, then choose the lower value. After
>all, any difference must be down to the work done on it, and the elapsed
>time?
>
There are three houses for sale on my road at exactly the same asking
prices, it isn't too difficult to get a rough value by this means.
When I executed my mother's Will my sister wanted to stay in the house,
so I erred on the low side for probate purposes, a reasonable thing to
do, so long as it isn't a serious difference!
In our case IHT was not due, but they are certainly more 'interested'
when the estate is close to, or above the limit. ;-)
--
Gordon Harris
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375776 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 00:11 |
|
"Gordon" <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9kIRJ2sR+aKEFwfR [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk...
> Tumbleweed <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>Just been looking at the website, amazingly it says;
>>
>>The full market value of any house owned by the deceased should be shown
>> >>>>although a professional valuation is not normally required<<<< (my
>>emphasis).
>>
>>How are you meant to know the FMV without getting a professional
>>valuation?
>>Looks like a situation designed to encourage fraud. What a bizzarre govt
>>we
>>have.
>>I suppose the obvious thing to do is to get a valuation, then look on the
>>land registry and value it by comparison, then choose the lower value.
>>After
>>all, any difference must be down to the work done on it, and the elapsed
>>time?
>>
> There are three houses for sale on my road at exactly the same asking
> prices, it isn't too difficult to get a rough value by this means.
>
> When I executed my mother's Will my sister wanted to stay in the house, so
> I erred on the low side for probate purposes, a reasonable thing to do, so
> long as it isn't a serious difference!
> In our case IHT was not due, but they are certainly more 'interested' when
> the estate is close to, or above the limit. ;-)
> --
> Gordon Harris
Ironically the govt leaflet says 'IHT only applies to a tiny percentage of
estates".
This is an outright lie, certainly anywhere S of Watford, chances are it
will apply to most where there is a house.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375780 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 00:26 |
|
In message <48te61Flqrb2U1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>Lets say there is a house to be sold as the result of a death.
>
>The value of the house is, for sake of argument, well above the IHT
>threshold.
>
>Various expenses will be incurred on the sale....estate agents, solicitors,
>stamp duty, etc. I understand that these will be allowableas expenses and
>will contribute to lowering the final value of the estate for tax purposes.
>
>What about other things done to make the house both more saleable, and
>perhaps more valuable? This might be as trivial as repainting a tatty window
>frame, or perhaps more involved, say redecoration throughout, or maybe very
>expensive, say a new kitchen?
>
>All of these expenses might quite legitimately be expended in order to get a
>better final price (enough home improvement shows tell us this is so!) or
>just a quicker sale, but are they generally allowable against the value of
>the estate by our tight-fisted tax overlords?
>
The Estate of the deceased is, in effect, a trust and any gains or
income received is potentially taxable. So those post death expenses
would reduce the gain on eventual sale but wouldnt effect the IHT
situation.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375781 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 01:31 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> Ironically the govt leaflet says 'IHT only applies to a tiny percentage of
> estates".
>
> This is an outright lie, certainly anywhere S of Watford, chances are it
> will apply to most where there is a house.
You may find that in most estates there is no house.
Members of the non-property-owning under-classes die too, you know.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375782 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 01:35 |
|
Troy Steadman wrote:
> The method is the same method it has always been.
>
> You are valuing a house with N beds, n receptions, n baths, A sized
> garden, in a given area?
>
> Look for *two* N beds, n receptions, n baths, A sized garden, houses
> sold within a month or two in the same area, or an equivalent area. The
> average of those two house's value is the value.
Hey! I thought you said sample size was 16, not 10.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375789 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 10:03 |
|
In message <48tqdmFl54cpU1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>Ironically the govt leaflet says 'IHT only applies to a tiny percentage of
>estates".
>
>This is an outright lie, certainly anywhere S of Watford, chances are it
>will apply to most where there is a house.
>
If the house is owned by a couple then probably IHT will only fall due
when the second dies, so the number will be more like (most where there
is a house)/2.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375791 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 10:37 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> Just been looking at the website, amazingly it says;
>
> The full market value of any house owned by the deceased should be shown
> >>>>although a professional valuation is not normally required<<<< (my
> emphasis).
Ah but, what *is* FMV? It is what the deceased would have been able
to get for it, on the open market, i.e. at arm's length, on the day he
died, had he not died.
That, surely, must mean the net proceeds after deduction of selling
expenses.
