What’s the beef with farmers’ inheritance tax?
Farmers have left the fields for the streets of the capital in protest at changes to inheritance tax that will see death duties payable by some farmers on agricultural and business property.
The Treasury estimates the changes, revealed in the budget, will raise up to £520m a year. Farmers and campaigners say they threaten the future of thousands of multi-generational family farms.
Here, we take a look at the issues involved to explain why farmers are angry.
What is inheritance tax?
Inheritance tax (IHT) is ordinarily payable on estates at 40%. Estates passed to a surviving spouse or civil partner, charity or community sports club are exempt, and there are reliefs on property passed to children, relatives and others.
Estates worth less than £325,000 are not taxed, with a further £175,000 of relief given if a home is left to children or grandchildren, giving a total of £500,000 tax free. Currently around 4% of estates are liable for IHT.
What are the plans for inheritance tax on farmers?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Farmers ‘betrayed’ over tax change
Since 1984 farmers and agricultural land and business owners have been exempt from IHT, thanks to a series of tax “reliefs” that can be applied to estates.
There are two broad categories, both offering 100% relief. Agricultural Property Relief (APR), covers land and farm buildings, and Business Property Relief (BPR) applies to livestock, machinery such as tractors and combine harvesters, and assets developed to diversify income, such as cottages converted to short-term lets, or farm shops.
From 2026 those 100% reliefs will end, replaced by limited relief for farmers on more generous terms than general IHT.
Estates will receive relief of £1m, with up to £500,000 of additional relief, as with non-farming estates. If a farm is jointly-owned by a couple in a marriage or civil partnership, the relief doubles from £1.5m to £3m.
Any tax owed beyond the level of relief will be charged at 20%, half the standard 40%. If farms are gifted to family members at least seven years before death no IHT is payable.
Why is the government acting?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Starmer the farmer harmer’
Those generous reliefs have made agriculture an attractive investment for those seeking to shelter wealth from the taxman. Jeremy Clarkson, the UK’s highest profile farmer – and opponent of the government’s plans – said as much when promoting his Amazon series about becoming the proprietor of Diddly Squat Farm in Oxfordshire.
“Land is a better investment than any bank can offer. The government doesn’t get any of my money when I die. And the price of the food that I grow can only go up,” he told the Times.
Mr Clarkson is far from alone. Private and institutional investors, along with so-called “lifestyle” farmers funding purchases from previous careers, like the former Top Gear presenter and his Oxfordshire neighbour, the Blur bassist Alex James, now dominate agricultural land purchases.
Figures from land agents Strutt & Parker show those three categories made up more than half of all agricultural land purchases in England last year, with just 47% bought by traditional farmers.
In the first three quarters of this year the figure is down to 31%, fewer than the 35% of purchases made by private investors. (Strutt & Parker stress that less than 1% of land changes hands every year and the majority remains in the hands of farmers and traditional landowners.)
The most valuable estates also receive the lion’s share of tax relief. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows 6% of estates worth more than £2.5m claimed 35% of APR, and 4% of the most valuable accounted for 53% of BPR in 2020.
In the budget the Treasury said “it is not fair or sustainable for a very small number of claimants each year to claim such a significant amount of relief”.
How many farms does the government say will be affected?
The government says around a quarter of farms will be impacted by the changes, based on the annual tally of claims for Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief made in the event of a farm owners’ death.
The latest figures for APR, for 2021-22, show that for estates worth more than £1m and therefore potentially exposed to the new regime, there were 462 claims, 27% of the total.
More than 340 claims were in the £1m-£2.5m band, with 37 claims from estates claiming more than £5m of relief, at an average of £6.35m.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Budget tax measures ‘fair’
For Business Property Relief, which also includes shares held on unlisted markets including the London AIM market, there were 552 claims for more than £1m, or 13% of the total, with 63 claims worth more than £5m in relief, at an average value of £8m.
While ministers insist smaller farms will be protected, the merging of APR and BPR seems certain to increase the value of estates for IHT purposes. New tractors and combine harvesters are six-figure investments, and farmers say rising land values mean the reliefs are less generous than the government maintains.
What do farmers say?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Farmer’s conditional support for tax shift
Farmers and campaigners say the government’s figures are far too low. The Country Landowners Association estimates 70,000 farms could be affected, a figure reached by multiplying average arable land value by the average farm size that they conceded should be treated with caution.
The National Farmers’ Union points to figures from the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, which show 49% of farms in England had a net value of more than £1.5m. On that basis almost 50,000 farm owners may need to consult an accountant.
The NFU’s central point is that the economics of farming mean levying inheritance tax could be ruinous for many. While farmers and agricultural landowners are asset rich, courtesy of their land, property and equipment, they are cash poor.
Average income in every category of cropping farms declined in 2023, with cereals revenue falling by 200% year-on-year, and average earnings across the board of less than £50,000.
For farms with meagre incomes facing hefty IHT bills and no tax planning, land sales may be the only option. That could be terminal for some family dynasties, but it would make IHT the final straw, rather than the root cause in an industry that, for far too many farmers, simply does not pay.
Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.
Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.
It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.
Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.
The company is also listed in London and New York.
Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane
Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.
The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.
The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.
Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.
Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.
The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.
Unilever responded by selling the business to its licensee in Israel.
A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’
Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.
TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.
An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.
The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.
Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”
Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.
“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”
Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.
The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.
Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.
Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane
It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.
The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.
But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros
The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
File pic: Reuters
Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.
“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.
“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”
Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.
The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.
Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.
Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.
The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.
On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024