I regret that I am upset by your piece “Conacre versus long-term leasing”. In the article, I see no consideration for the elderly farmer that has given his life to his 30 acres. You are setting him up to be manipulated by the farmer that covets his land, by his expectant nephew, “his” solicitors and what you call a “good tax accountant that understands farming”( a rare bird in my experience). The whole trust of these measures in Budget 2015 is disastrous to rural life, to many farm families and to our elderly in particular.
I got a lot of queries on different aspects of transfer and leasing after the articles in Irish Country Living and the Irish Farmers Journal since the budget. As the letter above highlights, they were not all positive. This farmer clearly felt the changes in the budget were forcing elderly farmers to sign over land quicker. People are entitled to their own opinion. And yes, the changes are focused on moving land into more productive arrangements.
The fact is that the elderly person still has the decision as to who and when they give their assets to. The only thing that is certain is they cannot bring them with them. This, I think, everyone agrees on. What the changes are doing is making it more attractive for owners to either transfer the land in their lifetime or go into long-term leasing.
The biggest problem, I find, is that the conversation about the options never really happens. It is kicked down the road until either death or illness brings it to a head. In many cases surrounding a death, no will was made and so the owner’s wishes are not taken into consideration at all.
If the owner remains alive, the worst case is where illness has caused the owner to lose the ability to make their own decisions. If a power of attorney has been set up then decisions can be made by the person that is nominated by the owner. Again, this gives the elderly a say, as they have, in most cases, discussed their options.
The worst case scenario is where this has not been done and the owner would end up in limbo. If decisions have to be made, the family is forced to make the elderly person a ward of state and decisions are made by the courts. The example last week was where the owner of the land was in a nursing home, but still had the facilities to make his own decisions. He still had full control over his options.
The agri review committee took the approach of using carrots rather than sticks to encourage change. The doubling of thresholds for leased income is the most obvious one. However, the deadline to transfer land or move from conacre to long-term leasing by the end of December 2016 is very fair. For one, it gives elderly farmers time, especially when they are concerned about their entitlements that will be re-established in 2015.
It deals specifically with the cases where elderly farmers are farming on conacre for many years and find themselves in the conacre trap. It gives them a golden ticket to get back the option of retirement relief if they had being farming it out for more than 15 years and want it to end up with someone who is not their child. The article spelled out the options that are now on the table.
One thing I didn’t mention is issues like the Fair Deal scheme. The farm, or farm business, is taken into account in the financial assessment of assets and a charge of 7.5% per annum is used to contribute to nursing home costs.
In certain circumstances, a three-year limit, similar to the situation with a principal residence, where the charge is capped at 22.5% (ie payable for at 7.5% per year for the first three years in care only), can be applied.
These circumstances are:
1. Where the person has suffered a sudden illness or disability which causes them to require long-term residential care. The term “sudden illness or disability” is not further defined, eg it is not limited to any specific list or illnesses. It will be a matter for the HSE at local level to carry out the assessment.2. Where the person or their partner was actively engaged in the daily management of the farm or relevant business up until the time of the sudden illness or disability.3. Where a family successor certifies that he or she will continue the management of the farm or relevant business. A “family successor” includes not only a son/daughter, but also a spouse, partner, stepchild and niece/nephew. The family successor is obliged to continue the management of the farm, ie a formal transfer of ownership is not required.The elderly land owner in the example last week would not qualify. He would see his assets suffer a cut of 7.5% a year until they are gone.
I will go into some options for farm families next week. However, the message is clear the changes are there to give more options to the elderly. However to do that, the conversation about their options must take place when they are still able.
In brief
• If you want to have control over your assets have the conversation with your family and take action when you still can.• Make a will setting out your wishes.• Sign a power of attorney and tell the person you nominate what you want.• See the changes as an opportunity to do what you want with your land.
I regret that I am upset by your piece “Conacre versus long-term leasing”. In the article, I see no consideration for the elderly farmer that has given his life to his 30 acres. You are setting him up to be manipulated by the farmer that covets his land, by his expectant nephew, “his” solicitors and what you call a “good tax accountant that understands farming”( a rare bird in my experience). The whole trust of these measures in Budget 2015 is disastrous to rural life, to many farm families and to our elderly in particular.
I got a lot of queries on different aspects of transfer and leasing after the articles in Irish Country Living and the Irish Farmers Journal since the budget. As the letter above highlights, they were not all positive. This farmer clearly felt the changes in the budget were forcing elderly farmers to sign over land quicker. People are entitled to their own opinion. And yes, the changes are focused on moving land into more productive arrangements.
The fact is that the elderly person still has the decision as to who and when they give their assets to. The only thing that is certain is they cannot bring them with them. This, I think, everyone agrees on. What the changes are doing is making it more attractive for owners to either transfer the land in their lifetime or go into long-term leasing.
The biggest problem, I find, is that the conversation about the options never really happens. It is kicked down the road until either death or illness brings it to a head. In many cases surrounding a death, no will was made and so the owner’s wishes are not taken into consideration at all.
If the owner remains alive, the worst case is where illness has caused the owner to lose the ability to make their own decisions. If a power of attorney has been set up then decisions can be made by the person that is nominated by the owner. Again, this gives the elderly a say, as they have, in most cases, discussed their options.
The worst case scenario is where this has not been done and the owner would end up in limbo. If decisions have to be made, the family is forced to make the elderly person a ward of state and decisions are made by the courts. The example last week was where the owner of the land was in a nursing home, but still had the facilities to make his own decisions. He still had full control over his options.
The agri review committee took the approach of using carrots rather than sticks to encourage change. The doubling of thresholds for leased income is the most obvious one. However, the deadline to transfer land or move from conacre to long-term leasing by the end of December 2016 is very fair. For one, it gives elderly farmers time, especially when they are concerned about their entitlements that will be re-established in 2015.
It deals specifically with the cases where elderly farmers are farming on conacre for many years and find themselves in the conacre trap. It gives them a golden ticket to get back the option of retirement relief if they had being farming it out for more than 15 years and want it to end up with someone who is not their child. The article spelled out the options that are now on the table.
One thing I didn’t mention is issues like the Fair Deal scheme. The farm, or farm business, is taken into account in the financial assessment of assets and a charge of 7.5% per annum is used to contribute to nursing home costs.
In certain circumstances, a three-year limit, similar to the situation with a principal residence, where the charge is capped at 22.5% (ie payable for at 7.5% per year for the first three years in care only), can be applied.
These circumstances are:
1. Where the person has suffered a sudden illness or disability which causes them to require long-term residential care. The term “sudden illness or disability” is not further defined, eg it is not limited to any specific list or illnesses. It will be a matter for the HSE at local level to carry out the assessment.2. Where the person or their partner was actively engaged in the daily management of the farm or relevant business up until the time of the sudden illness or disability.3. Where a family successor certifies that he or she will continue the management of the farm or relevant business. A “family successor” includes not only a son/daughter, but also a spouse, partner, stepchild and niece/nephew. The family successor is obliged to continue the management of the farm, ie a formal transfer of ownership is not required.The elderly land owner in the example last week would not qualify. He would see his assets suffer a cut of 7.5% a year until they are gone.
I will go into some options for farm families next week. However, the message is clear the changes are there to give more options to the elderly. However to do that, the conversation about their options must take place when they are still able.
In brief
• If you want to have control over your assets have the conversation with your family and take action when you still can.• Make a will setting out your wishes.• Sign a power of attorney and tell the person you nominate what you want.• See the changes as an opportunity to do what you want with your land. 
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: