I’m at a loss as to why people have turned this back on the OP as if she were some kind of money-laundering crook.
It’s a phenomenally kind thing to do to buy an elderly parent a house to live in. Further, the OP is saving the taxpayer the cost of either providing social housing or housing benefit.
Well, I’m afraid there isn’t “I bought my mummy a house because I’m so lovely, and otherwise she’d have to go on housing bet, so it’s not faaairrr!!!” tax exemption. How would such a scheme work? Would people like the OP be forced to sell these houses when their parents died? How would this be enforced? Surely if there were some tax break when it came to selling a property as long as your parents had lived in it, wouldn’t lots of people just get their elderly parents to move in for a few months before they went into a care home? Who would keep track of whether the homes had been sold? And could this be done cheaply enough to avoid wiping out the apparently massive savings on housing benefit delivered?
People are unhappy with the OP because she wants it all ways, and is being pretty
vicious towards anyone who suggests she can’t or shouldn’t have that. She doesn’t want her mother to own the house and risk it being sold for care costs, but she also doesn’t want to own it herself and be taxed on its sale further down the line. She can’t have it both ways. But she thinks she’s special.
This comes at considerable personal cost to the OP(said funds could have been for their own retirement or their children’s house deposits).
Said funds still could be used that way. OP is likely to outlive her mother by decades; she could have a rental income from the property throughout her retirement. She could sell and reinvest the money elsewhere; she’d only be taxed on any profit. But she just wants to moan that she isn’t getting exactly what she wants.