"Childless couples are being discriminated against when it comes to CAT"

[T McGibney]

CGT retirement relief is substantial and can eradicate liability in a lot of cases (mom & pop, €750k each = 1.5m if selling up or transferring to the eponymous niece/nephew, and the numbers go up to €10m each on a transfer to their kids).

Likewise, CAT relief reduces the taxable value to 10% of the actual value.

... barring horrendous tax planning, can be easily mitigated so that the army can be called off, no militating necessary

There is a school.of thought on this platform that the CAT reliefs are somehow inequitable and should be scrapped.

I disagree profoundly with this view, for the reasons I've set out above.

 

[torblednam]

There is a school.of thought on this platform that the CAT reliefs are somehow inequitable and should be scrapped.

I disagree profoundly with this view, for the reasons I've set out above.

I don't see what that's got to do with this thread of conversation.

I've read back through your last few posts and they're lurching all over the place, down various avenues - we're talking about things as they are but now you seem to be suggesting you're actually engaged in an argument that AFAIK hasn't even come up on this thread - I've no idea what argument you're actually trying to have / make.

FWIW, I agree with you as regards the necessity of those reliefs, but that's off-topic.

 

[T McGibney]

I've read back through your last few posts and they're lurching all over the place, down various avenues - we're talking about things as they are but now you seem to be suggesting you're actually engaged in an argument that AFAIK hasn't even come up on this thread - I've no idea what argument you're actually trying to have / make.

FWIW, I agree with you as regards the necessity of those reliefs, but that's off-topic.

I was merely responding to earlier comments made this morning and yesterday.

You're free to report any post on this platform if you consider it to be off topic.

I neither need nor wait for your approval to post anything here.

 

[T McGibney]

I am still missing the point.

1) If a business can't be given away or sold then it has no value.
2) If the business has value and is given away, the beneficiary gets Business Relief from CAT

Don't you want rid of Business Relief?

 

[T McGibney]

It would be great if much lower taxes were levied on both but as long as the State keeps wasting so much money we have to pay high taxes. For me those taxes should not fall so heavily on work and so lightly on wealth, particularly inherited wealth

No. The obvious answer here is that State should stop wasting so much money.

Then taxes can fall for everyone.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

We have gone completely off topic, but yes, I have made it clear that Business Relief and Agricultural Relief should be CAT deferred.

Reforming Agricultural Relief and Business Relief from CAT

There is a good discussion of this in the Alan Shatter thread on CAT generally. Based on the discussion, I have come up with a new proposal which I will send it as a Pre-Budget Submission. This thread is about reforming Agricultural Relief and Business relief and not about CAT generally...

www.askaboutmoney.com

 

[T McGibney]

We have gone completely off topic, but yes, I have made it clear that Business Relief and Agricultural Relief should be CAT deferred.

So you argue on one hand for Business Relief and also for its effective scrapping?

 

[The Horseman]

@The Horseman your post demonstrates aptly how the whole discourse gets skewed by the slanting of it as being in any way related to the disponer - it's a tax on the recipient!

Well then how is it equitable on families with one child versus families with three children?

One child can inherit €400k whereas three children can inherit €1.2m.

A fairer mechanism is to say to the disposer you have a threshold of €400k for life to dispose of how you see fit. Not €400k per child but a lifetime limit of a tax free inheritance limit of the €400k any value over the €400k then goes into a standard threshold irrespective of who the inheriter is.

 

[torblednam]

So you argue on one hand for Business Relief and also for its effective scrapping?

Ah here!

Without wanting to make Brendan's defense for him, acknowledging the existence of the relief for the purpose of a logical exercise, is not "arguing for business relief".

It's almost as if you're desperately scrambling for anything, however obtuse, to fire back because you're losing the argument...

 

[torblednam]

Well then how is it equitable on families with one child versus families with three children?

One child can inherit €400k whereas three children can inherit €1.2m.

A fairer mechanism is to say to the disposer you have a threshold of €400k for life to dispose of how you see fit. Not €400k per child but a lifetime limit of a tax free inheritance limit of the €400k any value over the €400k then goes into a standard threshold irrespective of who the inheriter is.

You really aren't getting it Horsey, it's a tax on INDIVIDUALS, on the things they receive.

Approaching it from the angle you are, is perverse, it's literally the opposite of how the tax itself is constructed.

Gifts may give rise to CGT on the benefactor and CAT on the beneficiary.

Inheritances give rise to no CGT (as there is no CGT on death) and CAT on the beneficiary.

Your beef should be with CGT in the first instance.

 

[T McGibney]

acknowledging the existence of the relief for the purpose of a logical exercise,

Which wasn't the case here, at all.

desperately scrambling for anything, however obtuse, to fire back

Pot, kettle.

 

[torblednam]

Pot, kettle.

I don't think anyone reading this thread will be confused by, or unclear about, what my position is in any of my posts.

I'll let other readers / contributors decide which of us has been evasive, moving goalposts and bringing in arguments from other threads as strawmen. The posts are all there to be read and understood (or not, as the case may be)!

 

[Brendan Burgess]

A fairer mechanism is to say to the disposer you have a threshold of €400k for life

Effectively that is what they do in some countries by putting a tax on the estate and not on the beneficiary.

But yours is an interesting variation. A person can give or bequest in their will up to a total of €400k tax free. After that, their estate is taxed at 33%.

 

[The Horseman]

You really aren't getting it Horsey, it's a tax on INDIVIDUALS, on the things they receive.

With the greatest respect it is you who is not willing to engage in a discussion on the merits of the existing tax regime.

The premise of the tax system is fairness, does income tax treat a parent different irrespective of the number of children they have? Is property tax calculated on the number of children?

For what it's worth I am an corporate accountant with 30 yrs in the business world so I don't need a random poster on the Internet putting words in bold.

 

[torblednam]

Effectively that is what they do in some countries by putting a tax on the estate and not on the beneficiary.

But yours is an interesting variation. A person can give or bequest in their will up to a total of €400k tax free. After that, their estate is taxed at 33%

That's fine for the will, but doesn't address inter vivos transfers at all, which is where business & farm successions are substantial issues.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

That's fine for the will, but doesn't address inter vivos transfers at all,

So the first [€400k] of any gifts or bequests are exempt. The rest are taxed at 33%.

So if I give you a business worth €1m, then €600k is taxed at 33% and payable by me.

Any future gift I give is also taxed at 33%.

 

[Fortune]

the sweat of the owner(s) and is simply not an attractive prospect for a third party.

And the value generated by the business is based on undocumented processes, many of which exist only in the subconscious of the owners.

 

[Zion2022]

A fairer mechanism is to say to the disposer you have a threshold of €400k for life to dispose of how you see

‘Fairer’ here is clearly subjective. I don’t have any issue with the proposal personally but you would have absolute uproar as parents of larger families have their ability to provide for their children absolutely hammered by the changes relative to small families. They will clearly consider that horribly unfair.

There is also the concept that generally we don’t allow large transfers of money between individuals without taxation. We carve out an exception for the relationship between parent and child. This proposal axes that. Again I’m fine with it but most won’t be.

 

[Fortune]

And I think it's major factor why the family butcher for example is becoming an endangered species.

I would've thought that it's more due to the changes in society since the days when family butchers were financially successful. People don't habitually do their food shopping in multiple businesses nowadays

 

[torblednam]

It should also be pointed out that the proposal of approaching the tax from the disponer side only, means that an individual can in theory receive unlimited amounts of wealth, tax free, as long as they can suitably motivate enough people to give / will them stuff...