|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » selling inherited house...cgt
| selling inherited house...cgt [message #375752] |
Di, 28 März 2006 21:52 |
|
I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale.
I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on
value in May 2002 (less alloowances). My question is , Who decides its
value at May 2002.
Also ,is there any gain by arranging for my wife to be Half owner.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #375759 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 22:24 |
|
"deauville rider" <stewarttaylor [at] btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1143575546.811511.269360 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale.
> I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on
> value in May 2002 (less alloowances). My question is , Who decides its
> value at May 2002.
> Also ,is there any gain by arranging for my wife to be Half owner.
> Thanks in advance.
>
Ah thats kind of similar to my Q justa few messages below, who does the
valuing for IHT purposes?
re the second part of your Q, transfers between husband and wife are
generally irrelevant for CGT purposes, eg giving half now wont make much
diff.
BUT, you could probably reduce tax by xferring a percentage of it now, and a
percentage after april 6th (eg one in each tax year so not much time left to
do it), each timed to be within her limit? is that correct, tax gurus?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #375764 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 22:42 |
|
On 28 Mar 2006 11:52:26 -0800, "deauville rider"
<stewarttaylor [at] btinternet.com> wrote:
>I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale.
>I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on
>value in May 2002 (less alloowances). My question is , Who decides its
>value at May 2002.
>Also ,is there any gain by arranging for my wife to be Half owner.
>Thanks in advance.
Didnt you have to provide a valuation when you applied for probate??
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #375783 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 01:31 |
|
In message <1143575546.811511.269360 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
deauville rider <stewarttaylor [at] btinternet.com> writes
>I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale.
>I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on
>value in May 2002 (less alloowances). My question is , Who decides its
>value at May 2002.
Ultimately you.... In your tax return, you will insert its' value, and
the Revenue will only query it if they choose to inspect your return a
bit more closely, and have any suspicions which result in an
investigation.
Presumably a probate value was obtained? Who provided it? Assuming this
was realistic, I cant see any problem with it being used. Having said
that, you may wish to cover your backside by asking a local surveyor to
provide an opinion as to value at the time.
>Also ,is there any gain by arranging for my wife to be Half owner.
Not sure if it's too late, but if it's not, you would double your
Capital Allowance from £8,500 to £17,000 or so. I'm sure someone else
will confirm this.
--
Richard Faulkner
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #375784 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 01:41 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "deauville rider" <stewarttaylor [at] btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1143575546.811511.269360 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale.
>> I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on
>> value in May 2002 (less alloowances). My question is , Who decides its
>> value at May 2002.
>> Also ,is there any gain by arranging for my wife to be Half owner.
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
> Ah thats kind of similar to my Q justa few messages below, who does the
> valuing for IHT purposes?
>
> re the second part of your Q, transfers between husband and wife are
> generally irrelevant for CGT purposes, eg giving half now wont make much
> diff.
On the contrary, it will mean that upon sale two annual CGT exemptions
are deducted from the gain instead of just the one.
> BUT, you could probably reduce tax by xferring a percentage of it now, and
> a percentage after april 6th (eg one in each tax year so not much time
> left to do it), each timed to be within her limit? is that correct, tax
> gurus?
No. Since inter-spouse transfers are CGT-exempt, their timing does
not matter. However, if you could jointly sell to the end-buyer in
two stages, one on 5th April and one on 6th, you'd get four bites of
the cherry.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376028 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 18:20 |
|
"I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale.
I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on
value in May 2002 (less allowances). My question is , Who decides its
value at May 2002."
Someone must have valued the house so that the inhereitance tax could
be paid (if any) and probate granted. But it is not the value in May
2002 that you need, it's the value at the date of the death - the
probate value.
You are deemed to have inherited it at the probate value and that is
what the inheritance tax and, eventually, the CGT will be based on.
If the estate was below the IHT threshold it would have paid you to
push the estimated house value up so as to reduce the later CGT bill.
Alternatively, if you had moved into the house when you inherited it
and made it your home, you woul dhave removed the CGT liability when
you eventually sold it. In that case you would have tried to get a low
probate value.
Sorry to be wise after the event and all that...
Robert
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376054 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 22:29 |
|
Robert wrote:
> "I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale.
