Dan Neidle has changed his mind on IHT for Farmers

Is this the article you read?

www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/25/inheritance-tax-on-farms-should-be-delayed-to-avoid-unfairness-says-thinktank

This is a copy and paste from the article:

"Another tax expert, Dan Neidle, has produced research that finds the tax hits working farmers harder than tax avoiders. He has suggested equalising the inheritance tax to 40% but making it payable only when the land is sold, avoiding any impact on those who want to pass the family farm down to relatives.

Neidle suggested “a clawback of all inheritance tax relief for a farm if those inheriting farmland sell it within a certain time. In other words, upon a sale, all the [inheritance tax] that was previously exempt suddenly reappears and becomes charged.”

He also proposed the Treasury should raise the inheritance tax cap to about £20m so only the “largest and most sophisticated farm businesses become subject to [it]”.

Neidle isn't actually suggesting suspending the law for a few years, but tweaking it, so that the effects are mitigated for older farmers and those who don't want to sell the land.

This is a link to Neidle's article:

taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/11/24/how-to-stop-iht-avoidance-but-protect-farmers/

growstuff in first couple of paragraphs it says that the IFS are in favour of delaying the roll out of this new law.

I'll read it more carefully, but my initial understanding was that IFS has proposed a delay, but that's not what Dan Neidle is suggesting. It's certainly not what he's suggesting in the longer article (in his own words) in the Tax Policy Associates article.

growstuff

I'll read it more carefully, but my initial understanding was that IFS has proposed a delay, but that's not what Dan Neidle is suggesting. It's certainly not what he's suggesting in the longer article (in his own words) in the Tax Policy Associates article.

In my OP I said Dan Neidle was in favour of IHT starting at a higher level not that he favoured delaying it.

I did t say he was in favour of delaying it, that is the IFS in The Guardian article.

I’ve just watched BBC news at 6 o clock. Unsurprisingly the verdict in the Sara Sharif case was featured first, then Syria and then a variety of other items. The farmers demonstration was featured at the end and was reported in about 30 seconds, if that. Obviously the BBC don’t consider this a major, or important story, even though it affects so many farmers and their families, and eventually will affect us all, if farms are sold off in order to pay IHT bills. We may have to import far more of our food if farms are sold off and bought by huge conglomerates who will produce inferior food if they produce any food at all.

I think this is a very important issue, but it appears that the BBC do not.

petal53

I’ve just watched BBC news at 6 o clock. Unsurprisingly the verdict in the Sara Sharif case was featured first, then Syria and then a variety of other items. The farmers demonstration was featured at the end and was reported in about 30 seconds, if that. Obviously the BBC don’t consider this a major, or important story, even though it affects so many farmers and their families, and eventually will affect us all, if farms are sold off in order to pay IHT bills. We may have to import far more of our food if farms are sold off and bought by huge conglomerates who will produce inferior food if they produce any food at all.

I think this is a very important issue, but it appears that the BBC do not.

That does not surprise me at all. I did catch a bit from Syria yesterday according to the BBc don't usually listen to them, the only country bombing Syria is Israel , when most who listen to other than them are aware that Turkey and the US are also involved . They of course did not mention why it was being done. Of course not.

petal53 unfortunately I am not surprised.

According to several news outlets (not the BBC) the farmers’ tractors caused gridlock on the roads around Westminster today.

WHY weren’t they arrested?

Freya5

petal53

I’ve just watched BBC news at 6 o clock. Unsurprisingly the verdict in the Sara Sharif case was featured first, then Syria and then a variety of other items. The farmers demonstration was featured at the end and was reported in about 30 seconds, if that. Obviously the BBC don’t consider this a major, or important story, even though it affects so many farmers and their families, and eventually will affect us all, if farms are sold off in order to pay IHT bills. We may have to import far more of our food if farms are sold off and bought by huge conglomerates who will produce inferior food if they produce any food at all.

I think this is a very important issue, but it appears that the BBC do not.

That does not surprise me at all. I did catch a bit from Syria yesterday according to the BBc don't usually listen to them, the only country bombing Syria is Israel , when most who listen to other than them are aware that Turkey and the US are also involved . They of course did not mention why it was being done. Of course not.

Turkey and US stopped the bombing but its still carrying on with the Israelis. Hence todays news re Israel. They are still bombing and seizing assets on the ground.

As for the BBC, I player news feed is on the case with a permanent newsfeed with all those details most of the day (closed overnight now).

. No other news source has this detail and also BBC reporters are there on the ground in Damascus and other areas with detail and interviews and tough questions.

Including why Netanyahu says they are doing it and you can read this for yourself
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdx921zreweo

I wasn’t saying anything about Syria. I was talking about the farmers and IHT, which is what the thread is about.

petal53

I wasn’t saying anything about Syria. I was talking about the farmers and IHT, which is what the thread is about.

I didn't watch the BBC News, but I agree with their priorities.

petal53 some people were talking about the news.
I expect that's why - it was the farmers protest that did it..

I admit the whole thread was a bit confusing as we (well I did) set off in the wrong direction initially.

petal53

I’ve just watched BBC news at 6 o clock. Unsurprisingly the verdict in the Sara Sharif case was featured first, then Syria and then a variety of other items. The farmers demonstration was featured at the end and was reported in about 30 seconds, if that. Obviously the BBC don’t consider this a major, or important story, even though it affects so many farmers and their families, and eventually will affect us all, if farms are sold off in order to pay IHT bills. We may have to import far more of our food if farms are sold off and bought by huge conglomerates who will produce inferior food if they produce any food at all.

I think this is a very important issue, but it appears that the BBC do not.

GB news gave it a lot of coverage..

It's a shame Neidle didn't keep quiet when he claimed very few farmers would be affected. He's not much of an "expert" if he gives out misleading information without checking the facts

eddiecat78

It's a shame Neidle didn't keep quiet when he claimed very few farmers would be affected. He's not much of an "expert" if he gives out misleading information without checking the facts

He's a tax lawyer, used to advise on tax avoidance (legal). He's now a campaigner against tax evaders.( Set a thief to catch a thief?)

I assume you are no longer considering going to him for advice on protecting your £millions, then 😂

You would of course think as an ex tax lawyer he would know something about taxes though?

He does 'know something about taxes', he made a great deal of money from 'knowing something about taxes'. He has just revised his initial analysis after looking into it more deeply.

Blimey I am agreeing with you on two separate threads MaizieD 🤣🤣🤣

There is something to be said for admitting that your initial reaction was flawed, and then coming up with an alternative 👍

I have finally read the long article... (thank you).

I don't think he's changed his mind as such - I think he's looking for tweaks.

I still feel the wrong battle is bring fought and that 100% IHT should be in place. Currently, the use of farmland as an IHT tax avoidence wrapper it skewing the value of farms and depressing farm growth.

The battle to fight is surely that no farmer should be as badly paid as our currently are? I wonder if righting that wrong is simpler than I first though. Farm subsidies paid for how the land is used, not simply for owning it would be a start. Also completion of the UK-EU veterinary agreement and a move toward bringing our agri-food agreements into line with the EU.

PoliticsNerd - it would help true farmers if the supermarkets weren't so very greedy.

NotSpaghetti

I have finally read the long article... (thank you).

I don't think he's changed his mind as such - I think he's looking for tweaks.

That's what I was trying to say.

The point is that many people were quoting his initial comments assuming they were true - and they weren't