Posts Tagged 'Inheritance'

Young globe-trotters set to be winners with inheritance tax changes

Globalisation is leading more young professionals into international work and they look set to be the winners in changes in inheritance tax rules in the UK, designed to reflect the lifestyle changes of the rising tide of overseas workers who are increasingly likely to marry someone from a different country.

The 2013 Budget introduced two important changes to the inheritance tax (IHT) rules that will benefit couples where one partner is domiciled abroad.

From 6th April the IHT exemption on gifts to a non-domiciled spouse has been raised from £55,000 to £325,000 and non-domiciled spouses have been given the option to elect to be UK domiciled for IHT tax purposes.
Domicile is a concept that has no precise legal or statutory definition. It has nothing to do with residence, so a person stationed abroad for work will still be domiciled in the UK.

And it has little to do with nationality, as an Englishman who has settled in the States might have acquired US domicile for example. It is more to do with a sense of homeland or mother-country. At birth everyone has a domicile of origin, for example the domicile of one’s father in the case of a child living with the father, and one can acquire a new domicile – called a domicile of choice – by moving to another country with the intention of settling there permanently.

However, there is also what is known as deemed domicile for IHT purposes. If you have been resident in the UK for 17 of the last 20 years before a gift or death that gives rise to an IHT event, you will be deemed to be UK domiciled for IHT.
But non-domiciled individuals have generally been treated differently for IHT; they only have to pay IHT on assets that are situated in the UK, whereas UK domiciled taxpayers must pay IHT on all that they own, even foreign assets.

Obviously it would be easy for a UK taxpayer to avoid IHT by transferring assets to a non-domiciled spouse who would then move them abroad. And that is why the exemption for gifts between spouses has always been limited where the gift is to a non-domiciled spouse. From the mid 1980s the limit stood at £55,000 (the nil rate band at the time), so the increase to the current nil rate band of £325,000 is being hailed as long overdue.

The other reform is that a non-domiciled spouse can now elect to be treated as having UK domicile for IHT purposes and, by doing so, qualify for an unlimited spouse exemption. Once made, the election cannot be revoked while the individual is living in the UK. But if the individual leaves the UK and lives abroad for more than four years, the election will no longer be effective.

Nicola Owen private client expert of Bath-based solicitors Mogers said: “This is an issue that is becoming more and more common with globalisation. It will be important to weigh up the advantages of an unlimited spouse exemption against the disadvantage of having all one’s worldwide assets made subject to IHT.

“It is likely to be advantageous to young international professionals who are quickly accumulating wealth in the UK but who do not as yet have wealth abroad. Although it’s likely to be a different calculation for taxpayers in middle age or later who have either had time to accumulate wealth abroad or who have inherited from their parents.”


Inheritance – To share or not to share, the fairness of divorce settlements!

The High Court in London ruled on Friday that after a 25 year marriage the wife was entitled to less than 20% of the couples £24million pot which had been inherited by the husband. Mr Justice Moylan called this a generous settlement after confirming that the usual “sharing principle” did not apply to the case as the source of the family wealth had been built up by the Husband’s father.

After a long marriage the courts will usually seek to equate the parties financial positions but in a greater number of the “big money” cases where the needs of the parties will easily be met by the resources available, more and more cases are being fought to try to “depart from equality”.

In this instance the couple’s wealth was valued at between £21 million and £24 million and had been inherited by the Husband who was in his sixties. His father had set up a manufacturing firm after the Second World War which had floated in the 1950s and sold in the 1980s. The husband inherited several farms which included thousands of acres of land as well as a substantial investment portfolio, shares in family business and a shooting estate.

It was heard that the couple had a “very good standard of living” which the Wife described as “extremely high, with no money worries and no restraints on our spending” The Husband was able to earn £100,000 a year from farming but also £300,000 per annum from his share portfolio.

During the marriage the couple had lived in an “extremely rare and valuable” home in a rural estate with the benefit of a swimming pool, tennis court and ornamental lake.

The Wife sought a lump sum of £6million on top of her own assets of £1 million to buy and furnish an appropriate home and to generate an income need of more than £130,000 per annum.

The Husband suggested she should have £850,000 to buy a house and £1.4 million to go with her own asset and that in applying the “sharing principle” to provide the Wife a stake in the Husband’s inherited wealth would be an “invasion” of a fortune he owed to his father.

Mr Justice Moylan said the Husband’s wealth were not to be considered as “matrimonial property” and that in his view it was “fair” to base the award on a “generous assessment” of her needs. She was awarded £3.3 million on top of her £1 million assets.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 428 other followers

Mogers Solicitors