clloyd

Inheritance tax is not an issue (on face value) so from that aspect it wouldn't matter if the transaction was at below market value. Given that there are health issues there is a possibility that if either parent is being assessed as to whether they can afford care fees then is there an issue of "deliberate deprivation of assets" by selling at under value. Given the relatively small amounts involved and as the plan is for the property to be sold at close to the market value (£103k arguably being that at present) then it would be far from a sure thing for an authority to go to court to win an argument of this nature. However, perhaps if the sale price was closer to £100k (not looking quite so deliberate in bringing them below the thresholds) then you may be on safer ground again. Of course, that may mean some of that money going in care fees ... if they didn't find something else which they would like to spend some money on, such as some nice moving in presents for your new home?!

How very dare they!

Oh well, ebay didn't like me selling 1kg silver bar ... withdrew my listing & demanded proof of id & proof of purchase, but won't accept the copy of the chards invoice I have provided them with!!!! Was hoping to sell to trade to sov's as I have very little gold!

The definition could be pretty far reaching. Basically, anyone in the world with a bank account/investment in a country not their own, could be said to have stashed wealth in an "overseas tax haven". Knowing the Guardian there will plenty of comments about seizing the money and paying of the national debt etc, assuming the UK would have a claim on the whole pot. In reality, even if it is proved how much is there is a much that the UK taxman would morally (let alone legally) have a claim on.

The concerning thing about Hargreaves is that they are primarily execution only discount brokers ... yet they have clearly have certain favourite funds that they steer investors towards. Surely the FSA should insist they be in one camp or the other, an advised service or an execution only service.

There are so many individual factors to take into account with regards to buying V renting, many not financial! Points that for some are minor (pets, ability to redecorate or renovate to your own spec etc) or simply the fact that often spouse are overly emotional about bricks & mortar and not buying may lead to marital issues!! I bought in 2003 & have a 40% LTV mortgage now against the supposed current market value. The mortgage costs me less than a third of the estimated rental value & if I sold to rent & invested the cash I would struggle to bridge that gap (especially as that income would be almost entirely taxable). That said on a £60k house with such low rent, I'd be pretty averse to wanting to buy & certainly wouldn't see it as an investment opportunity. The years rent wouldn't do much more than cover a boiler replacement & in all likelihood at that price point good tenants are going to be difficult to find & even harder to keep.

Same could be said for most things the state get involved in! I would agree with those that say IHT should be scrapped, but as it will continue (& more than likely current thresholds will be eroded by inflation for the foreseeable future) I would say business property relief is an absolute necessity for an economy that wishes to encourage people to start businesses. Baring in mind the nature of this thread & the forum, the fact that rented property is not classed as a business and therefore falls into the Inheritance tax regime I doubt many on here would object to the landlords being chosen as a loser in this instance. .

Not really bizarre at all ... entirely necessary. Imagine how many people would lose jobs when perfectly good businesses were wound up as the new owners had to sell to fund the tax bill. Read up on Business property relief for more information but property letting isn't really considered a business (unless significant services are provided) and neither would a minority stake in a company listed on the main index qualify (however controlling stake would attract 50% relief & minority stakes in AIM listed businesses would usually qualify for 100% relief).

So having decided that I would cash in the few quid I had with III that was spread across several unit trusts (quite small holdings, average of £200) and 5 or 6 direct equities I expected to pay £10 a time to sell the shares and nothing to sell the funds (as there has been no mention that these are now a "real time trade" & they always used to be 1% buy charge no sell charge). How wrong was I? III have taken £10 for selling unit trusts (one holding was just £80) despite no clear information to make it apparent that this was part of the new charging structure. Having been passed from pillar to post I spoke to someone that has told me I will be refunded (will believe it when I see it) but a warning to smaller investors particularly those who want to spread investments between unit trusts as it seems III's big change to charging isn't a £20 p/q fee but a £10 buy and £10 sell charge on these funds ... which will mean you'll struggle to ever make a penny for yourself.

Actual report shows a top 20 of the biggest "offenders". Obviously the US and the UK are no 1 and 2 aren't they? Well no actually neither seem to appear on the list at all! That is in spite of the fact that Poland is on there with a meagre $165 billion. Seems a bit of a none story to me, in fact perhaps given that China and Russia are no 1 & 2, perhaps this is not about off shore tax avoidance but it is a list of countries that have been propping up USA spending via their purchases of "off-their-shore" US T-bills?

No it won't, most IFA's already work on the basis of Client Agreed Remuneration (CAR) whereby the client signs to agree to a specific % of their investment being paid to the adviser to pay for advise. Unit trusts generally paid 3% up front commission and 0.5% annual commission ... can you guess what the common rate of "CAR" is?

Exactly right, first thing I looked at. Annoyingly I have a Sipp with HL and ISA with III with not a great deal in. For larger investors, that trade quite a bit and use collective funds this change is good news but I have a few grand in Glaxo and smallish holdings in Tesco, Vodafone, Astra and National grid. III now want half the divi each year or I pay to leave and hope a new provider doesn't pull the same trick. Ironically the best thing to do would be to invest more from my cash isa and if they had gone about it in a better way perhaps I would have but a months notice and grabbing you by the balls and squeezing so you have to pay one way or another is disgusting.

...

Spot on. Why oh why can people not see that if you spend money in the past/present that you do not have you can not spend it again in the future, by borrowing so much we lived beyond our means in the past so now have to under consume in the present and the future. We are still living beyond our means and if we are not careful when the under consumption gets forced upon on us we will die of starvation.

Democracy is dead, long live the Euro. Hitler would have been proud.