IHT Planning - Repair To Property Before And After Date Of Death
Submit Articles Back to Articles
A recent Land Tribunal case Tapp v HMRC 2008 EW Lands TMA/284/2008 has
highlighted the importance of market value of property at date of death
and interaction of the state of repair.
In the Tapp case the District Valuer (DV) only visited the property two
years after the date of death.
The basis of valuation for inheritance tax (IHT) is market value (s.160
IHTA 1984), – i.e. the price that would be paid by a willing buyer to a
Clearly the valuation should be undertaken as soon after the date of
death as possible. If a professional valuation is not
undertaken, photographic evidence of the property and the state of
repair should be be undertakenobtained. Clearly beneficiaries
and/or executors who do arrange to have repair work carried out should
keep records of work done ready for the valuation.
The valuation is clearly important for IHT planning and establishing
IHT liability. The tax relief on the expenditure must also be
considered – is this a capital gains tax (CGT) expense for the
improvement or is this a cost to offset against income?
Repairs to Farms
The fact that Rrepairs to farms which may attract 100% Agricultural
Property Relief (APR) and/or Business Property Relief (BPR)
as, opposedwhilst to non-business property does not
benefit from this these reliefs and could be the subject to of some
death bed or later years planning. For example:
1) Farmer “J” owns a farm worth £2
million including a farmhouse worth £500,000. It is
anticipated HMRC could challenge accept agricultural value of 60% so
£200,000 will may not qualify for APR and BPR. Farmer “J” has
recently sold development land and has £400,000 cash due to savings and
this sale. The obvious tax planning is to rollover the gain
into more land. Entrepreneurs’ Relief would not be advisable
available as it would not be a material sale has not been
made. The cash is clearly “IHT vulnerable”, i.e. will not be
covered by the “nil rate band”. Rollover can save CGT and
ensure the replacement property for IHT. The rollover could
be improvements to the farm.
2) Farmer “O” owns a farm worth £3
million including a farmhouse which could be subject to
restriction. Farmer “O” has savings and investments of
£600,000 and the farm is in a bad state of repair due to the
deteriorating health of Farmer “O”. If cash is used on
repairs and improvements the value of the farm should increase and be
subject to APR and BPR as appropriate at 100%.
The recent Tapp case shows an example of late DV visits and questions
over repairs indicating the need for photographic evidence at various
stages. There are tax planning opportunities for the planning
use (and timing thereof) of “inheritance tax vulnerable”
cash. There is also the question of the complexity of what
exactly is “market value” at the time of writing.
There are those who argue that uncertainty over the question of
identifying market value of willing buyer and willing sellermarket
values may be uncertain (under the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’
principle) in today’s credit cruncheconomic climate.
There is no doubt that “repair and market uncertainty” can be used as
tax planning tools.
About the Author
Article supplied by Julie Butler F.C.A. Butler & Co, Bowland
House, West Street, Alresford, Hampshire, SO24 9AT. Tel:
01962 735544. Email; firstname.lastname@example.org, Website; www.butler-co.co.uk
Julie Butler F.C.A. is the author of Tax Planning for Farm and Land
Diversification ISBN: 0754517691 (1st edition) and ISBN: 0754522180
(2nd edition) and Equine Tax Planning ISBN: 0406966540. The
third edition of Tax Planning For Farm and Land Diversification is
currently being written and will be published shortly. To
order a copy call Tottel Publishing on 01444 416119.
19 November 2008
Follow us @Scopulus_News
Article Published/Sorted/Amended on Scopulus 2009-03-02 14:01:53 in Tax Articles