|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 7, 2024 13:52:19 GMT
It is a tax duty after you are dead, where it only affects the inheritors. It has fuck all to do with individual beneficiaries of an estate Give up your insistence that it does, you are wrong it is charged on the estate You are only making yourself look even more foolish than normal IHT is charged against the estate and I have never suggested otherwise. If there are no beneficiaries then your foolish position might make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 7, 2024 13:54:09 GMT
Indeed. So one can make a decision to gift someone cash and up to 7 years later the state can snatch some of that money back . So the claim that your own spending is your decision right up to the point where you pop your clogs is incorrect . The state has merely set a time limit to when they can take your money It is up the deceased to make their own decisions before they die, on where they would like their inheritance to go, that is obvious. It is up to HMRC to decide what is taxable and what is not, after the donner pops their clogs. My statement was and is correct. And still you miss the point . The ‘deceased ‘ cannot make up their minds because they are dead . When they are alive they can decide to make cash gifts but unless they live for 7 years after making the gifts the state can override their decision and take some of the gift . Your statement was wrong and so is your post . |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 7, 2024 14:01:07 GMT
There is nothing you can do about your brain, but I suggest you buy yourself a mouth wash because all your mouth does is to expose your sad upbringing. How does your attempt at a reply disprove my post? There is no "green eyed ignorance" in commonsense, but there does appear to an element of greed owned by those who use the term. At no time have I claimed to know all matters on IHT, that is just a lie put together in the nonsense that exists between your ears. It has been my long term understanding that cash and or property given to others are included in IHT unless the donor lives more than 7 years after making their bequest. If you know different pleas show evidence. Only some misinformed burk on the far Right could even begin to consider me to be on the Far Left. IMO you and your Rightist ilk are the main reason why the UK have suffered so badly by having the Conservative party overly dominate parliament since 1951. When you are in a hole - stop digging You are a leftie , far on the left wing You have lied deliberately throughout this thread to try to massage your enormous (in your green eyes eyes only) ego but shown your lack of knowledge and unwillingness to learn despite you travelling all over on your Wallace Arnold (or whichever) coach trips) and laughingly taking specific political note for some 70+ years You continue to state that IHT is charged according to the tax position of the ''inheritor'' in receipt of a n ''inheritance'' (then you cant even be arsed to look up the meaning of the correct term- bequest-and when I provide you with a glossary (look it up if you don't know what it means) ,and didn't know that your hero the (very talented (sic) one eyed history teacher , Gordon introduced the 7 year rule )yet you continue to sling your ignorant , idiotic , pathetic so insults about with abandon That is nothing more than a Rightist rant using the usual Rightist DNA gifts of lies, derogation and insinuation, pointing to a sad far-Right political position LOL Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 7, 2024 14:03:40 GMT
It is up the deceased to make their own decisions before they die, on where they would like their inheritance to go, that is obvious. It is up to HMRC to decide what is taxable and what is not, after the donner pops their clogs. My statement was and is correct. And still you miss the point . The ‘deceased ‘ cannot make up their minds because they are dead . When they are alive they can decide to make cash gifts but unless they live for 7 years after making the gifts the state can override their decision and take some of the gift . Your statement was wrong and so is your post . You either purposely misinterpret my posts, or you are an idiot, either way I don't care. Bye. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 7, 2024 14:06:09 GMT
And still you miss the point . The ‘deceased ‘ cannot make up their minds because they are dead . When they are alive they can decide to make cash gifts but unless they live for 7 years after making the gifts the state can override their decision and take some of the gift . Your statement was wrong and so is your post . You either purposely misinterpret my posts, or you are an idiot, either way I don't care. Bye. You were wrong. Just accept it …..and don’t post ‘ bye’ when you know full well that you will respond to this post . |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 7, 2024 14:11:45 GMT
It has fuck all to do with individual beneficiaries of an estate Give up your insistence that it does, you are wrong it is charged on the estate You are only making yourself look even more foolish than normal IHT is charged against the estate and I have never suggested otherwise. If there are no beneficiaries then your foolish position might make sense. Bulls*hit ,anyone can read your posts and see your lies If there are no beneficiariesThen there is no testator because the deceased died intestate (ie without a will ) and specific rules apply to determine if there are beneficiaries (They are all beneficiaries so your ignorant retort is yet another lie) is - if there are no beneficiaries under the rules the Crown cops the lot  Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 7, 2024 14:48:13 GMT
IHT is charged against the estate and I have never suggested otherwise. If there are no beneficiaries then your foolish position might make sense. Bulls*hit ,anyone can read your posts and see your lies If there are no beneficiariesThen there is no testator because the deceased died intestate (ie without a will ) and specific rules apply to determine if there are beneficiaries (They are all beneficiaries so your ignorant retort is yet another lie) is - if there are no beneficiaries under the rules the Crown cops the lot I have had to make the explanation for you which you have failed to take on board, that the only ones who lose out due to IHT being paid on the estate, are the beneficiaries from the estate. That is so clear and obvious that you don't have to be the brightest kid in the room to understand it. My reference to there being no beneficiaries referred to there being nobody to inherit from the estate, i.e. no one there to suffer a reduction in their inheritance due to IHT being imposed upon the estate. You had to create a lie in an attempt to make me out as a liar, you really are a saddo. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 7, 2024 14:50:13 GMT
