If anyone has done any research on inheritance tax in other countries, it has been devastating to family run businesses, farms etc, and for those with genuine fortunes, the shift of capital to trusts ensure that very little in death duties are paid.

It is one of those taxes that the ideological left love, but actually end up burdening the middle class.

I am a firm believer in no inheritance
taxes whatsoever. People have already
paid taxes whilst still alive
this would be "double-dipping" and why
force them (their children) to keep on
paying? Not very fair!

I forgot to add that I would make the suggestion
to anyone wanting to leave their homes to their
children to put the property in the name of their
children not their own. That way they would not have
to pay inheritance taxes.

So what you are all suggesting is that half a million of inheritance per sibling is not enough. Why?

In the case of a farm this is a commercial enterprise which pays taxes and draws losses all the way along and if continued as a farm well it has not been sold. But, if a property has been sold (this is the only time an inheritance can be realized) then that is a different scenario. Also, if a business, in this case a farm, has been run as a viable enterprise then once sold it should be subject to CCT as tax breaks have already been claimed.

As for a property having been purchased in the 50's having a company/trust arrangement, this would be very unlikely given the era, however, if the property was transferred into a company/trust, then legally it would have been sold and no longer a personal asset of the original owners.

I just fail to see how a lost relative, having had little to no contact with the long term owners of the asset can be freely allowed to have a financial, 'tax fee gain' of millions.

As for buying a property in the name of a child the only way that could be done was with cash, as banks would be very reluctant to lend to minors.

I'm really ignorant when it comes to this kind of stuff.
I have a friend who is currently in the process of having his mums house sold and the proceeds distributed between himself and his two brothers.
One of the brothers lives in the house, and wants a bigger share and is being difficult with the sale process.

Thanks mhaze for the CGT info.

Here's my 2 cents.
I don't think the government should be helping itself to anyone's gifts of inheritances, even if the person does receive a substantial capital gain.

I see it as double dipping by the government.

No matter what gift or inheritance or whatever you received, is it not true that the person who originally purchased the item probably already paid his taxes and these items represent his or her after income-tax purchases / savings / assets.
The government already got their share.
Why does it need to get another piece of the action?

Rehctub
"I just fail to see how a lost relative, having had little to no contact with the long term owners of the asset can be freely allowed to have a financial, 'tax fee gain' of millions."

Why not?
Are you saying the government should be entitled to something that never belonged to it?