I let my girlfriend live rent-free with me if she bought Lottery tickets – then we won and she ran off with the cash

[Dextrous63]

The lottery win in this instance pay a £10k per month for 30 years (according to the article). This would be different if it was a lump sum win.

[butterscotch]

I don’t know if her behavior would be different, but the practicality in this case is different.

[Boot]

@PixieKnuckles

Well I wouldn’t say she was sharp…just greedy. if she had any care for him at all, she would have split it 50/50 and then left him. He wasn’t just some random on the street…they were in a relationship. She is just a nasty piece of work.

I am not sure how she could split it 50/50 with him if they are living separate lives. She is receiving the money on a monthly basis over 30 years - would you want to keep a financial link with your ex-boyfriend for 30 years?

Supposing she did send him half the money - she would have to send him £5,000 a month for the next 30 years.

How would that work out for her taxation and his?

If there is no syndicate agreement to prove the money is half his, then the money she gives him will be classed as a gift.
The annual amount you can give away is £3,000, so if she was giving him £60,000 per year, that would be classed as a taxable part of her estate.
Supposing she died sometime in the next 30 years?
If the value of her estate fell into the inheritance tax bracket (which it probably would with all that income plus a house worth £500,000) then her estate would have to pay tax on the last 7 years worth of payments she had given to her ex-boyfriend, which would add up to a substantial sum.

Supposing she had a new partner and a family and wanted to protect their family home in case she died before them, then she would have to make sure she set aside enough of her own income in savings to cover that tax liability.

That’s quite a commitment to take on.

[Dextrous63]

@Boot

then her estate would have to pay tax on the last 7 years worth of payments

Not sure that’s exactly how it works (am always happy to be informed though), but I agree with the general thrust of your argument.

[Boot]

I thought that’s how it worked, @Dextrous63 - you can give away as much as you like but if you die within 7 years of the gift, any money above your £3k annual allowance is taxable - the taxation being on a sliding scale over the last 7 year period.
Unless it has changed in recent years.

[Muddy]

Why was the cheque made out to both of them ?

[Dextrous63]

Not sure Boot. Knew about the 7 year sliding scale, but was unaware that the tax would have to be paid by the estate rather than the recipient. But, in fairness, taxation is a bit of a black art and as said, I’m happy to be corrected/advised.

[Dextrous63]

@Muddy

Why was the cheque made out to both of them ?

Well spotted. Think that’s something worth him pursuing

[Muddy]

@Boot

I thought that’s how it worked, @Dextrous63 - you can give away as much as you like but if you die within 7 years of the gift, any money above your £3k annual allowance is taxable - the taxation being on a sliding scale over the last 7 year period.
Unless it has changed in recent years.

This is correct Boot .
The IHT allowance of £325,000 has not been increased for some 12 years .[ Corbyn would have removed it altogether )
As houses have got up so much in this period many people have been drawn into the inheritance tax net .

[Boot]

@Dextrous63

Not sure Boot. Knew about the 7 year sliding scale, but was unaware that the tax would have to be paid by the estate rather than the recipient. But, in fairness, taxation is a bit of a black art and as said, I’m happy to be corrected/advised

Oh, yes, you could be right.
I have got used to people setting funds aside to cover that tax liability but that is because the recipient is also often their heir.

In this case, the ex-boyfriend would probably have to pay the inheritance tax.

[Dextrous63]

@Muddy

The IHT allowance of £325,000 has not been increased for some 12 years .[ Corbyn would have removed it altogether )
As houses have got up so much in this period many people have been drawn into the inheritance tax ne

Osborne apparently did make some changes. We had a will/estate review a couple of weeks ago and the first thing the advisor did was to go through potential Inheritance tax liabilities. Married couples have their allowances rolled over to each other, so it’d be 2x325k = 650k allowance once second parent died, and Osborne did something else which increased it to a bit under £1million (since a lot of householders especially in London suddenly would have found themselves liable due to house price hikes).

[butterscotch]

@Dextrous63

Think that’s something worth him pursuing

From the article

Camelot, who run the National Lottery, have since confirmed that even though the big cheque used for publicity photos was made out to both of them, all winnings are paid to an individual and Laura’s was the winning account.

[Dextrous63]

Ta. Misread that last bit from Camelot.

[Muddy]

Osbourne made an extra £150k available for the family home if inherited by the immediate family .
An awkward arrangement that doesn’t help people who have second marriages or no immediate heirs
Ie son or daughter .
Siblings don’t count .
He would have put the allowance up to £500k which would have been much fairer and simpler but that idiot Nick Clegg ( who I voted for ) protested. Hence the difficult and complicated addition .

[Dextrous63]

Clegg has a lot to answer for.

[Muddy]

He has then he ran off to the states to work for Amazon or Facebook or one of those big companies .

[brokenvows]

With any luck she will enroll in charm school and see the error of her greed.
YEH right.
Sounds like a nasty shyster.

[PixieKnuckles]

The lottery account was in her name only so she gets the money.

[Muddy]

It’s was mean though .

[Artangel]

Silly people who make money their God. In fact, most arguments in life are about money.