I am the executor of the tiny estate of an elderly relative who died in 2022. I was instructed not to pay out any creditors for six months, to give government agencies time to put together any tax, DWP, etc., claims they may have on the estate, because any claims they may have have priority over other types of claims. My relative has been gone very close to two years now and the DWP still haven't decided by how much they overpaid him. I think that's an unreasonable length of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 7, 2024 15:17:25 GMT
I have never suggested otherwiseBulls*hit ,anyone can read your posts and see your lies If there are no beneficiariesThen there is no testator because the deceased died intestate (ie without a will ) and specific rules apply to determine if there are beneficiaries (They are all beneficiaries so your ignorant retort is yet another lie) is - if there are no beneficiaries under the rules the Crown cops the lot I have had to make the explanation for you which you have failed to take on board, that the only ones who lose out due to IHT being paid on the estate, are the beneficiaries from the estate. That is so clear and obvious that you don't have to be the brightest kid in the room to understand it. My reference to there being no beneficiaries referred to there being nobody to inherit from the estate, i.e. no one there to suffer a reduction in their inheritance due to IHT being imposed upon the estate. You had to create a lie in an attempt to make me out as a liar, you really are a saddo. Unbelievable -and I even posted the intestacy flow chart to make it simple for you and still you continue to post utter bulls*it If the deceased died intestate, they did not leave a will so named no beneficiaries - the intestacy rules then kick in to try to find any beneficiaries - if the rules fail then the final beneficiary is the Crown which receives an increased legacy from the estate - not a reduction Serious question Do you have to try really hard to be as thick as your posts suggest that you are or is such stupidity innate? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 7, 2024 22:00:30 GMT
I have had to make the explanation for you which you have failed to take on board, that the only ones who lose out due to IHT being paid on the estate, are the beneficiaries from the estate. That is so clear and obvious that you don't have to be the brightest kid in the room to understand it. My reference to there being no beneficiaries referred to there being nobody to inherit from the estate, i.e. no one there to suffer a reduction in their inheritance due to IHT being imposed upon the estate. You had to create a lie in an attempt to make me out as a liar, you really are a saddo. Unbelievable -and I even posted the intestacy flow chart to make it simple for you and still you continue to post utter bulls*it If the deceased died intestate, they did not leave a will so named no beneficiaries - the intestacy rules then kick in to try to find any beneficiaries - if the rules fail then the final beneficiary is the Crown which receives an increased legacy from the estate - not a reduction Serious question Do you have to try really hard to be as thick as your posts suggest that you are or is such stupidity innate? Why don't you read and digest my posts? I never commented on the 'intestate' situation that is just another of your made up lies. If you had read my post you would not be answering points that I have not made. Well it seems that you are innately stupid, its all part of the Rightist DNA after all. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 7, 2024 22:08:29 GMT
Unbelievable -and I even posted the intestacy flow chart to make it simple for you and still you continue to post utter bulls*it If the deceased died intestate, they did not leave a will so named no beneficiaries - the intestacy rules then kick in to try to find any beneficiaries - if the rules fail then the final beneficiary is the Crown which receives an increased legacy from the estate - not a reduction Serious question Do you have to try really hard to be as thick as your posts suggest that you are or is such stupidity innate? I never commented on the 'intestate' situation that is just another of your made up lies. If you had read my post you would not be answering points that I have not made. Well it seems that you are innately stupid, its all part of the Rightist DNA after all. Anyone with any sense digests your posts with a very large pinch of salt. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 8, 2024 9:33:36 GMT
Why don't you read and digest my posts? I never commented on the 'intestate' situation that is just another of your made up lies. If you had read my post you would not be answering points that I have not made. Well it seems that you are innately stupid, its all part of the Rightist DNA after all. Anyone with any sense digests your posts with a very large pinch of salt. A typically silly comment ^^^ from a very silly man. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 8, 2024 11:31:37 GMT
Unbelievable -and I even posted the intestacy flow chart to make it simple for you and still you continue to post utter bulls*it If the deceased died intestate, they did not leave a will so named no beneficiaries - the intestacy rules then kick in to try to find any beneficiaries - if the rules fail then the final beneficiary is the Crown which receives an increased legacy from the estate - not a reduction Serious question Do you have to try really hard to be as thick as your posts suggest that you are or is such stupidity innate? Why don't you read and digest my posts? I never commented on the 'intestate' situation that is just another of your made up lies. If you had read my post you would not be answering points that I have not made. Well it seems that you are innately stupid, its all part of the Rightist DNA after all.
