selling inherited house...cgt


D

deauville rider

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.
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

Tumbleweed

deauville rider said:
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?
 
T

tarquinlinbin

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
 
R

Richard Faulkner

In message said:
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.
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Tumbleweed said:
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.
 
R

Robert

"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
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald Raygun

Robert said:
"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.
 
T

Troy Steadman

Ronald said:
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.
 
T

Tumbleweed

Troy Steadman said:
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?
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Tumbleweed said:
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.
 
T

Tumbleweed

Ronald Raygun said:
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.
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald Raygun

Tumbleweed said:
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.
 
T

Tumbleweed

Ronald Raygun said:
I did. Now *you* examine it, Stumbleweed! :)


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.
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Tumbleweed said:
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.
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.
 
T

Troy Steadman

Ronald said:
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.


You misunderstand. See below.


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?
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Troy said:
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.
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

Troy Steadman

Ronald said:
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"?
 
T

Tim

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.

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.

... and murdered well before they died.
Nope! The process of murder continued right up until death...

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.

... even though it would not have been possible to say AT THE
TIME THEY CHANGED THE WILL that they had been murdered.
Of course.
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Tim said:
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.
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.
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

Tumbleweed

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Ronald Raygun said:
Because murder is not a process, but an act.


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.
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.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top