> How are you meant to know the FMV without getting a professional
> valuation?
An actual open market sale is a pretty good way of establishing FMV.
What you get is what it's worth.
> Looks like a situation designed to encourage fraud. What a
> bizzarre govt we have.
> I suppose the obvious thing to do is to get a valuation, then look on the
> land registry and value it by comparison, then choose the lower value.
> After all, any difference must be down to the work done on it, and the
> elapsed time?
If a house is sold more or less straight away, you don't need a valuation
at date of death because it will be presumed (barring exceptional
circumstances) that in a short time the value does not change appreciably.
Hence the value at death either is the same as the actual sale proceeds,
or can be back-calculated from the sale proceeds by reference to local
house price indices on the dates of sale and of death.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375827 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 15:41 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:7HrWf.44024$wl.13930 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
>> Just been looking at the website, amazingly it says;
>>
>> The full market value of any house owned by the deceased should be shown
>> >>>>although a professional valuation is not normally required<<<< (my
>> emphasis).
>
> Ah but, what *is* FMV? It is what the deceased would have been able
> to get for it, on the open market, i.e. at arm's length, on the day he
> died, had he not died.
>
> That, surely, must mean the net proceeds after deduction of selling
> expenses.
>
>> How are you meant to know the FMV without getting a professional
>> valuation?
>
> An actual open market sale is a pretty good way of establishing FMV.
> What you get is what it's worth.
>
>> Looks like a situation designed to encourage fraud. What a
>> bizzarre govt we have.
>> I suppose the obvious thing to do is to get a valuation, then look on the
>> land registry and value it by comparison, then choose the lower value.
>> After all, any difference must be down to the work done on it, and the
>> elapsed time?
>
> If a house is sold more or less straight away, you don't need a valuation
> at date of death because it will be presumed (barring exceptional
> circumstances) that in a short time the value does not change appreciably.
>
> Hence the value at death either is the same as the actual sale proceeds,
> or can be back-calculated from the sale proceeds by reference to local
> house price indices on the dates of sale and of death.
>
It is my understanding that you cant sell the house until you get probate
and you cant get probate until you value the estate. So your way doesnt work
(valuing the hosue by seeing what it actually sold for).
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375831 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 15:55 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:7HrWf.44024$wl.13930 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Tumbleweed wrote:
> >
> >> Just been looking at the website, amazingly it says;
> >>
> >> The full market value of any house owned by the deceased should be shown
> >> >>>>although a professional valuation is not normally required<<<< (my
> >> emphasis).
> >
> > Ah but, what *is* FMV? It is what the deceased would have been able
> > to get for it, on the open market, i.e. at arm's length, on the day he
> > died, had he not died.
> >
> > That, surely, must mean the net proceeds after deduction of selling
> > expenses.
> >
> >> How are you meant to know the FMV without getting a professional
> >> valuation?
> >
> > An actual open market sale is a pretty good way of establishing FMV.
> > What you get is what it's worth.
> >
> >> Looks like a situation designed to encourage fraud. What a
> >> bizzarre govt we have.
> >> I suppose the obvious thing to do is to get a valuation, then look on the
> >> land registry and value it by comparison, then choose the lower value.
> >> After all, any difference must be down to the work done on it, and the
> >> elapsed time?
> >
> > If a house is sold more or less straight away, you don't need a valuation
> > at date of death because it will be presumed (barring exceptional
> > circumstances) that in a short time the value does not change appreciably.
> >
> > Hence the value at death either is the same as the actual sale proceeds,
> > or can be back-calculated from the sale proceeds by reference to local
> > house price indices on the dates of sale and of death.
> >
> It is my understanding that you cant sell the house until you get probate
> and you cant get probate until you value the estate. So your way doesnt work
> (valuing the hosue by seeing what it actually sold for).
Except that the probate valuation is a "working" figure, subject to
revision. The District Valuer will - eventually - be asked to confirm
it, and if you sell the house ten weeks later for half or double, he
adjusts the valuation accordingly.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375839 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 16:27 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> It is my understanding that you cant sell the house until you get probate
But you can agree a price with a buyer before getting probate, and that
agreed price then *is* a valuation for probate purposes even if there has
been no "formal" valuation.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375845 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 17:49 |
|
"Troy Steadman" <troysteadman [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1143640551.891548.24710 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> It is my understanding that you cant sell the house until you get probate
>> and you cant get probate until you value the estate. So your way doesnt
>> work
>> (valuing the hosue by seeing what it actually sold for).
