[Politics] Inheritance Tax

[S.T.U cgull]

Allow me to introduce the HMRC Data Capture Data Match system.

All the countries who have a reciprocal tax treaty (the list is quite extensive) share information. Yes there are a couple of tax havens still out there but generally speaking, most countries are now very financially joined-up.

I'm not permitted to explain any detail of DCDM, but as a summary, it generates a global financial portfolio footprint of every UK tax domicile, the IT side of this system has been in place many years. The problem is, there is no way HMRC could resource investigation of every individual who may have underpaid (accidently or intentionally) some of their tax liability.

What it does do is calculate a "potential yield" of tax to decide a risk-score and only the cases that generate the highest risk score will/may be investigated.

"Throughout their lives" is interesting. HMRC use the seven-year rule for income/tax investigation. But retention for ALL pension data is the life of the pensioner + 10 years. I don't know about all assets but all names on property deeds are fed into DCDM. So if you gift (or sell for a £1) the new property owner will be known to DCDM.

It's quite a big-brother, the only area it struggled with is money-laundering where zero assets or financial records leave no trail - but there are other systems that exist to (try to) address this - nuff said.

How does that supercomputer capture & recognise non-UK, non-financial assets?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

How does that supercomputer capture & recognise non-UK, non-financial assets?

Asking for a friend?

 

[S.T.U cgull]

Asking for a friend?

Oh if only!

Being quite widely discussed in professional services industry at the moment - especially for non UK nationals who become the equivalent of deemed domicile under the proposed tax system

 

[Hugo Rune]

If it can be shown to almost directly lead to for example brand new social housing and affordable housing, spent efficiently, to me that would tick many of the philosophical boxes.

Affordable housing is now very difficult to achieve because the richest 1% own so much of the housing stock.

New social housing is a good idea but it needs to have a boost by the government reducing red tape specifically for social housing projects.

I’m a big advocate of the government changing the law on home ownership. Currently, housing is seen by so many as an asset or investment rather than a home. That is why hundreds of thousands of homes are left empty. I’d like to see legislation that would mean that no one person or business can own more than one home. This would very quickly lead to affordable housing being available, much more than any mass house building project.

 

[timbha]

I’d like to see legislation that would mean that no one person or business can own more than one home. This would very quickly lead to affordable housing being available, much more than any mass house building project.

Ok in theory. That’s like having legislation to say no one will be poor. Impossible to implement. No private rents?

 

[mwrpoole]

Affordable housing is now very difficult to achieve because the richest 1% own so much of the housing stock.

New social housing is a good idea but it needs to have a boost by the government reducing red tape specifically for social housing projects.

I’m a big advocate of the government changing the law on home ownership. Currently, housing is seen by so many as an asset or investment rather than a home. That is why hundreds of thousands of homes are left empty. I’d like to see legislation that would mean that no one person or business can own more than one home. This would very quickly lead to affordable housing being available, much more than any mass house building project.

I was reading recently that many house builders have large plots earmarked for social housing, but aren’t building at all because they can’t find any housing associations willing to buy them. It seems the HA’s are loathe to invest in the new builds. Seemed to me that the Govt should step in & fund these as council housing, but I guess that’ll never happen. So the house builders sit tight & probably hope in time they can build whatever they like.

 

[portslade seagull]

Also not entirely sure who the houses are meant to be affordable too when you see the price of them even with the discounts

 

[Weststander]

Affordable housing is now very difficult to achieve because the richest 1% own so much of the housing stock.

New social housing is a good idea but it needs to have a boost by the government reducing red tape specifically for social housing projects.

I’m a big advocate of the government changing the law on home ownership. Currently, housing is seen by so many as an asset or investment rather than a home. That is why hundreds of thousands of homes are left empty. I’d like to see legislation that would mean that no one person or business can own more than one home. This would very quickly lead to affordable housing being available, much more than any mass house building project.

When I mention “social housing” the build costs are partly met from public funds, hence my link to new tax raised. It’s very, very expensive building new homes in the UK, even after excluding land cost and private builders profit. That formula only delivers “affordables”.

 

[Weststander]

Also not entirely sure who the houses are meant to be affordable too when you see the price of them even with the discounts

Again. Often couples who work in the NHS, education, immigrants to the UK. They’re always taken, a mad scramble to get one via housing associations with waiting lists.

 

[Wes Tupper]

Hugo Rune said:
I’d like to see legislation that would mean that no one person or business can own more than one home. This would very quickly lead to affordable housing being available, much more than any mass house building project.
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/goto/post?id=11331305

I wonder how couples would get around that rule?

 

[Weststander]

Allow me to introduce the HMRC Data Capture Data Match system.

All the countries who have a reciprocal tax treaty (the list is quite extensive) share information. Yes there are a couple of tax havens still out there but generally speaking, most countries are now very financially joined-up.

I'm not permitted to explain any detail of DCDM, but as a summary, it generates a global financial portfolio footprint of every UK tax domicile, the IT side of this system has been in place many years. The problem is, there is no way HMRC could resource investigation of every individual who may have underpaid (accidently or intentionally) some of their tax liability.

What it does do is calculate a "potential yield" of tax to decide a risk-score and only the cases that generate the highest risk score will/may be investigated.

"Throughout their lives" is interesting. HMRC use the seven-year rule for income/tax investigation. But retention for ALL pension data is the life of the pensioner + 10 years. I don't know about all assets but all names on property deeds are fed into DCDM. So if you gift (or sell for a £1) the new property owner will be known to DCDM.

