His wife will inherit the lot, then when she goes it will come to my wife A cool £1m Lovely Then we have to pay £303,000 to the tax man. How about transferring the house into my name now? Someone told me if the in-laws did that and lived for seven years it would be tax-free. Seems a good wheeze to me because they could go on living there rent-free until they died.”I told him the Inland Revenue would have none of it. The term is “gift with reservation” and it is not acceptable. James asked: “Is there nothing I can do to avoid this iniquitous tax?”There is. The in-laws may be able to make out a reversionary lease on their house and gift it to James.

If seven years pass and the in-laws are still alive the property ceases to be part of the estate and they can continue to live there. But when James came to sell the house, because it had never been his principal residence, there would be capital gains tax. The same problem would arise no matter when the house was sold. The capital gains tax calculation would be made on the difference between the value of the house when it was gifted and the sale price, so it would be less than the £303,000 inheritance tax if James sold quickly. There’s also the possibility of putting the house in a trust with James as the owner and the in-laws as beneficiaries having a life interest and right to occupancy.”Of course, your in-laws could make over their house to you then you and your family could go and live with them for the next seven years …” James interrupted me “Don’t be silly,” he said shortly. As the evening wore on we examined various other ideas for avoiding inheritance tax.

Cash gifts of up to £3,000 each year can be made without attracting the attention of the inheritance tax people Shares can be transferred. The in-laws could make the mortgage repayments on James’s present house if they could do so out of normal spending.Fortunately, it was closing time we were ushered out before the conversation became even more complicated.. terry.bond hemscott . British holidaymakers started a fracas at 33,000 feet when their flight back to Manchester from Cyprus was diverted to Gatwick.

British holidaymakers started a fracas at 33,000 feet when their flight back to Manchester from Cyprus was diverted to Gatwick.
Enraged passengers spat at air stewards, pelted them with beer cans and tried to break into the cockpit.The captain of the Transjet flight had decided to land at Gatwick because strong headwinds had left the aircraft short of fuel.But the announcement of the diversion provoked outrage among the passengers, with a hard core of 15 leading the violence.Police boarded the flight when it landed and questioned travellers, but they were unable to identify the ringleaders and made no arrests. A spokesman for Sussex police said: “We got a call from the airline saying about 50 passengers on the Transjet flight were being unruly. People felt there had been poor service and things seemed to escape out of control. All we could do in the end was give people who might have been involved a stern ticking-off.”Thomas Johansson, who runs Transjet, a small Swedish company, said the captain had enough fuel to get to Manchester but realised it would mean breaking rules by dipping too far into reserves.He said: “There were around 15 passengers who behaved very badly. They were spitting and throwing beer cans and they tried to break into the cockpit.”The passengers were taken to Manchester by bus after the crew refused to get back on the flight.Earlier this year, 24 people refused to fly on Transjet to Tenerife after smoke filled the cockpit before take-off.. Baroness Nicholson, whose complaint started a fraud squad inquiry into Jeffrey Archer’s Kurdish fundraising, is demanding a further police investigation – into allegations that Lord Archer sold a photocopy of Princess Diana’s autograph as genuine. Baroness Nicholson, whose complaint started a fraud squad inquiry into Jeffrey Archer’s Kurdish fundraising, is demanding a further police investigation – into allegations that Lord Archer sold a photocopy of Princess Diana’s autograph as genuine.
The photocopied signature was sold in a catalogue at a charity auction, conducted by the novelist, for £19,000.Eddie Bowcott, a Midlands businessman who bought the catalogue, was told the autograph supplied at the time was a photocopy, but that the original would be sent later.

He claims he paid a further £4,500 for the “original”, only to get another imitation signature in another catalogue. The catalogue was to be one of 250 signed by the princess for the sale of her dresses at a New York auction in 1997.Lord Archer bought various versions to sell for charity. Mr Bowcott says he has a video of Lord Archer telling the audience the successful bidder would get “the actual one”. Last week, Mr Bowcott passed the details to Baroness Nicholson. He went to the police about the matter last year.Baroness Nicholson told the Independent on Sunday: “I would like to see this auction investigated This is another extraordinary matter I have faxed it [the allegation] to the police…