Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The FACTS about the farming IHT issues

343 replies

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 15:52

Decided to write a post to kind of myth bust a lot of what is being said around the agricultural Inheritance Tax issue. Because this issue is important to EVERYONE and will affect all of us.
It’s going to be a long post but please read it in full.

What has changed?
So with the budget the government has removed both APR relief and BPR relief from all businesses.
APR = Agricultural Property Relief - this covers the land, the buildings and the farmhouse.
BPR = Business Property Relief - this covers the machinery, equipment, livestock, consumables such as seed and fertiliser and crop in the ground.
Now the first million of combined assets from both APR and BPR is IHT free and anything over 1 million is taxed at 20%.
Under certain conditions it MIGHT be possible for SOME farms to get up to 3 million tax free. But that doesn't work for all. It’s a case of if your circumstances meet the exact criteria your ok if not you won’t get the full 3 million.

When the government talk about 500 farms per year being affected they are only talking about the APR proportion of the tax. They have deliberately excluded talking about the fact that BPR is also included and taxed.

The NFU are saying that 75% of family farms will be affected.

• it will also include a significant number of tenant farmers as they still will be affected by BPR.
BPR will also affect a number of other industries as well.
Haulage firms, Contractors and any businesses with high asset values comparative to income will be badly affected.

At the same time subsidies are being cut by 70% in some cases
Tax on fertiliser is going up by £50 per ton.
Tax on domestic vehicles is going up over 200%
NI for employers is going up.

Why shouldn't farmers pay tax like every other business?
Because quite simply farming doesn't work like any other business does. Most businesses work out their pricing by working out the cost of production + profit and tax. They are in control of who they sell to. When component prices go up so to does the selling price.
Farming doesn't work like that. Farmers have little to no control over prices.
The combination of global markets, supermarket competition and subsidized food control the prices.
At the same time input costs and yields are not controllable either. Weather conditions play a huge role in how good the harvest is. Unless you are able to grow all your feed for your livestock there can be huge variation year to year on feed prices.

Farming is a high asset value to low income business. It is unique purely because it is a rubbish business model. But it is a necessary business. Without it quite simply we would have no food.

Why do farms make so little return?

A lot of the foods you buy are subsidised by the government and has been for decades.
if we had to pay the full costs we would have an even more serious poverty issue than we have already.

After the war in the 1950s we had a serious issue with malnutrition and issues like rickets. Food was short and expensive. The country on its knees after the horrors of the 1940s. In order to combat that the government subsidised lots of essential foods. So the public were paying artificially low prices for things like milk. They then paid the farmers a subsidy to partially make up the shortfall

For context in the 1980s people were paying approximately 25% of their household income on average on food.
Today it is approximately 13% so half.

A pint of milk was equal to two pints of beer
Now beer per pint is 13 x more expensive than a pint of milk.

If people want farmers to go back to paying IHT then they will need to double what they pay for food.

Can you afford that? Can everyone you know afford it?

It’s important to note too that even with subsidies farmers still do not get the full value of what they produce.

What about people buying land to avoid paying tax?
The likes of Clarkson and Dyson buying land is a red herring. That land is still in the business production of food. It's doing what's needed.

Many many big landowners rent agricultural land out at very reasonable rates for tenant farmers. They do so because they don't need the money for the rent (it needs to cover its cost not much more) because the payoff comes in the form of reduced IHT.

I personally know a farmer who rented land for 17 years from a landowner. Then when landowner was considering selling up he sold it to the farmer at a really good price and guaranteed the farmers mortgage!

That said though this budget will do nothing to deter those who seek to reduce their IHT bill as it will still be the cheapest way of reducing IHT bill.

But farmers voted for Brexit
farmers voted for brexit in no greater numbers percentage wise than any other profession.
Don't make sweeping judgments without actually knowing the FACTS.

Farmers are no more responsible for brexit than any other profession

What about Gifting the farm?

The trouble is you don't know when you're going to die.
If you gift it on then you can't benefit from the farm in anyway after that. So you can't pass it on and remain living in the farmhouse for example. Even if the person you pass it on to is also living there.

And what if people don't die in the right order. Farming is considered to be the most dangerous profession in the UK now. What if the oldest generation pass it on and the younger generation die first?

Putting land in trusts is also complicated. For large landowners that is probably what they will do. So therefore the very wealthy will still avoid IHT.