You still ignore the ''when in a hole stop digging'' ,and still your spade does not stop making your hole even deeper and your lies even more obvious to those of us with more than a single brain cell You posted about if there are no beneficiaries
The ONLY way there can be no beneficiaries is in an intestacy when the intestacy rules kick in , fail to find anyone and the crown cops the lot Thus you were called out on your wilful lies and total ignorance ....yet again |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 10, 2024 11:16:36 GMT
Why don't you read and digest my posts? I never commented on the 'intestate' situation that is just another of your made up lies. If you had read my post you would not be answering points that I have not made. Well it seems that you are innately stupid, its all part of the Rightist DNA after all.
You still ignore the ''when in a hole stop digging'' ,and still your spade does not stop making your hole even deeper and your lies even more obvious to those of us with more than a single brain cell You posted about if there are no beneficiaries
The ONLY way there can be no beneficiaries is in an intestacy when the intestacy rules kick in , fail to find anyone and the crown cops the lot Thus you were called out on your wilful lies and total ignorance ....yet again I have clearly explained what I meant about there being no beneficiaries i.e. no beneficiaries! Despite my repeatedly pointing this out to you, you purposely, for your own reasons have chosen to ignore this fact. You have ignored my explanation and rambled on about a system that included beneficiaries. (Even though if any could be found they would receive their inheritance after IHT had been paid on the estate, which was my original point). Your post is a willful dishonest and arrogant piece of foolishness. A repeated problem which you might seek to overcome in any reply you might choose to make. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 10, 2024 12:51:49 GMT
I never commented on the 'intestate' situation that is just another of your made up lies.
You still ignore the ''when in a hole stop digging'' ,and still your spade does not stop making your hole even deeper and your lies even more obvious to those of us with more than a single brain cell You posted about if there are no beneficiaries
The ONLY way there can be no beneficiaries is in an intestacy when the intestacy rules kick in , fail to find anyone and the crown cops the lot Thus you were called out on your wilful lies and total ignorance ....yet again I have clearly explained what I meant about there being no beneficiaries i.e. no beneficiaries! Despite my repeatedly pointing this out to you, you purposely, for your own reasons have chosen to ignore this fact. You have ignored my explanation and rambled on about a system that included beneficiaries. (Even though if any could be found they would receive their inheritance after IHT had been paid on the estate, which was my original point). Your post is a willful dishonest and arrogant piece of foolishness. A repeated problem which you might seek to overcome in any reply you might choose to make. I've come to the conclusion that you really are as thick as your posts indicate that you must be to post such utter trash - the only other possibility is that you are Price Harry in disguise who prattles on pathetically about ''his truths''. There is no other possible conclusion as you too have your own version of ''fact'' which bears no relation whatsoever to reality and you have the brass neck to try to deny postings you have made in your own name . Yet you insist calling others who call out your utter bullsh*t dishonest , fools , arrogant , wilful, infantile, liars etc (apologies if I've missed out any of your standard insults ) I repeat for the terminally thick IHT has fuck all to do with the beneficiaries , it never has had It is paid by the executor of the deceased's estate If a testator leaves 20% of their estate to beneficiary A and beneficiary B is left 10%, beneficiary A receives 20% of the estate and beneficiary B receives 10% once probate is granted -they do not receive a reduced bequest. If the testator leaves £10000 to beneficiary A they receive £10000 after grant of probate . There is no reduction subject to sufficient funds in the estate (care costs are expensive). If there is no will then intestacy rules kick in (flow chart previously posted) to find if there are beneficiaries If intestacy rules fail - the crown cops the lot (thus 100% instead of 40% IHT) |
|
