Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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
redalex261 · 26/11/2024 17:13

And milk should not be cheaper than water!

Pinkproseccolady · 26/11/2024 17:14

People like Clarkson, Lloyd Weber and Black Rock are NOT red herrings. They're buying vast tracts of land as tax avoidance opportunities and at the same time artificially inflating the price of farm land whic has a knock on effect on asset values for farms being passed down the generations.

Winter2020 · 26/11/2024 17:15

I think farms increasingly moving into the hands of big business (when families are forced to sell to pay inheritance tax) will be a disaster for animal welfare and the environment.

Farmers at the moment tend to be passionate about their land and animals not driven simply by greed and profit.

In my opinion the ethical discussions of whether farmers should be the same as others in paying this tax is less important than the real pragmatic issue that the inheritance tax will lead to farms being sold off and moving from family farms to big business/or bought to land bank for development. When this has happened they will never move back to family farms our farming will be powerful (and greedy) corporations.

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.

The inheritance tax against a property could reduce each year e.g. from full tax due if the farm is sold within one year to no tax due after 20 years, or the tax due could sit against the property indefinitely being written off only if the person that inherited died and then being replaced by their own inheritance tax being registered against the farm continuing the cycle.

We will only realise what we had when it is gone - like our national utilities and transport now sold off and trying to please shareholders (while pumping sewage into rivers) it is then impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:15

@Summernightsinthe21stcentury I was referring to the fact the tax needs paying immediately before sale of the asset. Not IHT itself

OP posts:
Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:15

By the sounds of it all these farms are struggling anyway. There is clearly something wrong with the model, and the best time to change the model is when you are forced to do something about it.
Speak to your accountants and lawyers, there are ways to mitigate IHT, perfectly legally.

MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned · 26/11/2024 17:17

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

Sorry, are you seriously trying to claim that half the cost of food production before the IHT exemption was introduced was inheritance tax?

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:18

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:15

By the sounds of it all these farms are struggling anyway. There is clearly something wrong with the model, and the best time to change the model is when you are forced to do something about it.
Speak to your accountants and lawyers, there are ways to mitigate IHT, perfectly legally.

@Summernightsinthe21stcentury farms struggle because their profit takers rather than profit setters. No other business works the same way.

Farmers do not set the price at which they are willing to sell for. They are told what price they get by the seller.
If farms were getting fair prices for what they produce this would not be such an issue

OP posts:
Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:18

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:15

@Summernightsinthe21stcentury I was referring to the fact the tax needs paying immediately before sale of the asset. Not IHT itself

Well that's the same for us all who will have to pay it.
Our children will have to sell our home to pay the IHT on our estate, we don't have piles of cash lying around, certainly any we do have will no doubt be gone in care costs.

EasternStandard · 26/11/2024 17:18

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:11

But where do you draw the line? I mean if nobody pays taxes where are you going to go when you are ill, or your kids need an education.
The problem is mostly everybody agrees more tax needs raising, but nobody wants to be the one to pay it.

I'd keep IHT as it is but leave farmers without this policy to keep their farms

I don't get the envy thing where people can't see that food security is a benefit to everyone

WhitegreeNcandle · 26/11/2024 17:18

JeremiahBullfrog · 26/11/2024 17:02

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.

This is interesting; I didn't know about this. I see though you have slightly misrepresented things: you can stay living in the farmhouse provided you pay rent at market rate.

I think the "you don't know when / in what order you will die" thing isn't the biggest deal. Of course you don't, but nevertheless in the great majority of cases gifting property in your sixties will mean no tax is due (and even if it is due, it will generally be less than it would have been otherwise). Surely by the time you reach state pension age most of the work on the farm is being done by your presumed heirs anyway? So why shouldn't they be the one to have the title legally at that point?

If farmers were paid enough to justify paying a market rent on their farmhouse that would
be fine. They’re not.

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:20

@Summernightsinthe21stcentury yes that's why I said it needs reforming 🙄
You should be given reasonable time to pay.

OP posts:
notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:21

MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned · 26/11/2024 17:17

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

Sorry, are you seriously trying to claim that half the cost of food production before the IHT exemption was introduced was inheritance tax?

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

OP posts:
Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:22

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:20

@Summernightsinthe21stcentury yes that's why I said it needs reforming 🙄
You should be given reasonable time to pay.

Like farmers?

TeaAndStrumpets · 26/11/2024 17:23

EasternStandard · 26/11/2024 16:59

This doesn't help food security which will benefit you though, and your dc

I'd be happy to support farmers keep their farms as it's incredibly important we increase food security not decrease it

Exactly this.

hairbearbunches · 26/11/2024 17:23

@CompleteOvaryAction Very easy to achieve with a scenic landscape and all there needs to be is a public footpath is the far corner. Job done.