But for the majority of farms putting it in a trust doesn’t work because once it’s in a trust you can’t borrow against it. So you can’t raise a loan or mortgage against it. This will slow or halt development and progression.

What are the potential consequences of this?
If we lose too many family farms due to this tax then they are likely gone forever. Other farmers won’t be able to buy up all the available land - they simply don’t have the money especially now.

If food production here reduces we become even more vulnerable to the instability of global markets.
At best it would mean price hikes at worst if there were to be another major war or global disaster we could have serious food shortages. You only have to think back to the panic in 2020 with covid to see the potential for chaos.

The predicted income from this tax is approximately 500million a year.
We are currently sending 536million a year abroad to develop agriculture in other parts of the world. Brazil being one of the largest recipients of our money - Brazil is the 11th largest economy in the world.

Stop sending more money abroad and leave farmers alone

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
ARealitycheck · 26/11/2024 19:39

I must of misread one of your previous posts. But the facts I pointed out in my previous post do remain.

Another point that should be made is that generationally owned farms should have been fully bought and paid for years prior. If farmers have over extended their borrowing by mortgaging the family assets to buy more land, a newer tractor, upgrade a milking parlour. Then that is on them just like any other business owner. Operational costs like renewing machinery is common sense to any business owner, and is factored in by any succesful business. Those that don't go bust.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 19:36

TankFlyBossW4lk · 26/11/2024 19:33

@notanothernamechange24

You had my attention right up until you said this, "Stop sending more money abroad and leave farmers alone".

Honestly, you shouldn't have voted for Brexit, so Get Over It. Farmer's should pay up like the rest of us who have to sell our family homes to afford the tax, at double the percentage you'll have to.

I didn't vote for Brexit 🤔 as I have made very clear.

Oh and I'm not a farmer either. I'm also not going to pay IHT as I doubt there will be anything left to inherit once care cost are paid.

OP posts:
Youmeanyouvelostyourkey · 26/11/2024 19:34

Fully agree with you OP. If you have to sell off some of the land to pay the tax bill, then the farm becomes less viable. Then the super rich landowners buy the land and it reduces food production and the wrong people benefit. Most of the other budget items seem to want to reduce growth so I suppose it makes sense they think the same about farming

TankFlyBossW4lk · 26/11/2024 19:33

@notanothernamechange24

You had my attention right up until you said this, "Stop sending more money abroad and leave farmers alone".

Honestly, you shouldn't have voted for Brexit, so Get Over It. Farmer's should pay up like the rest of us who have to sell our family homes to afford the tax, at double the percentage you'll have to.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 19:33

@ARealitycheck you're welcome to go back and check my posting history which will show you I am no farmer!

OP posts:
notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 19:30

ARealitycheck · 26/11/2024 19:27

The OP is being a bit disingenuous with her thoughts not facts in her posts. Had it been written by somebody with no skin in the game it may have been worth considering. But going by previous posts I believe she is one who will have to pay IHT.

All that seems to be getting bandied about is claims without substance, by those who may have to dip into their own deep pockets. The land still exists, it can still produce whatever is on it the day after it belongs somebody else. Stop this nonsense of food security etc. If farmers really wanted to feed the nation, we would be reducing dairy and producing more arable.

I note the OP commented on tenant famers a couple of times. Well for one they won't be affected by IHT, and the landowner who isn't actually working the land may decide to sell at a realistic value based on what the land produces. So that tenant farmer may actually gain the ability to own his farm.

@ARealitycheck I have no skin in the game! I'm not a farmer. Never said I was! I am a business owner but not in the agricultural sector at all.

But I have had these discussions with you directly on other threads 🙄

OP posts:
Clavinova · 26/11/2024 19:30

ExtraOnions
So should Doctors, Nurses, Carers, Fire Fighters, Police officers, also get a different tax regime, or are they not critical?

Labour were willing to make exceptions for NHS doctors and other public servants when it suited them;

Ms Reeves had called the decision to scrap the [pension savings cap] “the wrong priority, at the wrong time, for the wrong people”.

However, she had promised that a Labour government would make exceptions for NHS doctors and other public servants when the cap returned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11n2krmm4o

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 19:29

EuclidianGeometryFan · 26/11/2024 19:09

@MarkingBad

The big reason this is a shit policy is because it still gives private non-farming investors 20% off IHT on land so is still a tax break for them.