>
> Except that the probate valuation is a "working" figure, subject to
> revision. The District Valuer will - eventually - be asked to confirm
> it, and if you sell the house ten weeks later for half or double, he
> adjusts the valuation accordingly.
>
Are you saying that there is a 'balancing' adjustment carried out later?
If so, is that quite precise or only happens if there is a big discrepancy?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375846 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 17:50 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:bPwWf.44151$wl.21758 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
>> It is my understanding that you cant sell the house until you get probate
>
> But you can agree a price with a buyer before getting probate, and that
> agreed price then *is* a valuation for probate purposes even if there has
> been no "formal" valuation.
>
Even if that buyer pulls out later?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375849 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 18:03 |
|
"Tumbleweed" <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48tqdmFl54cpU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Gordon" <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9kIRJ2sR+aKEFwfR [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk...
>> Tumbleweed <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote
>>>
>>>Just been looking at the website, amazingly it says;
>>>
>>>The full market value of any house owned by the deceased should be shown
>>> >>>>although a professional valuation is not normally required<<<< (my
>>>emphasis).
>>>
>>>How are you meant to know the FMV without getting a professional
>>>valuation?
>>>Looks like a situation designed to encourage fraud. What a bizzarre govt
>>>we
>>>have.
>>>I suppose the obvious thing to do is to get a valuation, then look on the
>>>land registry and value it by comparison, then choose the lower value.
>>>After
>>>all, any difference must be down to the work done on it, and the elapsed
>>>time?
>>>
>> There are three houses for sale on my road at exactly the same asking
>> prices, it isn't too difficult to get a rough value by this means.
>>
>> When I executed my mother's Will my sister wanted to stay in the house,
>> so I erred on the low side for probate purposes, a reasonable thing to
>> do, so long as it isn't a serious difference!
>> In our case IHT was not due, but they are certainly more 'interested'
>> when the estate is close to, or above the limit. ;-)
>> --
>> Gordon Harris
>
> Ironically the govt leaflet says 'IHT only applies to a tiny percentage of
> estates".
>
> This is an outright lie, certainly anywhere S of Watford, chances are it
> will apply to most where there is a house.
Actually, the starting point is going to be 50% because the other
50% will be spouse to spouse transfers which are excempt.
So even if 20% of estates include a paid for house worth over
275K (which I think is unlikely) only 10% of estates will pay
IHT. Personally, I suspect that a large percentage of people
with a house of that value will want to take some of the equity
out of their house before they die and I'd be suprised in more
than 5% pay INH. ISTM that this is a tiny minority YMMV.
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375850 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 18:06 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:bPwWf.44151$wl.21758 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Tumbleweed wrote:
>>
>>> It is my understanding that you cant sell the house until you get
>>> probate
>>
>> But you can agree a price with a buyer before getting probate, and that
>> agreed price then *is* a valuation for probate purposes even if there has
>> been no "formal" valuation.
>>
> Even if that buyer pulls out later?
I meant *properly* agreed, so the buyer cannot pull out.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375862 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 18:28 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Troy Steadman" <troysteadman [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1143640551.891548.24710 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> It is my understanding that you cant sell the house until you get probate
> >> and you cant get probate until you value the estate. So your way doesnt
> >> work
> >> (valuing the hosue by seeing what it actually sold for).
> >
> > Except that the probate valuation is a "working" figure, subject to
> > revision. The District Valuer will - eventually - be asked to confirm
> > it, and if you sell the house ten weeks later for half or double, he
> > adjusts the valuation accordingly.
> >
> Are you saying that there is a 'balancing' adjustment carried out later?
> If so, is that quite precise or only happens if there is a big discrepancy?
I would imagine the DV wouldn't bother unless there is a material
discrepancy.
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375869 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 18:59 |
|
"tim (in sweden)" <tim_in_sweden2005 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48vpf5Fkvdp1U1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Tumbleweed" <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:48tqdmFl54cpU1 [at] individual.net...
>>
>> "Gordon" <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:9kIRJ2sR+aKEFwfR [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk...
>>> Tumbleweed <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>Just been looking at the website, amazingly it says;
>>>>
>>>>The full market value of any house owned by the deceased should be shown
>>>> >>>>although a professional valuation is not normally required<<<< (my
>>>>emphasis).
>>>>
>>>>How are you meant to know the FMV without getting a professional
>>>>valuation?
