Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

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
SpiritAdder · 30/11/2024 22:19

ARealitycheck · 30/11/2024 22:12

And no farmers or anyone else can do their job without the other infrastructure. And as we all know, there will be farms, and there will be farmers. It just might be a much needed change of ownership.

Hmm, I know many US billionaires that would love to snap up farms and make farmers into tenant farmers. One day all the agricultural land could end up owned by former colonies! A bit of reverse colonisation…

Dimpliy · 30/11/2024 22:19

notanothernamechange24 · 30/11/2024 22:09

And absolutely none of them can work without food!

No farms - no farmer - no food.

But clearly you cannot educate stupid!

Wow the more you post the more I hope you get taxed.

ARealitycheck · 30/11/2024 22:25

SpiritAdder · 30/11/2024 22:18

There are lots of options other than going communist.

Farming can be not for profit, or a charity
Farming can be subsidised
Farming can be done as a co-operative
Farming can be tariff exempt for import/export
The Government can tax sales of land rather than inheritance to direct heirs

I have no issue whatsoever with the first four points. As we know they do exist to some extent already.

But the final point of one family holding onto land, which they often bought over several years, in perpetuity is unreasonable if at the same time they have made claims of non profitability and are taking government handouts to remain viable.

Would they accept returning the purchased land to the previous owners family as he sold because he couldn't make enough.

notanothernamechange24 · 30/11/2024 22:30

@Dimpliy I won't get taxed! I am NOT A FARMER!!!
You can call me rude all you like I'm really not bothered. But both you and ARealitycheck have clearly done no research and asked the same question repeatedly. ARealitycheck has done so across multiple threads. And I'm tired of typing the same thing repeatedly to the pair of you.

If you don't believe me FINE. Either go away and do some research or move along to another thread.

OP posts:
notanothernamechange24 · 30/11/2024 22:32

@ARealitycheck for the FINAL time,

Subsidies benefit the PUBLIC NOT THE FARMER!!!

YOU ARE THE ONE BENEFITING FROM THE HAND OUT!!!!

OP posts:
SpiritAdder · 30/11/2024 22:35

ARealitycheck · 30/11/2024 22:25

I have no issue whatsoever with the first four points. As we know they do exist to some extent already.

But the final point of one family holding onto land, which they often bought over several years, in perpetuity is unreasonable if at the same time they have made claims of non profitability and are taking government handouts to remain viable.

Would they accept returning the purchased land to the previous owners family as he sold because he couldn't make enough.

Well perhaps a fairer thing would be to charge capital gains on the increase in value of land to all landowners (including homeowners). That way the tax is paid each tax year instead of in one big whammy when someone dies.

ARealitycheck · 30/11/2024 22:38

@notanothernamechange24 I, like others have pointed out your posts are mere conjecture. You have no basis for what you claim other than your own beliefs and alleged non agricultural background. Just like the guy with the weird hair in America said, you are fake news. People like us standing up against the fake news on a forum is not unreasonable. Anyone who believes we should live in an echo chamber is unreasonable.

Regarding farm subsidies, yes I know they are there to help keep food prices down. Once again I suggest you point your energies at making the supermarkets lower their profit margins. Rather than promoting wealthy landowners 'right' to avoid tax.

ARealitycheck · 30/11/2024 22:39

SpiritAdder · 30/11/2024 22:35

Well perhaps a fairer thing would be to charge capital gains on the increase in value of land to all landowners (including homeowners). That way the tax is paid each tax year instead of in one big whammy when someone dies.

Not unreasonable as it happens. You should suggest that to the government.

SpiritAdder · 30/11/2024 22:42

ARealitycheck · 30/11/2024 22:39

Not unreasonable as it happens. You should suggest that to the government.

Sadly, not my government. I am soon to be living under Trump 2.0

Xenia · 30/11/2024 22:43

Sweden abolished IHT. We should do so too.
Ledaving aside the farmers, if you work very hard and earn a lot by using your intellectual capital as it were (I am a lawyer) and build up assets, when I die the state steals 40% of all but £325,000 of what is left (due to the value of my house and that I am not being married my IHT tax free band is only £325k). Although it is true that there is no tax on gifts so I and a farmer can give assets to the next generation eg at 70 and live to age 80 with farmers the "gift" comes with capital gains tax if the assets have gained value over from first acquisition etc.

The sooner we abolish IHT entirely the better.

Ineffable23 · 30/11/2024 22:44

I might be missing something, but surely you would:

  1. Gift in your 60s ish, land and farm machinery only.
  2. Keep the farm house and £1M of land or £2M if you're a couple so you can apportion yourself that portion of the farm's income to cover your retirement.
  3. Then on death that portion goes your heirs as planned.