Yes, they should have made it 40%.

But they could have tapered the 7 year gift rule, to give older farmers who were not expecting this the chance to gift their properties now, with the 7 years being phased in.

OP - can you explain again why gifting the farm whilst alive to avoid IHT is not a practical solution?

Because if you put something in trust you can't borrow against it. So you can't use it to raise a loan or mortgage.
So say you have a dairy farm and you need to replace your parlour - your highly unlikely to have the cash in the bank to replace it.

The only way to survive in farming is to keep moving forwards. Stocking shed density ideals are moving toward giving animals more space, more lighting and more airflow. Which is great for animal welfare but means over time sheds will need upgrades or replacements.
Things like silage pits and muck piles now want roofs on - again due to change in legislation. All these new things that will ultimately improve the farm and the environment cost money.

If you have no asset to leverage funds against you simply won't be able to fund these type of projects.

OP posts:
ARealitycheck · 26/11/2024 19:27

The OP is being a bit disingenuous with her thoughts not facts in her posts. Had it been written by somebody with no skin in the game it may have been worth considering. But going by previous posts I believe she is one who will have to pay IHT.

All that seems to be getting bandied about is claims without substance, by those who may have to dip into their own deep pockets. The land still exists, it can still produce whatever is on it the day after it belongs somebody else. Stop this nonsense of food security etc. If farmers really wanted to feed the nation, we would be reducing dairy and producing more arable.

I note the OP commented on tenant famers a couple of times. Well for one they won't be affected by IHT, and the landowner who isn't actually working the land may decide to sell at a realistic value based on what the land produces. So that tenant farmer may actually gain the ability to own his farm.

Neurodiversitydoctor · 26/11/2024 19:25

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 16:53

This also needs to change. I am totally in agreement that this is wrong.

Really ? Just who do you think should pay tax ? and how much? or do you not believe in public services ?

yours
A Doctor who has had a marginal tax rate of 63% and will almost certainly pay tax on her parents' estate and my descendants will pay tax on mine.

Heartbreaktuna · 26/11/2024 19:25

They need to incorporate. Accept the fact they will no longer be able to expense the farm house and personal costs.

DreamyDreamy · 26/11/2024 19:23

I would propose that inheritance tax is registered against the farm so if farms that are inherited are sold then inheritance tax becomes payable (this could be at the usual rates) so if no one wants to work the farm and the person that inherits is cashing in on it's value then they pay their taxes, but if the farm is not sold no tax is due
What about that? Seems fair enough to me but maybe I’m missing something.

littlebilliie · 26/11/2024 19:22

I think hearing from my farming contacts farming will lose the next generation. So if and when we need to rely on the country to feed us there will be no one to understand the land and seasons.

Dark ages of food production

Clavinova · 26/11/2024 19:17

lljkk · 26/11/2024 17:55

How did farms manage before 100% tax relief, just 30 years ago?

https://www.pumptax.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EC-BPR-reform.pdf

In your link (A review of agricultural property relief and business property relief) reducing the rate of relief (50% in the example) and spreading the tax due over 10 years is, in the writer's view, not one of the options that merits serious consideration. The options she dismisses (including reducing the rate of relief);

have significant disadvantage of additional complexity for the taxpayer and administrative hassle for HMRC without necessarily being certain to raise much more revenue or be justifiable in policy terms.

Viewfrommyhouse · 26/11/2024 19:16

You're pissing in the wind here OP. I agree with you entirely, but many many people are either to thick to understand or too overwhelmed by their race to the bottom, have-not mindset to grasp that having land and equipment does not = money in the bank. Farming has never been profit heavy. The cash isn't there. It's an appalling decision by the Labour Party that, ironically, will have those have-nots moaning when the price of all their food goes up even more. You couldn't make it up. 🫠

MarkingBad · 26/11/2024 19:14

EuclidianGeometryFan · 26/11/2024 19:09

@MarkingBad

The big reason this is a shit policy is because it still gives private non-farming investors 20% off IHT on land so is still a tax break for them.

Yes, they should have made it 40%.

But they could have tapered the 7 year gift rule, to give older farmers who were not expecting this the chance to gift their properties now, with the 7 years being phased in.