>>>>Looks like a situation designed to encourage fraud. What a bizzarre govt
>>>>we
>>>>have.
>>>>I suppose the obvious thing to do is to get a valuation, then look on
>>>>the
>>>>land registry and value it by comparison, then choose the lower value.
>>>>After
>>>>all, any difference must be down to the work done on it, and the elapsed
>>>>time?
>>>>
>>> There are three houses for sale on my road at exactly the same asking
>>> prices, it isn't too difficult to get a rough value by this means.
>>>
>>> When I executed my mother's Will my sister wanted to stay in the house,
>>> so I erred on the low side for probate purposes, a reasonable thing to
>>> do, so long as it isn't a serious difference!
>>> In our case IHT was not due, but they are certainly more 'interested'
>>> when the estate is close to, or above the limit. ;-)
>>> --
>>> Gordon Harris
>>
>> Ironically the govt leaflet says 'IHT only applies to a tiny percentage
>> of estates".
>>
>> This is an outright lie, certainly anywhere S of Watford, chances are it
>> will apply to most where there is a house.
>
> Actually, the starting point is going to be 50% because the other
> 50% will be spouse to spouse transfers which are excempt.
>
> So even if 20% of estates include a paid for house worth over
> 275K (which I think is unlikely) only 10% of estates will pay
> IHT. Personally, I suspect that a large percentage of people
> with a house of that value will want to take some of the equity
> out of their house before they die and I'd be suprised in more
> than 5% pay INH. ISTM that this is a tiny minority YMMV.
>
> tim
>
Why do you think 50% will go to spouses?Less than 50% of people are married,
not all of those will leave to a spouse,and also many will be people already
widowed.
Its also quite difficult and expensive to take the equity out, lots of
people got into trouble with that about 15-20 years ago ISTR, and its also
problematic even if you try and pass lumps of it off to relatives, many tax
rules about what you can and cant do. And when many houses are worth 250K
or above (isnt the average 220k??) then thats a high proportion.
I can think of a village I know, (which there must be many examples of
elsewhere in the SofEngland), with houses pretty much all are worth at least
200k, many with single retired people living in them (due to death of a
partner). Most of those will be hit by IHT unless they jump through some
pretty complex hoops)
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375872 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 19:06 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:ZfyWf.44195$wl.38762 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
>> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:bPwWf.44151$wl.21758 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Tumbleweed wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is my understanding that you cant sell the house until you get
>>>> probate
>>>
>>> But you can agree a price with a buyer before getting probate, and that
>>> agreed price then *is* a valuation for probate purposes even if there
>>> has
>>> been no "formal" valuation.
>>>
>> Even if that buyer pulls out later?
>
> I meant *properly* agreed, so the buyer cannot pull out.
>
according to the govt leaflet, you shouldt agree anything until probate is
granted, since it can take some time. Anyway, in english house purchasing,
people can drop out pretty much anytime.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375892 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 22:53 |
|
"Tumbleweed" <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48vshjFm7n79U1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "tim (in sweden)" <tim_in_sweden2005 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:48vpf5Fkvdp1U1 [at] individual.net...
>>
>> "Tumbleweed" <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:48tqdmFl54cpU1 [at] individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Gordon" <Gordon [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:9kIRJ2sR+aKEFwfR [at] g3snx.demon.co.uk...
>>>> Tumbleweed <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>Just been looking at the website, amazingly it says;
>>>>>
>>>>>The full market value of any house owned by the deceased should be
>>>>>shown
>>>>> >>>>although a professional valuation is not normally required<<<< (my
>>>>>emphasis).
>>>>>
>>>>>How are you meant to know the FMV without getting a professional
>>>>>valuation?
>>>>>Looks like a situation designed to encourage fraud. What a bizzarre
>>>>>govt we
>>>>>have.
>>>>>I suppose the obvious thing to do is to get a valuation, then look on
>>>>>the
>>>>>land registry and value it by comparison, then choose the lower value.
>>>>>After
>>>>>all, any difference must be down to the work done on it, and the
>>>>>elapsed
>>>>>time?
>>>>>
>>>> There are three houses for sale on my road at exactly the same asking
>>>> prices, it isn't too difficult to get a rough value by this means.
>>>>
>>>> When I executed my mother's Will my sister wanted to stay in the house,
>>>> so I erred on the low side for probate purposes, a reasonable thing to
>>>> do, so long as it isn't a serious difference!