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:25

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:21

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

Also you are forgetting things like efficiencies, better machinery driving down costs of production, it is the same in any manufacturing business.
Back when we got married we couldn't afford a television so we had to rent one. They were very expensive compared to our wages in the 1980s. Now they really aren't, because they are so cheap to make. Today people are spending more than 50% of their income on the roof over their heads.

WestwardHo1 · 26/11/2024 17:25

Birdscratch · 26/11/2024 16:17

If it’s not working as a business model then you need a different model. If family farms aren’t financially viable anymore then maybe we need bigger farms with fewer owners.

This is an awful idea.

Farms aren't just any old business model.

The way farmland is managed, quite apart from the food issue, is key to biodiversity, water quality and flood management.

Why can't people see this? It's so frustrating when biodiversity is dismissed as something only hippies are interested in, when it's so crucial. Do you imagine giant megafarms will have no adverse affect on those things?

BarbaraHoward · 26/11/2024 17:27

derxa · 26/11/2024 17:10

But it won’t be a functioning business. It will be a failing business

So sell it and enjoy the proceeds, just like my dad did when he inherited the family home. Confused No one has a god given right to recreate their parents' lifestyle.

EasternStandard · 26/11/2024 17:27

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:25

Also you are forgetting things like efficiencies, better machinery driving down costs of production, it is the same in any manufacturing business.
Back when we got married we couldn't afford a television so we had to rent one. They were very expensive compared to our wages in the 1980s. Now they really aren't, because they are so cheap to make. Today people are spending more than 50% of their income on the roof over their heads.

@Summernightsinthe21stcentury why are you keen on decreasing food security?

I get you feel put out that you have to pay IHT and farmers had different rules and that seems the motivating factor but why do you overlook the benefit to everyone that food producers provide?

notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:27

@Summernightsinthe21stcentury

As I have said already on this thread it would take most farms 15-20 years worth of profits to pay the tax bill.
That's without the farmer taking a wage.

And farming whilst yes it has become more efficient, machinery costs, fuel and other costs have all dramatically risen. So it won't be far out.
Hence why we had subsidies

OP posts:
notanothernamechange24 · 26/11/2024 17:30

@BarbaraHoward because most farmers don't feel the way your father did.
Most feel a huge responsibility to pass it on to the next generation just as their parents and grandparents did. There is huge pressure not to be the generation that looses the farm.

OP posts:
quantumbutterfly · 26/11/2024 17:30

Winter2020 · 26/11/2024 17:15

I think farms increasingly moving into the hands of big business (when families are forced to sell to pay inheritance tax) will be a disaster for animal welfare and the environment.

Farmers at the moment tend to be passionate about their land and animals not driven simply by greed and profit.

In my opinion the ethical discussions of whether farmers should be the same as others in paying this tax is less important than the real pragmatic issue that the inheritance tax will lead to farms being sold off and moving from family farms to big business/or bought to land bank for development. When this has happened they will never move back to family farms our farming will be powerful (and greedy) corporations.

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.

The inheritance tax against a property could reduce each year e.g. from full tax due if the farm is sold within one year to no tax due after 20 years, or the tax due could sit against the property indefinitely being written off only if the person that inherited died and then being replaced by their own inheritance tax being registered against the farm continuing the cycle.

We will only realise what we had when it is gone - like our national utilities and transport now sold off and trying to please shareholders (while pumping sewage into rivers) it is then impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

Edited

This

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:33

I am not trying to decrease food security at all.
It is like anything, change causes stress, people are panicking.
I am just saying nothing like this is ever as bad as you think it will be. Exemptions are available, the government is investing in farming, a few folk on here and on twitter are shouting really loudly about what is going to happen, people selling up, BlackRock is buying everything up, blah blah. Maybe it is because I am old myself now, but I have seen that all sectors have been through a lot of change over the past 40 years. Losing the mines and the shipbuilding, whole communities losing livelihoods. The businesses that do succeed now are lean, they look at costs, they invest in efficient ways to do things. It sounds like farmers have been and still are resistant to change, but there will be a way to make it work. And remember you still have a benefit in that IHT is 20% and you have 10 years to pay it.

derxa · 26/11/2024 17:33

BarbaraHoward · 26/11/2024 17:27

So sell it and enjoy the proceeds, just like my dad did when he inherited the family home. Confused No one has a god given right to recreate their parents' lifestyle.

Edited

You don’t get this farming thing do you

quantumbutterfly · 26/11/2024 17:34

Summernightsinthe21stcentury · 26/11/2024 17:25

Also you are forgetting things like efficiencies, better machinery driving down costs of production, it is the same in any manufacturing business.
Back when we got married we couldn't afford a television so we had to rent one. They were very expensive compared to our wages in the 1980s. Now they really aren't, because they are so cheap to make. Today people are spending more than 50% of their income on the roof over their heads.

Where was your tv made and why is it so 'cheap'?

Swipe left for the next trending thread