An outspoken agent says he is seeing growing numbers of people renting in later life to reduce their inheritance tax liability.
Trevor Abrahmsohn - owner of high-end agency Glentree Estates, specialising in prime houses in North London - says: “Glentree is dealing with a number of elderly people who have sold their family house and are choosing to rent an alternative home on a long-term basis, to avoid the grievous financial harm of inheritance tax.”
And he says that by not purchasing a property after they sell, the Exchequer is denied Stamp Duty on further property deals.
“However, if there was no Inheritance tax this circumnavigation would not occur in the first place” he notes.
In a blog on his company website he suggests that the UK government has failed to emulate administrations in Australia, New Zealand and Israel which have ditched their equivalent inheritance tax because it had been seen as a tax on middle-class aspiration.
Abrahmsohn asks: “What’s wrong with the ability of families being able to leave their estate to their beneficiaries so that the money can be used to buy property, or anything else they fancy? The innumerate Treasury would earn considerable taxes on this consumption and will recoup some of this lost tax as the capital re-circulates into the system.”
The blog includes Abrahmsohn’s trademark humorous take on serious issues, especially involving swipes at politicians.
For example, he says inheritance tax in this country is unpopular suggesting that “it ranks somewhere below a bout of dysentery and being trapped in a lift with Rachel Reeves.”
And he adds that with the current inheritance tax bringing in only £7 billion annually “the tax is barely enough to cover Therese Coffey’s cigar money.”
He also cites the late Labour politician Roy Jenkins who described this particular tax as ”...a voluntary levy paid by those who distrust their heirs more than they dislike the Inland Revenue.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Makes no sense unless the proceeds are spent or gifted and they live over 7 years after.
They have to catch you first.
It makes perfect sense. Rattling round in a big family home with a huge garden you can't maintain in later life becomes increasingly stressful and difficult. Buying a McCarthy and Stone style retirement apartment is financially questionable but renting something similar would be very attractive in the right circumstances.
The whole IHT situation is very complicated but you don't loose the million pound allowance just because you downsize. As long as the money came from the sale of your main residence I'm pretty sure it's ring fenced to a certain extent.
The real advantage of renting retirement specific properties is the ease of moving on to the next step. Whether that's somewhere with more care provision or the ultimate final resting place.
Much rather have mature tenants tbh
Much less chance of kids appearing for starters
Agreed I have happy tenants in their 60s and 70s nice people and no issues
I think inheritance tax and CGT should be abolished. In the acquisition of your assets you have already paid tax on your income, then paid VAT on acquiring your assets. Isn't that enough tax already?
100% Agreed John. But also do not forget the tax we are now paying with the removal of S24.
Please login to comment