> I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on
> value in May 2002 (less allowances). My question is , Who decides its
> value at May 2002."
>
> Someone must have valued the house so that the inhereitance tax could
> be paid (if any) and probate granted. But it is not the value in May
> 2002 that you need, it's the value at the date of the death - the
> probate value.
One generally inherits assets on date of death. Therefore, if he
inherited it in May 2002, then that's when his mother must have died.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376064 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 08:48 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
> Robert wrote:
>
> > "I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale.
> > I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on
> > value in May 2002 (less allowances). My question is , Who decides its
> > value at May 2002."
> >
> > Someone must have valued the house so that the inhereitance tax could
> > be paid (if any) and probate granted. But it is not the value in May
> > 2002 that you need, it's the value at the date of the death - the
> > probate value.
>
> One generally inherits assets on date of death. Therefore, if he
> inherited it in May 2002, then that's when his mother must have died.
There was a case where somebody changed his will after he had been
murdered. The murder happened, the victim lingered on lucid and
concious in hospital for several months.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376065 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 09:29 |
|
"Troy Steadman" <troysteadman [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1143874083.275888.164750 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>> Robert wrote:
>>
>> > "I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale.
>> > I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on
>> > value in May 2002 (less allowances). My question is , Who decides its
>> > value at May 2002."
>> >
>> > Someone must have valued the house so that the inhereitance tax could
>> > be paid (if any) and probate granted. But it is not the value in May
>> > 2002 that you need, it's the value at the date of the death - the
>> > probate value.
>>
>> One generally inherits assets on date of death. Therefore, if he
>> inherited it in May 2002, then that's when his mother must have died.
>
> There was a case where somebody changed his will after he had been
> murdered. The murder happened, the victim lingered on lucid and
> concious in hospital for several months.
>
Eh?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376085 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 14:28 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Troy Steadman" <troysteadman [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1143874083.275888.164750 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>>> Robert wrote:
>>>
>>> > "I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale.
>>> > I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on
>>> > value in May 2002 (less allowances). My question is , Who decides its
>>> > value at May 2002."
>>> >
>>> > Someone must have valued the house so that the inhereitance tax could
>>> > be paid (if any) and probate granted. But it is not the value in May
>>> > 2002 that you need, it's the value at the date of the death - the
>>> > probate value.
>>>
>>> One generally inherits assets on date of death. Therefore, if he
>>> inherited it in May 2002, then that's when his mother must have died.
>>
>> There was a case where somebody changed his will after he had been
>> murdered. The murder happened, the victim lingered on lucid and
>> concious in hospital for several months.
>
> Eh?
Very interesting, and possible, but not relevant. We're interested in when
Robert's mother actually died, not when (or even whether) she was murdered.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376106 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 21:01 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:sluXf.46017$wl.39068 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>> There was a case where somebody changed his will after he had been
>>> murdered. The murder happened, the victim lingered on lucid and
>>> concious in hospital for several months.
>>
>> Eh?
>
> Very interesting, and possible, but not relevant. We're interested in
> when
> Robert's mother actually died, not when (or even whether) she was
> murdered.
>
Examine the paragraph.
1) A person changed their will after they had been murdered.
2) Someone was murdered, and then carried on living.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376116 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 23:02 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:sluXf.46017$wl.39068 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> There was a case where somebody changed his will after he had been
>>>> murdered. The murder happened, the victim lingered on lucid and
>>>> concious in hospital for several months.
>>>
>>> Eh?
>>
>> Very interesting, and possible, but not relevant. We're interested in
>> when
>> Robert's mother actually died, not when (or even whether) she was
>> murdered.
>>
> Examine the paragraph.
I did. Now *you* examine it, Stumbleweed! :-)
> 1) A person changed their will after they had been murdered.
> 2) Someone was murdered, and then carried on living.
If someone dies as a result of murder, but the death occurs some
significant time after the actual act perpetrated by the murderer,
such as, say, administering a slow-acting poison, then it's quite
reasonable to say that the victim "was murdered" at the time of the
act, not at the time of death. Of course it's not until after death
that the act can be said to have been murder, but that's beside the
point.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376119 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 00:29 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:MTBXf.46277$wl.35830 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
>> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:sluXf.46017$wl.39068 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a case where somebody changed his will after he had been
>>>>> murdered. The murder happened, the victim lingered on lucid and
>>>>> concious in hospital for several months.
>>>>
>>>> Eh?
>>>
>>> Very interesting, and possible, but not relevant. We're interested in
>>> when
>>> Robert's mother actually died, not when (or even whether) she was
>>> murdered.
>>>
>> Examine the paragraph.
>
> I did. Now *you* examine it, Stumbleweed! :-)
>
>> 1) A person changed their will after they had been murdered.
>> 2) Someone was murdered, and then carried on living.
>
> If someone dies as a result of murder, but the death occurs some
> significant time after the actual act perpetrated by the murderer,
> such as, say, administering a slow-acting poison, then it's quite
> reasonable to say that the victim "was murdered" at the time of the
> act, not at the time of death.
Of course it isnt. If action is taken to counter whatever the attempted
murder method was, and it works (antidote for poison, surgery for shooting,
etc) I didnt murder you.
Murder means you irreversibly died.
In the para in question, the person seemingly changed their will after they
had been attacked and before they died. But not *after* they had been
murdered. As you say below, "its not until after death that the act can be
said to be murder"
> Of course it's not until after death
> that the act can be said to have been murder, but that's beside the
> point.
>
Its not beside the point at all, it is the point, until you are dead, murder
cannot be said to have occurred, and even then, if the victim is
resuscitated, it still isnt murder.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376121 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 00:44 |
|
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote
>> Tumbleweed wrote:
>>> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a case where somebody changed his will after he had been
>>>>>> murdered. The murder happened, the victim lingered on lucid and
>>>>>> concious in hospital for several months.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh?
>>>>
>>>> Very interesting, and possible, but not relevant. We're interested in
>>>> when
>>>> Robert's mother actually died, not when (or even whether) she was
>>>> murdered.
>>>>
>>> Examine the paragraph.
>>
>> I did. Now *you* examine it, Stumbleweed! :-)
>>
>>> 1) A person changed their will after they had been murdered.
>>> 2) Someone was murdered, and then carried on living.
>>
>> If someone dies as a result of murder, but the death occurs some
>> significant time after the actual act perpetrated by the murderer,
>> such as, say, administering a slow-acting poison, then it's quite
>> reasonable to say that the victim "was murdered" at the time of the
>> act, not at the time of death.
>
> Of course it isnt.
OH YES IT IS!! Less than 9 months to Christmas.
Do not make the mistake of interpreting "it's reasonable to say the
person was murdered at the time of the act" as meaning "it's reasonable
to say at the time of the act that the peron was murdered". That's
altogether different. What I meant is that *post mortem* we can say
that the person was murdered, and we can place the time of the murder
to the time of the act.
> If action is taken to counter whatever the attempted
> murder method was, and it works (antidote for poison, surgery for
> shooting, etc) I didnt murder you.
> Murder means you irreversibly died.
Agreed.
> In the para in question, the person seemingly changed their will after
> they had been attacked and before they died. But not *after* they had been
> murdered. As you say below, "its not until after death that the act can be
> said to be murder"
You misunderstand. See below.
>> Of course it's not until after death
>> that the act can be said to have been murder, but that's beside the
>> point.
>
> Its not beside the point at all, it is the point, until you are dead,
> murder cannot be said to have occurred, and even then, if the victim is
> resuscitated, it still isnt murder.
There are two questions.
One is DID murder take place, the other is WHEN did it take place.
If the answer to the first is NO, then the second question is void, but
if the answer to the first question is YES, i.e. the victim did in fact
die as a result of the attack (even if death did not occur immediately),
then the answer to the second question can reasonably be that the murder
took place at the time of the attack rather than at the time of death.
Even though the person changed their will after the attack but before
dying, we can say in retrospect, now that the person has in fact died
as a result, that the person was therefore murdered, and murdered well
before they died. We can thus NOW say that they changed their will
after they were murdered, even though it would not have been possible to
say AT THE TIME THEY CHANGED THE WILL that they had been murdered.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376122 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 00:54 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
> > "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote
> >> Tumbleweed wrote:
> >>> "Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There was a case where somebody changed his will after he had been
> >>>>>> murdered. The murder happened, the victim lingered on lucid and
> >>>>>> concious in hospital for several months.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Eh?