It's quite a big-brother, the only area it struggled with is money-laundering where zero assets or financial records leave no trail - but there are other systems that exist to (try to) address this - nuff said.

Interesting. I knew HMRC had access to Land Registry data, I saw someone who gifted his second home in Oxford to his son about 15 years ago, undeclared, hit with a CGT enquiry and bill.

But do HMRC have knowledge/interest when an aunt ‘sells’ a £800k house to their niece for £200k? For IHT and CGT.

Then the Lux, Panama and Swiss papers revealed 10k’s of criminal tax evaders, with domiciles by birth of the eg the UK, France and Germany. Huge asset numbers, on an industrial scale. It wasn’t just the lost tax on income, it raised the greater question of the underlying original capital/cash flows.

 

[Weststander]

I wonder how couples would get around that rule?

What rule?

 

[beorhthelm]

Affordable housing is now very difficult to achieve because the richest 1% own so much of the housing stock.

New social housing is a good idea but it needs to have a boost by the government reducing red tape specifically for social housing projects.

I’m a big advocate of the government changing the law on home ownership. Currently, housing is seen by so many as an asset or investment rather than a home. That is why hundreds of thousands of homes are left empty. I’d like to see legislation that would mean that no one person or business can own more than one home. This would very quickly lead to affordable housing being available, much more than any mass house building project.

that means no council housing (unless you write in an exception), no housing associations, no student blocks, and no rental unless its one house unused by a private land lord. it wouldn't do anything about empty properties which aren't being rented.

the way to address housing stock is simply to build more where it is needed, the way to address social housing is to allow councils to build again. not trying to micro manage ownership.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Ok in theory. That’s like having legislation to say no one will be poor. Impossible to implement. No private rents?

If you are in a family of 4, (which I am in), your family entitlement (from birth) would be 4 houses. That’s one house to live in, a holiday home and two for rent until your kids are old enough to move out and live in them.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Do you think that if IHT was charged at 100% with a NRB of £0, we'd all get used to the idea quite quickly?

 

[Wes Tupper]

But do HMRC have knowledge/interest when an aunt ‘sells’ a £800k house to their niece for £200k? For IHT and CGT.

Yes. Both through the Stamp Duty system and via direct access to Land Registry data. That’s what I was told by a conveyancing solicitor.

 

[Hugo Rune]

that means no council housing (unless you write in an exception), no housing associations, no student blocks, and no rental unless its one house unused by a private land lord. it wouldn't do anything about empty properties which aren't being rented.

the way to address housing stock is simply to build more where it is needed, the way to address social housing is to allow councils to build again. not trying to micro manage ownership.

Of course common sense exemptions would be written in.

Sorry, but I think this ‘building more housing strategy’ is nonsense. It may well be part of the solution but ultimately, there is a fundamental issue of houses being seen as investments instead of homes. The ration of homes to people in the UK is roughly 1:2. Where do you think this ratio should sit?

 

[Weststander]

Do you think that if IHT was charged at 100% with a NRB of £0, we'd all get used to the idea quite quickly?

And no such thing as Potentially Exempt Transfers.

It would certainly test the socially-minded mettle!

 

[Weststander]

Yes. Both through the Stamp Duty system and via direct access to Land Registry data. That’s what I was told by a conveyancing solicitor.

Interesting, that makes sense. I know at least two households who in the last year 5 years go away with grossly undervalue valuable house conveyances to family. In terms of IHT, I wouldn’t know about the stamp duty side.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

How does that supercomputer capture & recognise non-UK, non-financial assets?

By "non-financial assets" do you mean things like aircraft, yachts, paintings, property, etc. as in non-financial products that hold a monetary £££ account balance? aka fixed assets?

I think we all expect UK property ownership to be of HMRC interest and Land Registry are a feeder to DCDM. I can give you another example within the UK. CAA's Aircraft Register database lists the owner(s) of every UK registered aircraft. On a regular basis (use your imagination) CAA feed data to DCDM for every change in ownership, aka buyers and sellers. Let's say this chap, Joe Bloggs, is now the registered owner of a £2m Lear jet. DCDM will add this to his financial wealth footprint and some background calculations will be done. The simple outcome (there are many, but let's keep this simple) is that DCDM will confirm that Mr Bloggs had alternative wealth that aligned to a £2m aircraft purchase. If not, a risk is raised on the system that Mr Bloggs either used undeclared income or was gifted the aircraft. On the other side of the ledger (the seller) DCDM will check that the receipt of the £2m is reflected in that persons footprint. If lose ends emerge there is potential for investigation.

Anything else of significant value is shared in a similar way within the UK. Veteran and vintage cars are tracked via DVLA V5 registered keepers, changes will be fed to DCDM. I think there is a similar thing in the artworld for very expensive paintings. You can use your imagination to think of other assets that fall in to a similar style of high value.

Every single financial institution in the UK feeds regular data to DCDM - they create a footprint of the overview of your wealth, for everyone, but likely only 1% of the population are likely to have a tax yield gap of significance to interest HMRC. But the 1% membership changes as does the Bar-height for HMRC to trigger investigations.

As for outside of the UK, I'm not privy (above my security clearance) on the detailed content of the data that comes in to HMRC via the reciprocal Tax Treaty countries but I would not be surprised if it is massively different to the type of data in DCDM. Sure some less administratively advanced countries may be less diligent, but if I owned e.g. a property elsewhere in the world (there will be some exceptions obviously) I'd be fairly certain HMRC would know about it even if I haven't told them myself.