If you're a family farm who is actually farming the land I don't see why this wouldn't work? This feels like a tax planning problem rather than an unresolvable problem.

You're right, you could be super unlucky and someone might have an accident young. But I would think that the answer to that is to insure against it (i.e. life insurance), not keep the entire tax system in a way that encourages the inflation of the value of farm land to avoid it as a risk.

If the value of farmland is inflated because it is useful as a vehicle for avoiding inheritance tax (which it must be if land values are so disconnected from their return on investment) then changing the tax system should bring the value of land down and therefore reduce the number of farmers impacted.

notanothernamechange24 · 30/11/2024 22:48

Xenia · 30/11/2024 22:43

Sweden abolished IHT. We should do so too.
Ledaving aside the farmers, if you work very hard and earn a lot by using your intellectual capital as it were (I am a lawyer) and build up assets, when I die the state steals 40% of all but £325,000 of what is left (due to the value of my house and that I am not being married my IHT tax free band is only £325k). Although it is true that there is no tax on gifts so I and a farmer can give assets to the next generation eg at 70 and live to age 80 with farmers the "gift" comes with capital gains tax if the assets have gained value over from first acquisition etc.

The sooner we abolish IHT entirely the better.

Here here

OP posts:
Ineffable23 · 30/11/2024 22:54

Xenia · 30/11/2024 22:43

Sweden abolished IHT. We should do so too.
Ledaving aside the farmers, if you work very hard and earn a lot by using your intellectual capital as it were (I am a lawyer) and build up assets, when I die the state steals 40% of all but £325,000 of what is left (due to the value of my house and that I am not being married my IHT tax free band is only £325k). Although it is true that there is no tax on gifts so I and a farmer can give assets to the next generation eg at 70 and live to age 80 with farmers the "gift" comes with capital gains tax if the assets have gained value over from first acquisition etc.

The sooner we abolish IHT entirely the better.

But surely you'd claim hold over relief on the gift and therefore not pay any CGT unless you disposed of the asset?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relief-for-gifts-and-similar-transactions-hs295-self-assessment-helpsheet/hs295-relief-for-gifts-and-similar-transactions-2022#reliefs-available-for-gifts-and-similar-transactions

HS295 Relief for gifts and similar transactions (2022)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relief-for-gifts-and-similar-transactions-hs295-self-assessment-helpsheet/hs295-relief-for-gifts-and-similar-transactions-2022#reliefs-available-for-gifts-and-similar-transactions

notanothernamechange24 · 30/11/2024 22:56

Ineffable23 · 30/11/2024 22:44

I might be missing something, but surely you would:

  1. Gift in your 60s ish, land and farm machinery only.
  2. Keep the farm house and £1M of land or £2M if you're a couple so you can apportion yourself that portion of the farm's income to cover your retirement.
  3. Then on death that portion goes your heirs as planned.

If you're a family farm who is actually farming the land I don't see why this wouldn't work? This feels like a tax planning problem rather than an unresolvable problem.

You're right, you could be super unlucky and someone might have an accident young. But I would think that the answer to that is to insure against it (i.e. life insurance), not keep the entire tax system in a way that encourages the inflation of the value of farm land to avoid it as a risk.

If the value of farmland is inflated because it is useful as a vehicle for avoiding inheritance tax (which it must be if land values are so disconnected from their return on investment) then changing the tax system should bring the value of land down and therefore reduce the number of farmers impacted.

The biggest issue is the speed at which it has come in.
Most will now do exactly as you have suggested and will start the process of gifting it on much earlier. Probably in stages to avoid being unable to remain on the farm after gifting.

The biggest concern is for those who haven't yet gifted on (which most haven't because they have historically often been advised against it) and then die between April 26 and the end of the 7 year gifting term.

The only silver lining in this is that it will force succession planning much much earlier which will be on huge benefit to the younger generation.

It's looking hopeful that it won't actually happen. Promising meetings were had at the end of last week. Several of those who initially were supportive of this tax change have - when presented with the actual data - reversed their view. Including people close to the treasury by the sounds of it.

OP posts:
Ineffable23 · 30/11/2024 23:35

notanothernamechange24 · 30/11/2024 22:56

The biggest issue is the speed at which it has come in.
Most will now do exactly as you have suggested and will start the process of gifting it on much earlier. Probably in stages to avoid being unable to remain on the farm after gifting.

The biggest concern is for those who haven't yet gifted on (which most haven't because they have historically often been advised against it) and then die between April 26 and the end of the 7 year gifting term.

The only silver lining in this is that it will force succession planning much much earlier which will be on huge benefit to the younger generation.

It's looking hopeful that it won't actually happen. Promising meetings were had at the end of last week. Several of those who initially were supportive of this tax change have - when presented with the actual data - reversed their view. Including people close to the treasury by the sounds of it.