> >>>>
> >>>> Very interesting, and possible, but not relevant. We're interested in
> >>>> when
> >>>> Robert's mother actually died, not when (or even whether) she was
> >>>> murdered.
> >>>>
> >>> Examine the paragraph.
> >>
> >> I did. Now *you* examine it, Stumbleweed! :-)
> >>
> >>> 1) A person changed their will after they had been murdered.
> >>> 2) Someone was murdered, and then carried on living.
> >>
> >> If someone dies as a result of murder, but the death occurs some
> >> significant time after the actual act perpetrated by the murderer,
> >> such as, say, administering a slow-acting poison, then it's quite
> >> reasonable to say that the victim "was murdered" at the time of the
> >> act, not at the time of death.
> >
> > Of course it isnt.
>
> OH YES IT IS!! Less than 9 months to Christmas.
>
> Do not make the mistake of interpreting "it's reasonable to say the
> person was murdered at the time of the act" as meaning "it's reasonable
> to say at the time of the act that the peron was murdered". That's
> altogether different. What I meant is that *post mortem* we can say
> that the person was murdered, and we can place the time of the murder
> to the time of the act.
>
> > If action is taken to counter whatever the attempted
> > murder method was, and it works (antidote for poison, surgery for
> > shooting, etc) I didnt murder you.
> > Murder means you irreversibly died.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > In the para in question, the person seemingly changed their will after
> > they had been attacked and before they died. But not *after* they had been
> > murdered. As you say below, "its not until after death that the act can be
> > said to be murder"
>
> You misunderstand. See below.
>
> >> Of course it's not until after death
> >> that the act can be said to have been murder, but that's beside the
> >> point.
> >
> > Its not beside the point at all, it is the point, until you are dead,
> > murder cannot be said to have occurred, and even then, if the victim is
> > resuscitated, it still isnt murder.
>
> There are two questions.
>
> One is DID murder take place, the other is WHEN did it take place.
>
> If the answer to the first is NO, then the second question is void, but
> if the answer to the first question is YES, i.e. the victim did in fact
> die as a result of the attack (even if death did not occur immediately),
> then the answer to the second question can reasonably be that the murder
> took place at the time of the attack rather than at the time of death.
>
> Even though the person changed their will after the attack but before
> dying, we can say in retrospect, now that the person has in fact died
> as a result, that the person was therefore murdered, and murdered well
> before they died. We can thus NOW say that they changed their will
> after they were murdered, even though it would not have been possible to
> say AT THE TIME THEY CHANGED THE WILL that they had been murdered.
Suppose you fall down a ravine. Legally you are declared dead but
friendly rabbits keep you alive with carrots. Years later you are
rescued, but annoy your resuer so much he murders you. You survive just
long enough to write your will, but are murdered again as you are about
to sign it?
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376126 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 11:34 |
|
Troy Steadman wrote:
> Suppose you fall down a ravine. Legally you are declared dead but
> friendly rabbits keep you alive with carrots. Years later you are
> rescued, but annoy your resuer so much he murders you. You survive just
> long enough to write your will, but are murdered again as you are about
> to sign it?
I see a question mark, but can't find the question.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376128 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 12:59 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
> Troy Steadman wrote:
>
> > Suppose you fall down a ravine. Legally you are declared dead but
> > friendly rabbits keep you alive with carrots. Years later you are
> > rescued, but annoy your resuer so much he murders you. You survive just
> > long enough to write your will, but are murdered again as you are about
> > to sign it?
>
> I see a question mark, but can't find the question.
"One generally inherits assets on date of death. Therefore, if he
inherited it in May 2002, then that's when his mother must have died".
Do you mean "that's when his mother must have fallen down the ravine"?
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376131 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 13:59 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> There are two questions.
>
> One is DID murder take place, the other is WHEN did it take place.
>
> If the answer to the first is NO, then the second question is void, but
> if the answer to the first question is YES, i.e. the victim did in fact
die
> as a result of the attack (even if death did not occur immediately), then
> the answer to the second question can reasonably be that the murder
> took place at the time of the attack rather than at the time of death.
Why does it have to be one of those two options?
I imagine that the murder actually happened across
a period of time, starting at the attack, and ending at
death -- rather than happening at a single point in time.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Even though the person changed their will after the attack but
> before dying, we can say in retrospect, now that the person has
> in fact died as a result, that the person was therefore murdered, ...