>>>> In our case IHT was not due, but they are certainly more 'interested'
>>>> when the estate is close to, or above the limit. ;-)
>>>> --
>>>> Gordon Harris
>>>
>>> Ironically the govt leaflet says 'IHT only applies to a tiny percentage
>>> of estates".
>>>
>>> This is an outright lie, certainly anywhere S of Watford, chances are it
>>> will apply to most where there is a house.
>>
>> Actually, the starting point is going to be 50% because the other
>> 50% will be spouse to spouse transfers which are excempt.
>>
>> So even if 20% of estates include a paid for house worth over
>> 275K (which I think is unlikely) only 10% of estates will pay
>> IHT. Personally, I suspect that a large percentage of people
>> with a house of that value will want to take some of the equity
>> out of their house before they die and I'd be suprised in more
>> than 5% pay INH. ISTM that this is a tiny minority YMMV.
>>
>> tim
>>
>
>
> Why do you think 50% will go to spouses?Less than 50% of people are
> married, not all of those will leave to a spouse,
OK about 47% percent then.
>and also many will be people already widowed.
This IS the other 50% (now 53%).
> Its also quite difficult and expensive to take the equity out, lots of
> people got into trouble with that about 15-20 years ago ISTR, and its also
> problematic even if you try and pass lumps of it off to relatives, many
> tax rules about what you can and cant do.
Simply borrow against it, or trade down, or sell and move into rented.
> And when many houses are worth 250K or above (isnt the average 220k??)
> then thats a high proportion.
That may be the average house price. It isn't the average
figure for equity.
> I can think of a village I know, (which there must be many examples of
> elsewhere in the SofEngland), with houses pretty much all are worth at
> least 200k, many with single retired people living in them (due to death
> of a partner). Most of those will be hit by IHT unless they jump through
> some pretty complex hoops)
I can't see that the hoops are complex, they go to the bank
and borrow some money.
I really do think that you are overestimating the percentage
of the population that dies owing a fully paid off house worth
275K.
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375903 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 23:45 |
|
"tim (in sweden)" <tim_in_sweden2005 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:490af0Fma1fsU2 [at] individual.net...
>
>> I can think of a village I know, (which there must be many examples of
>> elsewhere in the SofEngland), with houses pretty much all are worth at
>> least 200k, many with single retired people living in them (due to death
>> of a partner). Most of those will be hit by IHT unless they jump through
>> some pretty complex hoops)
>
> I can't see that the hoops are complex, they go to the bank
> and borrow some money.
"hello, I'm aged 78, on retirement benefit,and I'd like to borrow £100k.
F&^% off" And how would they repay it even if they got one? This is someone
retired we are talking about. Let the interest accumulate? Those type of
plans got into very poor repute a few years back when people aged 80&90
ended up owing more than their house was worth.
>
> I really do think that you are overestimating the percentage
> of the population that dies owing a fully paid off house worth
> 275K.
>
I'm sure its extremely variable and location dependent, but where I live nr
reading, and many places I know further south, (full of retired people in
bungalows and houses), its going to be very high. Modest 2 and 3 bed houses
and bungalows that 10 years ago were 100k and paid off are now worth £300k,
people couldnt trade down without moving a substantial distance, away from
friends and maybe relatives, a very bad idea in late retirement.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375938 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 11:05 |
|
In message <490d9nFksopkU1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>"hello, I'm aged 78, on retirement benefit,and I'd like to borrow £100k.
>F&^% off"
Mo, it would be 'welcome'
>And how would they repay it even if they got one? This is someone
>retired we are talking about. Let the interest accumulate? Those type of
>plans got into very poor repute a few years back when people aged 80&90
>ended up owing more than their house was worth.
Not now. They guarantee no negative equity and the interest rates are
fixed so you know exactly how the interest will compound. This is a
growing market and the FSA has specific rules to govern their sale.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375943 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 13:28 |
|
"john boyle" <john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iNuVg7KE95KEFwP9 [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
> In message <490d9nFksopkU1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>
>>"hello, I'm aged 78, on retirement benefit,and I'd like to borrow £100k.
>>F&^% off"
>
> Mo, it would be 'welcome'
>>And how would they repay it even if they got one? This is someone
>>retired we are talking about. Let the interest accumulate? Those type of
>>plans got into very poor repute a few years back when people aged 80&90
>>ended up owing more than their house was worth.