That does sound like a risk but it also sounds like it should then affect a really very small number of farmers, and even then if they gift now they'll get taper relief on the gifts.

So it will actually affect:

a) Farmers who have never married who have heirs to pass the farm on to, are in their mid-seventies or older (or younger with serious health conditions) and who haven't gifted anything on already and whose farm is worth over £1.5M

and

b) The same category of farmers but where they have married and where the farm is worth over £3M.

That sounds like it will be a small number of people. Not that those people don't matter - they do. But that doesn't sound like it should cause farming to be devastated, though I can see it could be a problem for those individuals.

Do you think they could put some additional taper relief on farmland gifts for a couple of years to reduce the impact but then otherwise leave the law relatively unchanged, given that actually bringing land down to younger farmers is likely to be beneficial?

I almost think a better argument against this would be "almost everyone will be able to manage this tax with some sensible tax planning. A very few people won't be able to and this places an unfair burden on a very few people. Therefore transitional arrangements should be put in place to avoid a disproportionate burden on the few, very old farmers who have large farms."

And then, tbh, once you'd put those transitional reliefs in, I'd be tempted to remove the relief for farm land entirely so that there's no incentive to own it for inheritance tax purposes and hopefully that would bring the land values back down to something commensurate with the rate of return.

I recognise that's may seem like the opposite of what needs doing but I'm not convinced the current half way house is the right idea.

notanothernamechange24 · 30/11/2024 23:53

@Ineffable23 ideally they will raise the threshold at which IHT is paid. If the aim is (as the government say it is) to target large estates bought to avoid IHT then set the threshold at 8 million. That will take the small farms out of it and enable farms to remain flexible in how they structure succession.

IHT is only one factor in land price rising. It is by no means the primary reason. The land that has risen the most is urban fringe land that has the potential for development at some point in the future. Even if the land isn't zoned for development currently. Which takes in huge amounts of land in the UK cos let's face it we don't have a lot of space!
Another factor is large corporations buying land (sometimes at vastly inflated prices) for carbon credits. Where companies claim to be offsetting their carbon footprint by planting trees or rewilding or whatever the current greenwashing trend is.

But ultimately all property prices have dramatically increased in value over time. Agricultural land hasn't risen vastly out of sync with all property price trends.

OP posts:
MarkingBad · 01/12/2024 01:12

ARealitycheck · 30/11/2024 20:47

Well instead of putting out false unproven prophecies on here, why not help the farmers go after the supermarkets. Cut their profit margins rather than farm profit and customer costs.

@MarkingBad I actually agree the subsidy system needs a lot of work. Unfortunately for many years the farming community did farm the subsidy and not the land. Making the clever ones very wealthy indeed. Conversely the subsidy system did play a part in increasing land values. Farmers knew that buying 'x' land gave them a guaranteed subsidy payment.

@geenideewaarom The plan of this tax is to remove the legal tax evasion loophole that non farmers are using, this should help in reducing land values and allowing new farmers the opportunity.

As I say you are welcome to your opinion I respect that you make it.

The post I made re subsidies was meant to be informative for those who were curious about subsidies and explaining why I am making no argument about them either way. I am just offering links to relevant information for those who are interested.

ARealitycheck · 01/12/2024 19:05

notanothernamechange24 · 30/11/2024 23:53

@Ineffable23 ideally they will raise the threshold at which IHT is paid. If the aim is (as the government say it is) to target large estates bought to avoid IHT then set the threshold at 8 million. That will take the small farms out of it and enable farms to remain flexible in how they structure succession.

IHT is only one factor in land price rising. It is by no means the primary reason. The land that has risen the most is urban fringe land that has the potential for development at some point in the future. Even if the land isn't zoned for development currently. Which takes in huge amounts of land in the UK cos let's face it we don't have a lot of space!
Another factor is large corporations buying land (sometimes at vastly inflated prices) for carbon credits. Where companies claim to be offsetting their carbon footprint by planting trees or rewilding or whatever the current greenwashing trend is.

But ultimately all property prices have dramatically increased in value over time. Agricultural land hasn't risen vastly out of sync with all property price trends.

https://www.farminguk.com/news/average-value-of-bare-agricultural-land-hits-new-record-high_64944.html

''But ultimately all property prices have dramatically increased in value over time. Agricultural land hasn't risen vastly out of sync with all property price trends.''

A rise in value of around a third in the past five years is way above domestic property prices. In fact for 2023 houses dropped in value.

Average value of bare agricultural land hits new record high

The average value of bare agricultural land in England and Wales has reached a new record high of £9,335 per acre in the second quarter of 2024.

https://www.farminguk.com/news/average-value-of-bare-agricultural-land-hits-new-record-high_64944.html

New posts on this thread. Refresh page