selling inherited house...cgt

deauville rider · 2006-03-28T19:52:26+00:00

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 alloowances). My question is , Who decides its value at May 2002. Also ,is there any gain by arranging for my wife to be Half owner. Thanks in advance.

Mar 28, 2006 21 Replies

Rate this thread:

Tim 20 years ago

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

It is an act which can take some time to be played out, until it's conclusion (the conclusion being death).

Don't forget, it is not just the murderer's actions which dictate whether a "murder" occurred -- it is also any other (in/)actions before death is seen to have, or have not, occurred.

For instance, look at the following two examples:-

Example1: Evil person1 stabs law-abiding personA, and leaves him for dead. No-one finds personA before death.

Example2: Evil person2 stabs law-abiding personB, and leaves him for dead. However, someone finds personB before death, calls an ambulance, they get taken to hospital and don't die from the stabbing.

Now, both evil person1 and evil person2 performed exactly the same actions. So were both the victims "murdered"? Of course not -- only personA was murdered, and personB was not.

Person1 is a murderer, but person2 is not. Thus the act of "murder" is not over immediately after stabbing, and extends right up to death.

If the "action of murder" was just the stabbing, then either both personA and personB were murdered, or both weren't -- which patently isn't true!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

True, the "murderous acts" may be instantaneous, but the victim was not murdered at that single instant - s/he was murdered across the period from the start of the first act until death.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

So, according to your definition, if the wires were tampered with in (say) 1980 and then the toaster was left untouched until 2005, when the victim received an electric shock ... -- then do you think the victim was murdered in 1980?!!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Oh wouldn't I? ;-)

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I contend that it would. The victim was only murdered if suitable medical treatment was not received in time, and thus the *lack* of that required medical treatment is part of the act of murder!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I contend that it must lie in *all* of the following three areas: (1) the actions (eg stabbing); *and* (2) the subsequent inactions (eg not calling an ambulance); *and* (3) death.

The murder encompasses all of these, and so is not over until death actually occurs (as a result of the actions in (1)).

Vote

Ronald Raygun 20 years ago

It's not an "act" as in theatre, it is a well-defined action which isn't "played out", it is a deed which is done. It may take some time for the deed to achieve its effect, if at all, but the effect isn't part of the deed, except inasmuch as it labels the deed as being murderous as distinct from being merely an attempt thereat. (The distinction is far from justified, IMV; the amount of evil involved is the same in both, and that it's somehow "less bad" to try unsuccessfully to kill someone than to succeed, doesn't ring right with me, but that's a moral issue which we don't really want to discuss here).

It's only murder if the victim dies, of course. But personB was still brutally attacked even though they didn't die. So person2 committed an act of GBH whilst person1 committed an act of murder.

Both acts were committed on the occasions of the relevant stabbings, and not "over a time". So personA was murdered *at the time of the stabbing* even though they didn't actually die until perhaps some hours later.

PersonA and personB were stabbed. PersonA's stabbing was murder, personB's was merely GBH. I don't understand why you have a problem with an act occurring before a point in time at which it is defined as being one thing or another.

It's the same thing with a sole heir, who for all intents and purposes owns the house etc form the moment the testator dies, even though this fact isn't made official by probate until much later.

An unlikely scenario, but Yes.

Not unless it was part of the master plan, such as if the murderer had arranged for medical treatment to be ineffective. Otherwise, it's just a matter of luck.

I disagree. Most of what really defines the murder (apart from the small matter of the victim actually obligingly giving up the ghost) is really within the malice aforethought, the planning and execution of the deed. Once the deed is done, the rest is a game of chance.

Not calling an ambulance might be murder if the injury was accidental. If the injury was deliberate, then it's still murder even if you do call an ambulance. If the injury was deliberate, and you don't call an ambulance, then you're not going to get very good grades at murder college. Whatever next? Tougher sentences for arsonists who don't call the fire brigade?

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required