Yes, agreed.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... and murdered well before they died.
Nope! The process of murder continued right up until death...
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> We can thus NOW say that they changed
> their will after they were murdered...
No, the act of murder was still in progress when the will was being changed!
"After murder" means after the entire process has been completed, ie after
death.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... even though it would not have been possible to say AT THE
> TIME THEY CHANGED THE WILL that they had been murdered.
Of course.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376133 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 14:44 |
|
Tim wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> There are two questions.
>>
>> One is DID murder take place, the other is WHEN did it take place.
>>
>> If the answer to the first is NO, then the second question is void, but
>> if the answer to the first question is YES, i.e. the victim did in fact
> die
>> as a result of the attack (even if death did not occur immediately), then
>> the answer to the second question can reasonably be that the murder
>> took place at the time of the attack rather than at the time of death.
>
> Why does it have to be one of those two options?
Because murder is not a process, but an act.
> I imagine that the murder actually happened across
> a period of time, starting at the attack, and ending at
> death -- rather than happening at a single point in time.
No, the murderous act (a stabbing, say) is likely to be instantaneous,
or at least to have an identifiable and usually brief duration.
Throttling may take minutes rather than seconds. Or it could be
a sequence of acts, e.g. if small doses of poison (having a cumulative
effect) had been administered over a prolonged period.
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> We can thus NOW say that they changed
>> their will after they were murdered...
>
> No, the act of murder was still in progress when the will was being
> changed! "After murder" means after the entire process has been completed,
> ie after death.
No, the act is in progress only while the murderer is actively doing
something towards his aim, e.g. swapping live and earth on the toaster
plug or spiking the whisky with paracetamol, or holding his hands round
the victim's throat, or a shopping bag over his head.
Consider that the only difference between murder and attempted murder
is whether it succeeded. You wouldn't say that an attempted murder
lasted for 2 months while the victim was confined to an intensive
care unit prior to being sent home fit and well, and by the same token
murder would not have lasted for 2 months while the victim was confined
to hospital before popping his clogs.
The crimes or criminal acts of murder and attempted murder lie in what
the perpetrator did and when he did it, not in how long the victim
took before either dying or not.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376134 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 15:07 |
|
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:EGPXf.46521$wl.38259 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Tim wrote:
>
>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>>> There are two questions.
>>>
>>> One is DID murder take place, the other is WHEN did it take place.
>>>
>>> If the answer to the first is NO, then the second question is void, but
>>> if the answer to the first question is YES, i.e. the victim did in fact
>> die
>>> as a result of the attack (even if death did not occur immediately),
>>> then
>>> the answer to the second question can reasonably be that the murder
>>> took place at the time of the attack rather than at the time of death.
>>
>> Why does it have to be one of those two options?
>
> Because murder is not a process, but an act.
>
>> I imagine that the murder actually happened across
>> a period of time, starting at the attack, and ending at
>> death -- rather than happening at a single point in time.
>
> No, the murderous act (a stabbing, say) is likely to be instantaneous,
> or at least to have an identifiable and usually brief duration.
> Throttling may take minutes rather than seconds. Or it could be
> a sequence of acts, e.g. if small doses of poison (having a cumulative
> effect) had been administered over a prolonged period.
That would be a process then. Now you are just playing with words.
and to continue them, murder is the retrospective judgement on an act or
process that someone committed rather than an act or process itself. The
same process, stabbing, may or may not be murder.
If I stab you, firstly I havent committed murder until you die, which might
be months later, secondly, I'd have to be prosecuted and found guilty. You
might still have died but I might be acquitted for example, on the grounds
of justifieable homicide or some such.
>
>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>>> We can thus NOW say that they changed
>>> their will after they were murdered...
>>
>> No, the act of murder was still in progress when the will was being
>> changed! "After murder" means after the entire process has been
>> completed,
>> ie after death.
>
> No, the act is in progress only while the murderer is actively doing
> something towards his aim, e.g. swapping live and earth on the toaster
> plug or spiking the whisky with paracetamol, or holding his hands round
> the victim's throat, or a shopping bag over his head.