>
> Not now. They guarantee no negative equity and the interest rates are
> fixed so you know exactly how the interest will compound. This is a
> growing market and the FSA has specific rules to govern their sale.
> --
> John Boyle
OK thanks. What happens if you borrow an amount, say £20k, is that
guaranteed so you'll never owe more than 20K, or the value of the house?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #375944 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 13:47 |
|
In message <491tgnFm3qh1U1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>> Not now. They guarantee no negative equity and the interest rates are
>> fixed so you know exactly how the interest will compound. This is a
>> growing market and the FSA has specific rules to govern their sale.
>> --
>> John Boyle
>
>OK thanks. What happens if you borrow an amount, say £20k, is that
>guaranteed so you'll never owe more than 20K, or the value of the house?
>
Its 'no negative equity' so it means the value of the house. Some also
guarantee a minimum equity. How could it be no more than £20k?
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376001 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 10:08 |
|
"john boyle" <john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lpSUpAM2U8KEFw8i [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
> In message <491tgnFm3qh1U1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>
>>> Not now. They guarantee no negative equity and the interest rates are
>>> fixed so you know exactly how the interest will compound. This is a
>>> growing market and the FSA has specific rules to govern their sale.
>>> --
>>> John Boyle
>>
>>OK thanks. What happens if you borrow an amount, say £20k, is that
>>guaranteed so you'll never owe more than 20K, or the value of the house?
>>
> Its 'no negative equity' so it means the value of the house. Some also
> guarantee a minimum equity. How could it be no more than £20k?
> --
> John Boyle
Oops, I should have said ' a guaranteed top limit'. So that does take me
back to those news stories of the type; "little old lady borrowed £20k, now
the company wants her house, and she cant leave anything to her children as
the wicked capitalist company has stolen their inheritance".
Do you get a different interest rate depending upon the value of your house,
or is the borrowing limited (more likely) to a percentage of the house
value?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376007 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 10:29 |
|
In message <49464tFmqjd8U1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>Do you get a different interest rate depending upon the value of your house,
No.
>or is the borrowing limited (more likely) to a percentage of the house
>value?
>
Its age related. So the older you are the more you can borrow at the
outset and one lender allows you to draw down monthly as well and this
too is a function of the borrowers age. For joint borrowers it is the
youngest age that is used.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376010 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 11:26 |
|
"john boyle" <john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SorJ5KAVhOLEFwzX [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
> In message <49464tFmqjd8U1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>
>>Do you get a different interest rate depending upon the value of your
>>house,
>
> No.
>>or is the borrowing limited (more likely) to a percentage of the house
>>value?
>>
> Its age related. So the older you are the more you can borrow at the
> outset and one lender allows you to draw down monthly as well and this too
> is a function of the borrowers age. For joint borrowers it is the youngest
> age that is used.
> --
> John Boyle
John, what are these type of schemes called or could you point me at a URL?
Might be useful for someone I know, at least worth checking into.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376034 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 18:37 |
|
"john boyle" <john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SorJ5KAVhOLEFwzX [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
> In message <49464tFmqjd8U1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>
>>Do you get a different interest rate depending upon the value of your
>>house,
>
> No.
>>or is the borrowing limited (more likely) to a percentage of the house
>>value?
>>
> Its age related. So the older you are the more you can borrow at the
> outset and one lender allows you to draw down monthly as well and this too
> is a function of the borrowers age. For joint borrowers it is the youngest
> age that is used.
ISTM that it's the lack of a draw-down that made the previous
schemes unsuitable (to the point where if there were such a test
at the time, they would have been mis-sold).
Someone with a 300K asset looking to supplement their income
does not need 100K as a lump-sum and IMHO selling them this
is financially dishonest.
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376044 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 20:08 |
|
In message <494an9Fmls0kU1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>John, what are these type of schemes called or could you point me at a URL?
>Might be useful for someone I know, at least worth checking into.
>
'Lifetime Mortgages' is the generic name given to them by the FSA and
many providers call their product that too. Northern Rock are one of the
providers
http://www.northernrock.co.uk/mortgages/lifetime.asp
and there are many more. I post their URL not as recommendation but
because theirs is a good example and they are the only one (AFAIAA) that
offer the monthly drawdown facility.
Hope this is of use.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376050 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 22:17 |
|
"john boyle" <john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9xfS$zAFAXLEFwG1 [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
> In message <494an9Fmls0kU1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>>John, what are these type of schemes called or could you point me at a
>>URL?
