selling inherited house...cgt

Ah thats kind of similar to my Q justa few messages below, who does the valuing for IHT purposes?

re the second part of your Q, transfers between husband and wife are generally irrelevant for CGT purposes, eg giving half now wont make much diff.

BUT, you could probably reduce tax by xferring a percentage of it now, and a percentage after april 6th (eg one in each tax year so not much time left to do it), each timed to be within her limit? is that correct, tax gurus?

Didnt you have to provide a valuation when you applied for probate??

Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

In message , deauville rider writes

Ultimately you.... In your tax return, you will insert its' value, and the Revenue will only query it if they choose to inspect your return a bit more closely, and have any suspicions which result in an investigation.

Presumably a probate value was obtained? Who provided it? Assuming this was realistic, I cant see any problem with it being used. Having said that, you may wish to cover your backside by asking a local surveyor to provide an opinion as to value at the time.

Not sure if it's too late, but if it's not, you would double your Capital Allowance from £8,500 to £17,000 or so. I'm sure someone else will confirm this.

On the contrary, it will mean that upon sale two annual CGT exemptions are deducted from the gain instead of just the one.

No. Since inter-spouse transfers are CGT-exempt, their timing does not matter. However, if you could jointly sell to the end-buyer in two stages, one on 5th April and one on 6th, you'd get four bites of the cherry.

"I inherited my mothers house in May 2002 and it is now up for sale. I realise I need to pay cgt on the difference between selling price on value in May 2002 (less allowances). My question is , Who decides its value at May 2002."

Someone must have valued the house so that the inhereitance tax could be paid (if any) and probate granted. But it is not the value in May

2002 that you need, it's the value at the date of the death - the probate value.

You are deemed to have inherited it at the probate value and that is what the inheritance tax and, eventually, the CGT will be based on.

If the estate was below the IHT threshold it would have paid you to push the estimated house value up so as to reduce the later CGT bill.

Alternatively, if you had moved into the house when you inherited it and made it your home, you woul dhave removed the CGT liability when you eventually sold it. In that case you would have tried to get a low probate value.

Sorry to be wise after the event and all that... Robert

One generally inherits assets on date of death. Therefore, if he inherited it in May 2002, then that's when his mother must have died.

There was a case where somebody changed his will after he had been murdered. The murder happened, the victim lingered on lucid and concious in hospital for several months.

Eh?

Very interesting, and possible, but not relevant. We're interested in when Robert's mother actually died, not when (or even whether) she was murdered.

Examine the paragraph.

1) A person changed their will after they had been murdered. 2) Someone was murdered, and then carried on living.

I did. Now *you* examine it, Stumbleweed! :-)

If someone dies as a result of murder, but the death occurs some significant time after the actual act perpetrated by the murderer, such as, say, administering a slow-acting poison, then it's quite reasonable to say that the victim "was murdered" at the time of the act, not at the time of death. Of course it's not until after death that the act can be said to have been murder, but that's beside the point.

Of course it isnt. If action is taken to counter whatever the attempted murder method was, and it works (antidote for poison, surgery for shooting, etc) I didnt murder you. Murder means you irreversibly died.

In the para in question, the person seemingly changed their will after they had been attacked and before they died. But not *after* they had been murdered. As you say below, "its not until after death that the act can be said to be murder"

Its not beside the point at all, it is the point, until you are dead, murder cannot be said to have occurred, and even then, if the victim is resuscitated, it still isnt murder.

OH YES IT IS!! Less than 9 months to Christmas.

Do not make the mistake of interpreting "it's reasonable to say the person was murdered at the time of the act" as meaning "it's reasonable to say at the time of the act that the peron was murdered". That's altogether different. What I meant is that *post mortem* we can say that the person was murdered, and we can place the time of the murder to the time of the act.

Agreed.

You misunderstand. See below.

There are two questions.

One is DID murder take place, the other is WHEN did it take place.

If the answer to the first is NO, then the second question is void, but if the answer to the first question is YES, i.e. the victim did in fact die as a result of the attack (even if death did not occur immediately), then the answer to the second question can reasonably be that the murder took place at the time of the attack rather than at the time of death.

Even though the person changed their will after the attack but before dying, we can say in retrospect, now that the person has in fact died as a result, that the person was therefore murdered, and murdered well before they died. We can thus NOW say that they changed their will after they were murdered, even though it would not have been possible to say AT THE TIME THEY CHANGED THE WILL that they had been murdered.

Suppose you fall down a ravine. Legally you are declared dead but friendly rabbits keep you alive with carrots. Years later you are rescued, but annoy your resuer so much he murders you. You survive just long enough to write your will, but are murdered again as you are about to sign it?

I see a question mark, but can't find the question.

"One generally inherits assets on date of death. Therefore, if he inherited it in May 2002, then that's when his mother must have died".

Do you mean "that's when his mother must have fallen down the ravine"?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Why does it have to be one of those two options?

I imagine that the murder actually happened across a period of time, starting at the attack, and ending at death -- rather than happening at a single point in time.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Nope! The process of murder continued right up until death...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

No, the act of murder was still in progress when the will was being changed! "After murder" means after the entire process has been completed, ie after death.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Of course.

Because murder is not a process, but an act.

No, the murderous act (a stabbing, say) is likely to be instantaneous, or at least to have an identifiable and usually brief duration. Throttling may take minutes rather than seconds. Or it could be a sequence of acts, e.g. if small doses of poison (having a cumulative effect) had been administered over a prolonged period.

No, the act is in progress only while the murderer is actively doing something towards his aim, e.g. swapping live and earth on the toaster plug or spiking the whisky with paracetamol, or holding his hands round the victim's throat, or a shopping bag over his head.

Consider that the only difference between murder and attempted murder is whether it succeeded. You wouldn't say that an attempted murder lasted for 2 months while the victim was confined to an intensive care unit prior to being sent home fit and well, and by the same token murder would not have lasted for 2 months while the victim was confined to hospital before popping his clogs.

The crimes or criminal acts of murder and attempted murder lie in what the perpetrator did and when he did it, not in how long the victim took before either dying or not.