>
> Consider that the only difference between murder and attempted murder
> is whether it succeeded. You wouldn't say that an attempted murder
> lasted for 2 months while the victim was confined to an intensive
> care unit prior to being sent home fit and well, and by the same token
> murder would not have lasted for 2 months while the victim was confined
> to hospital before popping his clogs.
>
> The crimes or criminal acts of murder and attempted murder lie in what
> the perpetrator did and when he did it, not in how long the victim
> took before either dying or not.
>
Well, AFAUIK, in England we have a year and a day rule, which means that if
I stab you and you die a year and two days later, I didnt murder yu. I
beleive that is what happened to one of the guards on the train in te great
train riobbery, he was attacked but died some cnsiderable time later, so
they couldnt be charged with murder.
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376139 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 16:11 |
|
> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >> There are two questions.
> >>
> >> One is DID murder take place, the other is WHEN did it take place.
> >>
> >> If the answer to the first is NO, then the second question is
> >> void, but if the answer to the first question is YES, i.e. the
> >> victim did in fact die as a result of the attack (even if death
> >> did not occur immediately), then the answer to the second
> >> question can reasonably be that the murder took place
> >> at the time of the attack rather than at the time of death.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Why does it have to be one of those two options?
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Because murder is not a process, but an act.
It is an act which can take some time to be played
out, until it's conclusion (the conclusion being death).
Don't forget, it is not just the murderer's actions which
dictate whether a "murder" occurred -- it is also any other
(in/)actions before death is seen to have, or have not, occurred.
For instance, look at the following two examples:-
Example1:
Evil person1 stabs law-abiding personA, and leaves
him for dead. No-one finds personA before death.
Example2:
Evil person2 stabs law-abiding personB, and leaves him for dead.
However, someone finds personB before death, calls an ambulance,
they get taken to hospital and don't die from the stabbing.
Now, both evil person1 and evil person2 performed exactly
the same actions. So were both the victims "murdered"? Of
course not -- only personA was murdered, and personB was not.
Person1 is a murderer, but person2 is not.
Thus the act of "murder" is not over immediately
after stabbing, and extends right up to death.
If the "action of murder" was just the stabbing, then
either both personA and personB were murdered,
or both weren't -- which patently isn't true!
> "Tim" wrote:
> > I imagine that the murder actually happened across
> > a period of time, starting at the attack, and ending at
> > death -- rather than happening at a single point in time.
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> No, the murderous act (a stabbing, say) is likely to be instantaneous,
> or at least to have an identifiable and usually brief duration.
> Throttling may take minutes rather than seconds. Or it could
> be a sequence of acts, e.g. if small doses of poison (having a
> cumulative effect) had been administered over a prolonged period.
True, the "murderous acts" may be instantaneous, but the victim
was not murdered at that single instant - s/he was murdered
across the period from the start of the first act until death.
> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >> We can thus NOW say that they changed
> >> their will after they were murdered...
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > No, the act of murder was still in progress when the
> > will was being changed! "After murder" means after
> > the entire process has been completed, ie after death.
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> No, the act is in progress only while the murderer
> is actively doing something towards his aim, e.g.
> swapping live and earth on the toaster plug...
So, according to your definition, if the wires were tampered
with in (say) 1980 and then the toaster was left untouched
until 2005, when the victim received an electric shock ...
-- then do you think the victim was murdered in 1980?!!
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Consider that the only difference between murder and attempted
> murder is whether it succeeded. You wouldn't say that an
> attempted murder lasted for 2 months while the victim was confined
> to an intensive care unit prior to being sent home fit and well, ...
Oh wouldn't I? ;-)
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... and by the same token murder would not
> have lasted for 2 months while the victim was
> confined to hospital before popping his clogs.
I contend that it would.
The victim was only murdered if suitable medical treatment
was not received in time, and thus the *lack* of that
required medical treatment is part of the act of murder!
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> The crimes or criminal acts of murder and attempted
> murder lie in what the perpetrator did and when he did it,
> not in how long the victim took before either dying or not.
I contend that it must lie in *all* of the following three areas:
(1) the actions (eg stabbing);
*and* (2) the subsequent inactions (eg not calling an ambulance);
*and* (3) death.
The murder encompasses all of these, and so is not over
until death actually occurs (as a result of the actions in (1)).
|
|
|
| Re: selling inherited house...cgt [message #376158 ] |
Mo, 03 April 2006 00:39 |
|
Tim wrote:
>> "Tim" wrote:
>> > Why does it have to be one of those two options?