OP - can you explain again why gifting the farm whilst alive to avoid IHT is not a practical solution?

They could do a lot of things like raising the threshold way higher, providing a sliding scale etc.

Gifting is not a practical solution because the benefactor cannot predict when they will die unless in very certain circumstances and when they do gift they cannot benefit from the land in any way shape or form. So housing becomes and issue, high land value areas tend to be high property value areas too, they couldn't even have a pint of milk or some veg off the plot. Rent would have to be paid at market rents and any ork would have to be paid.

For many it is difficult to make work

EuclidianGeometryFan · 26/11/2024 19:09

@MarkingBad

The big reason this is a shit policy is because it still gives private non-farming investors 20% off IHT on land so is still a tax break for them.

Yes, they should have made it 40%.

But they could have tapered the 7 year gift rule, to give older farmers who were not expecting this the chance to gift their properties now, with the 7 years being phased in.

OP - can you explain again why gifting the farm whilst alive to avoid IHT is not a practical solution?

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 19:08

@EuclidianGeometryFan I will double check but I believe the answer is they weren't! Hence the tax relief being brought in!

OP posts:
MarkingBad · 26/11/2024 19:06

EuclidianGeometryFan · 26/11/2024 19:02

@notanothernamechange24
Are you able to answer this? what happened to multi-generational farms before the IHT break came in?

I don't know but I can.

We paid a bigger percentage of our wages for food.

EuclidianGeometryFan · 26/11/2024 19:02

lljkk · 26/11/2024 17:55

How did farms manage before 100% tax relief, just 30 years ago?

https://www.pumptax.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EC-BPR-reform.pdf

@notanothernamechange24
Are you able to answer this? what happened to multi-generational farms before the IHT break came in?

MarkingBad · 26/11/2024 18:56

Too many people are focussing on the wrong people you are being distracted on purpose.

The big reason this is a shit policy is because it still gives private non-farming investors 20% off IHT on land so is still a tax break for them while at the same time it will damage the ability of SME farms in high land value areas to continue to operate.

So the land prices will continue to remain high and prevent younger entrants to farming and those operating on minimal profit to continue to provide food while the non-farming private investors still get good value out of their tax breaks.

This is a shit policy and they know it.

Labour PR and their fave media have gone into overdrive to make out it's all the farmers faults and not because they made a policy that still helps their rich donors while looking like they are doing something positive for the country and sticking it to the rich. They aren't and the toilet paper dragging on their shoe is visible to anyone who is actually looking.

Don't forget folks this is isn't even raising a substantial amount of money. It's about getting rid of farms for housing and new town development and moving food production increasingly more abroad to achieve NetZero. It's about courting their very wealthy donors while looking like they are doing something for the workers.

Don't let the politics of envy distract you, follow the money. This policy changes very little for those with money and everything for those that don't.

40YearOldDad · 26/11/2024 18:52

derxa · 26/11/2024 18:44

Thanks for that Keit

I'll edit this then.. 😂

derxa · 26/11/2024 18:51

Keir that should say

derxa · 26/11/2024 18:44

40YearOldDad · 26/11/2024 18:27

I'm very compassionate, but it's been stated as a FACT that he killed himself as a direct result of the budget, which is just wrong.

If I were an utter bastard, I'd say his wife now gets free care as they won't be forced to sell their family home to pay for her care, unlike hundreds of thousands who go into care with assets over X amount.

These average farmers that people are so riled up against will never be impacted by this policy; 56% of farmland sold last year was to non farmers.

While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent.

in the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.

The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.

Farmers 'squeezed out' of agricultural land market by millionaires

Edited

Thanks for that Keit

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 18:40

JusteanBiscuits · 26/11/2024 18:14

So, roughly half of all farms net worth is more than £1.5m (remember, the £1m allowance is on top of the normal allowance). The average net worth for a farm in the UK is £2.2m.

So, the average farming family would need to pay half rate IHT, spread over ten years interest free, so about the same amount as a 3 bed terrace in the south east. But those living in 4 bed terraces will be paying 40% and not have ten years interest free.

Also, if a farmer ends up in a care home they're not expected to sell any of their land etc to pay for it.

The average you quote includes small holdings and small parcels of land that are not producing food on scale or providing a viable income for the owner.

There will be few viable farms that are valued below 2 million

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread