The question raised in 2012 –
Paying for a wedding
If a traditionally-minded father spends say £25,000 on paying for his daughter’s wedding and a lavish reception, would members consider this a gift to the bride or payment by the father of an expense which naturally falls on him so that no element of gift is involved? To keep things simple let us assume that the couple are paying for the honeymoon themselves.
Does it make any difference if the daughter is still young enough for the payment to qualify as a disposition for family maintenance?
Would it make a difference if the father paid for his son’s wedding, where there is no established tradition that the father pays?
Andrew Brooke,
Anderson Longmore & Higham, solicitors
One of my own contributions to the thread, which I think ran to 84 altogether, eventually –
I hesitate to join in this debate again, but still…
I think most of us, probably all, agree that the legislation ought not to result in any tax arising from such as was mentioned in the original posting by Andrew Brooke [only two weeks ago!], but I fear that is an emotive conclusion, and the legislation is not drafted in such a way as to give a clear exclusion/exemption. And raising the ante by offering your friends round-the-world tickets or flying your guests to New Zealand for the reception merely illustrates this.
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives ten meanings or uses of ‘disposition’. None of those listed uses precisely the words sought, but I suggest the most apt meaning in the context of this thread is ‘to change the position of something’. This would include a simple purchase of goods and services; exchanging my cash therefor. Unless I have deliberately overpaid for those goods and services, that will not be a transfer of value.
Making the goods or services available to my wedding guests will be another disposition, which will normally be a transfer of value, or more probably a number of transfers of value. Save where the transfer of value results from an omission to exercise a right, a transfer of value need not result in another person’s estate being increased, either in value or nature.
So, I think agreeing with Jon Zigmond, the only question remaining is whether or to what extent the transfers of value are PETs or chargeable transfers.
Ray Magill