Connect with us

Published

on

The new inheritance tax policy could affect up to five times more farms than the Treasury initially said, according to new analysis.

The government said its plan to impose 20% inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1m will affect 500 farms in the 2026-2027 financial year, based on analysis of past claims.

However, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV) has looked at the numbers and found 2,500 farms could be affected each year.

Politics latest: Minister ‘profoundly concerned’ about EV mandate

The group, which represents businesses across UK agriculture, found up to 75,000 individual farms over a generation – which they define as 30 years – could be affected by the tax.

Jeremy Moody, author of the report and secretary and adviser at CAAV, told Sky News the government figures had not taken into account farmers who only claim Business Property Relief (BPR).

Children on toy tractors during the farmers protest.
Pic Reuters
Image:
Farmers’ children rode mini tractors at the protest. Pic Reuters

Farmers protested last week, saying the tax would mean the end of many family farms because they would have to sell off land to pay it.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed had previously promised he would not change inheritance tax for farmers.

Many have said the government’s figures were incorrect and more than 500 family farms would be affected a year.

The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) said the real number is two thirds of farms of the UK’s 209,000 farms, while the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said 70,000 farms would be affected.

But Mr Reed has insisted the figure is based on “raw data” and said the Treasury had taken into account all possible figures.

The Treasury said its figures came from data on farms that had claimed Agricultural Property Relief (APR), as well as those who claimed both APR and BPR – but not solely BPR.

Currently, to get 100% inheritance tax relief farmers have to claim APR for farmhouses, land and buildings, and BPR for machinery and livestock – but this can also be claimed for land and buildings.

Read more:
Farmers’ tax protest shows sector feels it’s being pushed aside

What’s the beef with farmers’ inheritance tax?

What can farmers claim under APR and BPR?

Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) are mechanisms farmers currently use to claim 100% inheritance tax relief.

Different aspects of farms come under the two schemes, with some aspects able to be claimed under either.

APR:

Farmhouses used by farmers

Buildings used for agricultural purposes such as grain storage or to house livestock

Land used for farming and growing as well as woodland to help farming, such as woodland shelter belts

BPR:

Machinery, such as tractors

Livestock

Farmshops

Holiday and industrial lets on farms

Buildings used for agricultural purposes

Land used for farming

Not all farms have to claim BPR

Mr Moody explained some farms have to have farmhouses to be close to their livestock, so must claim APR for the farmhouse and BPR for machinery.

But, not all have to claim APR as not every farm includes a farmhouse. That’s because some farmers, mostly those who grow crops, do not live on the property – so they can just claim BPR.

“The Treasury didn’t look at BPR claims sitting there on their own,” he told Sky News.

“Unless you’re trying to argue the value of a farmhouse, which these days can be quite high, it’s just convenient to claim BPR on the land and machinery.

“A landowner might place the farm under BPR purely for simplicity because whether you claimed under APR or BPR has never mattered before.

“If a family farm is structured as a company then they also would only claim BPR, which isn’t wrong to do.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Jeremy Clarkson is listening to wrong data’

How long is a generation?

Mr Moody added government figures fail to consider that farms are typically handed down every 30 years, for example from an 85-year-old who dies to their 55-year-old son or daughter.

“The government’s figures accept that the effect from introducing inheritance tax is over 75 years, they didn’t think about how long a generation is,” Mr Moody said.

Because of spousal inheritance tax relief, the government has said a couple would be able to pass on a farm worth up to £3m before paying any inheritance tax. They said as it is payable over 10 years it will not be a big hit – something farmers disagree with.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmer explains how tax will hit him

A government spokesman told Sky News: “Our commitment to our farmers is steadfast – we have committed £5bn to the farming budget over two years, including more money than ever for sustainable food production, and we are developing a 25-year farming roadmap, focusing on how to make the sector more profitable in the decades to come.

“We have been clear since this change was announced that around 500 claims of Agricultural and Business Property Relief each year will be impacted – this is based off actual claims data – and even when inheritance tax does kick in, it is effectively at half the rate paid by others.

“It is not possible to accurately infer inheritance tax liability from farm net worth figures as there are different circumstances affecting each farm, such as who owns it, the nature of ownership, how many people own it and how affairs are planned.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Published

on

By

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

The CARF regulation, which brings crypto under global tax reporting standards akin to traditional finance, marks a crucial turning point.

Continue Reading

Politics

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Published

on

By

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

The nascent real-world tokenized assets track prices but do not provide investors the same legal rights as holding the underlying instruments.

Continue Reading

Politics

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Rachel Reeves has hinted that taxes are likely to be raised this autumn after a major U-turn on the government’s controversial welfare bill.

Sir Keir Starmer’s Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill passed through the House of Commons on Tuesday after multiple concessions and threats of a major rebellion.

MPs ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to universal credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

Initially aimed at saving £5.5bn, it now leaves the government with an estimated £5.5bn black hole – close to breaching Ms Reeves’s fiscal rules set out last year.

Read more:
Yet another fiscal ‘black hole’? Here’s why this one matters

Success or failure: One year of Keir in nine charts

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma

In an interview with The Guardian, the chancellor did not rule out tax rises later in the year, saying there were “costs” to watering down the welfare bill.

“I’m not going to [rule out tax rises], because it would be irresponsible for a chancellor to do that,” Ms Reeves told the outlet.

More on Rachel Reeves

“We took the decisions last year to draw a line under unfunded commitments and economic mismanagement.

“So we’ll never have to do something like that again. But there are costs to what happened.”

Meanwhile, The Times reported that, ahead of the Commons vote on the welfare bill, Ms Reeves told cabinet ministers the decision to offer concessions would mean taxes would have to be raised.

The outlet reported that the chancellor said the tax rises would be smaller than those announced in the 2024 budget, but that she is expected to have to raise tens of billions more.

It comes after Ms Reeves said she was “totally” up to continuing as chancellor after appearing tearful at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why was the chancellor crying at PMQs?

Criticising Sir Keir for the U-turns on benefit reform during PMQs, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the chancellor looked “absolutely miserable”, and questioned whether she would remain in post until the next election.

Sir Keir did not explicitly say that she would, and Ms Badenoch interjected to say: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”

In her first comments after the incident, Ms Reeves said she was having a “tough day” before adding: “People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday.

“Today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Reeves is ‘totally’ up for the job

Sir Keir also told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby on Thursday that he “didn’t appreciate” that Ms Reeves was crying in the Commons.

“In PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang,” he said. “That’s what it was yesterday.

“And therefore, I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber, and that’s just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation.”

Continue Reading

Trending