>>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> Because murder is not a process, but an act.
>
> It is an act which can take some time to be played
> out, until it's conclusion (the conclusion being death).
It's not an "act" as in theatre, it is a well-defined action
which isn't "played out", it is a deed which is done. It may
take some time for the deed to achieve its effect, if at all,
but the effect isn't part of the deed, except inasmuch as it
labels the deed as being murderous as distinct from being
merely an attempt thereat. (The distinction is far from
justified, IMV; the amount of evil involved is the same in
both, and that it's somehow "less bad" to try unsuccessfully
to kill someone than to succeed, doesn't ring right with me,
but that's a moral issue which we don't really want to discuss
here).
> Don't forget, it is not just the murderer's actions which
> dictate whether a "murder" occurred -- it is also any other
> (in/)actions before death is seen to have, or have not, occurred.
>
> For instance, look at the following two examples:-
>
> Example1:
> Evil person1 stabs law-abiding personA, and leaves
> him for dead. No-one finds personA before death.
>
> Example2:
> Evil person2 stabs law-abiding personB, and leaves him for dead.
> However, someone finds personB before death, calls an ambulance,
> they get taken to hospital and don't die from the stabbing.
>
> Now, both evil person1 and evil person2 performed exactly
> the same actions. So were both the victims "murdered"? Of
> course not -- only personA was murdered, and personB was not.
>
> Person1 is a murderer, but person2 is not.
> Thus the act of "murder" is not over immediately
> after stabbing, and extends right up to death.
>
> If the "action of murder" was just the stabbing, then
> either both personA and personB were murdered,
> or both weren't -- which patently isn't true!
It's only murder if the victim dies, of course. But personB
was still brutally attacked even though they didn't die. So
person2 committed an act of GBH whilst person1 committed an
act of murder.
Both acts were committed on the occasions of the relevant stabbings,
and not "over a time". So personA was murdered *at the time of the
stabbing* even though they didn't actually die until perhaps some
hours later.
PersonA and personB were stabbed. PersonA's stabbing was murder,
personB's was merely GBH. I don't understand why you have a problem
with an act occurring before a point in time at which it is defined
as being one thing or another.
It's the same thing with a sole heir, who for all intents and purposes
owns the house etc form the moment the testator dies, even though this
fact isn't made official by probate until much later.
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> No, the act is in progress only while the murderer
>> is actively doing something towards his aim, e.g.
>> swapping live and earth on the toaster plug...
>
> So, according to your definition, if the wires were tampered
> with in (say) 1980 and then the toaster was left untouched
> until 2005, when the victim received an electric shock ...
> -- then do you think the victim was murdered in 1980?!!
An unlikely scenario, but Yes.
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> ... and by the same token murder would not
>> have lasted for 2 months while the victim was
>> confined to hospital before popping his clogs.
>
> I contend that it would.
> The victim was only murdered if suitable medical treatment
> was not received in time, and thus the *lack* of that
> required medical treatment is part of the act of murder!
Not unless it was part of the master plan, such as if the murderer
had arranged for medical treatment to be ineffective. Otherwise,
it's just a matter of luck.
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> The crimes or criminal acts of murder and attempted
>> murder lie in what the perpetrator did and when he did it,
>> not in how long the victim took before either dying or not.
>
> I contend that it must lie in *all* of the following three areas:
> (1) the actions (eg stabbing);
> *and* (2) the subsequent inactions (eg not calling an ambulance);
> *and* (3) death.
>
> The murder encompasses all of these, and so is not over
> until death actually occurs (as a result of the actions in (1)).
I disagree. Most of what really defines the murder (apart from the
small matter of the victim actually obligingly giving up the ghost)
is really within the malice aforethought, the planning and execution
of the deed. Once the deed is done, the rest is a game of chance.
Not calling an ambulance might be murder if the injury was accidental.
If the injury was deliberate, then it's still murder even if you do
call an ambulance. If the injury was deliberate, and you don't call
an ambulance, then you're not going to get very good grades at
murder college. Whatever next? Tougher sentences for arsonists who
don't call the fire brigade?
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mi Feb 8 15:38:50 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07319 Sekunden |