>>Might be useful for someone I know, at least worth checking into.
>>
>
> 'Lifetime Mortgages' is the generic name given to them by the FSA and many
> providers call their product that too. Northern Rock are one of the
> providers
> http://www.northernrock.co.uk/mortgages/lifetime.asp
>
> and there are many more. I post their URL not as recommendation but
> because theirs is a good example and they are the only one (AFAIAA) that
> offer the monthly drawdown facility.
> Hope this is of use.
> --
> John Boyle
Thanks JOhn.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376052 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 22:24 |
|
In message <9xfS$zAFAXLEFwG1 [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk>, john boyle
<john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <494an9Fmls0kU1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
><thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>>John, what are these type of schemes called or could you point me at a URL?
>>Might be useful for someone I know, at least worth checking into.
>>
>
>'Lifetime Mortgages' is the generic name given to them by the FSA and
>many providers call their product that too. Northern Rock are one of
>the providers
>http://www.northernrock.co.uk/mortgages/lifetime.asp
>
>and there are many more. I post their URL not as recommendation but
>because theirs is a good example and they are the only one (AFAIAA)
>that offer the monthly drawdown facility.
>Hope this is of use.
That link is useless! Sorry. because Lifetime mortgages are now
regulated i see that NRock arent giving details on their public site
because they can only be provided by through an adviser.
Have a look at this instead :
http://www.northernrock.co.uk/intermediaries/lifetimeMortgag eInfo.asp
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376078 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 13:34 |
|
In message <ZfyWf.44195$wl.38762 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Ronald
Raygun <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> writes
>Tumbleweed wrote:
>
>> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:bPwWf.44151$wl.21758 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Tumbleweed wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is my understanding that you cant sell the house until you get
>>>> probate
>>>
>>> But you can agree a price with a buyer before getting probate, and that
>>> agreed price then *is* a valuation for probate purposes even if there has
>>> been no "formal" valuation.
>>>
>> Even if that buyer pulls out later?
>
>I meant *properly* agreed, so the buyer cannot pull out.
How do you achieve that prior to probate?
--
Timothy
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376081 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 13:38 |
|
In message <9xfS$zAFAXLEFwG1 [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk>, john boyle
<john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <494an9Fmls0kU1 [at] individual.net>, Tumbleweed
><thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> writes
>>John, what are these type of schemes called or could you point me at a URL?
>>Might be useful for someone I know, at least worth checking into.
>>
>
>'Lifetime Mortgages' is the generic name given to them by the FSA and
>many providers call their product that too. Northern Rock are one of
>the providers
>http://www.northernrock.co.uk/mortgages/lifetime.asp
>
>and there are many more. I post their URL not as recommendation but
>because theirs is a good example and they are the only one (AFAIAA)
>that offer the monthly drawdown facility.
>Hope this is of use.
Alternatively look here http://www.ship-ltd.org/
The Safe Home Incomes Plans, many of the providers have signed up to
them.
--
Timothy
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376082 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 14:03 |
|
In message <VOnrhTJYYmLEFwRa [at] town-village.demon.co.uk>, "me [at] privacy.net"
<me [at] Privacy.Net> writes
>
>Alternatively look here http://www.ship-ltd.org/
>The Safe Home Incomes Plans, many of the providers have signed up to
>them.
>
Sadly (in my opinion) SHIP condones Home Reversion Plans as well, in
which the OAPs house is sold, wholly or in part, to the Plan Provider
and they then rent it back to the OAPs. I dont like those plans at all.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Q on inheritance tax [message #376084 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 14:23 |
|
me [at] privacy.net wrote:
> In message <ZfyWf.44195$wl.38762 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Ronald
> Raygun <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> writes
>>Tumbleweed wrote:
>>
>>> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>>> news:bPwWf.44151$wl.21758 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> Tumbleweed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is my understanding that you cant sell the house until you get
>>>>> probate
>>>>
>>>> But you can agree a price with a buyer before getting probate, and that
>>>> agreed price then *is* a valuation for probate purposes even if there
>>>> has been no "formal" valuation.
>>>>
>>> Even if that buyer pulls out later?
>>
>>I meant *properly* agreed, so the buyer cannot pull out.
>
> How do you achieve that prior to probate?
Same as after, by signing a binding contract.
Getting a buyer to agree to sign in those circumstances may not be
easy, of course, but is hardly impossible.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Di Feb 7 18:15:24 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04928 Sekunden |
