From: Mark 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: 'New' IHT rules is no concession.
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:38:01 +0100
Bytes: 2408

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:37:03 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
 wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:03:05 +0100,
>    Roger Mills  wrote:
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> Tim   wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't thinking of anything like that scenario!
>>> Simply the one (which you introduced earlier), where
>>> the house was wholly owned by the dying spouse, and
>>> half is passed to the surviving spouse and half passed
>>> to the "offspring".  They all continue to live there.
>>
>> That's not a problem. It's when all or part of the house belongs to someone 
>> who *doesn't* live there that the rent issue arises.
>Why?
>
>Yes, there is a problem with gifts to avoid inheritance tax where the
>beneficiary doesn't actually benefit from the gift.

But, in this case, there would be a benefit.  Owning a house (or part
of a house) is seen by many to be a sound investment.

>But if I own or inherit a house or part of a house, why should it make
>any difference whether I live in it or whether I let someone else live
>in it rent free.

If someone gives away a share in a house would the beneficary really
have the cheek to charge them rent as well?

M