A PENSIONER has vowed to continue her fight to give co-habiting siblings the same rights as married couples despite a "crushing" EU ruling.
Jean Hill, of Woodford Green, has been campaigning for a change in the law ever since she was shocked to discover that she faced a hefty inheritance tax bill after the death of her brother last November.
They had been living together for 79 years, but were taxed as if they were distant relatives living at opposite ends of the country.
In contrast, under UK law married couples and those in same-sex civil partnerships do not have to pay tax if one partner dies.
Campaigners' hopes were dealt a blow last week when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that siblings in Britain do not face unfair discrimination.
The landmark case had been brought by two co-habiting elderly sisters in Wiltshire, who have been battling to have the law changed for more than 30 years.
advertisement
Miss Hill said she was "devastated" by the news.
"I'm very, very disappointed and most people I've spoken to who are affected are very upset," she said.
The panel of 17 judges from the European Union decided that in the absence of a legally binding agreement between siblings, such relationships are "fundamentally different to that of a married or civil partnership couple."
However, the court did rule that individual European goverments could have some discretion when taxing their citizens, an aspect which has given campaigners a ray of hope.
"It is good thing that there is now nothing preventing our Government changing the law here and that's quite an important thing," said Miss Hill.
"It's a gross injustice, and a lot of people affected simply don't know about."
She has vowed to continue her letter-writing and petition campaign - she has gained the support of nearly 100 other co-habiting siblings in Redbridge already.
Miss Hill is keen to hear from other co-habiting siblings in Redbridge.
Posted by: mr Khalid, walthamstow on 5:49pm Wed 7 May 08
i no understand why the parson want life all lifes with she sistar and no go finded the hasbend get the merrid and have the chidrans? meybe sh must give the hose to the govments becose who she give nows
i no understand why the parson want life all lifes with she sistar and no go finded the hasbend get the merrid and have the chidrans? meybe sh must give the hose to the govments becose who she give nows
Posted by: Observer (original) on 6:23pm Wed 7 May 08
[quote][bold]mr Khalid[/bold] wrote:
i no understand why the parson want life all lifes with she sistar and no go finded the hasbend get the merrid and have the chidrans? meybe sh must give the hose to the govments becose who she give nows[/quote] Go drop off the edge of the world you moron.
mr Khalid wrote:
i no understand why the parson want life all lifes with she sistar and no go finded the hasbend get the merrid and have the chidrans? meybe sh must give the hose to the govments becose who she give nows
The Wiltshire case has popped up at times in the national press, and I'm baffled that there's a problem. When two or more people buy a property jointly, they have a choice of being joint tenants, or tenants in common. When one joint tenant dies, the other inherits the other half automatically: so if much tax is payable on that half of the house, it must be a £ million-plus house. Where is tax to be raised from ,if not from where the money is? If tax avoidance is the key priority in this case, over the last 79 years they could have given part- shares in the house to the next generation: these are called potentially-exempt transfers, ie they are exempt from tax if you live seven years after making them. Perhaps a lawyer can correct me, or explain why this problem wasn't sorted out years ago. Even now, this lady could mortgage the house to pay the tax, plus future mortgage repayments, and repay the lump sum out of the estate post-mortem(thereby reducing the tax bill due at that point). We complain when governments tax us when we're living: so they tax us when we're dead, and we're still not happy!
The Wiltshire case has popped up at times in the national press, and I'm baffled that there's a problem. When two or more people buy a property jointly, they have a choice of being joint tenants, or tenants in common. When one joint tenant dies, the other inherits the other half automatically: so if much tax is payable on that half of the house, it must be a £ million-plus house. Where is tax to be raised from ,if not from where the money is? If tax avoidance is the key priority in this case, over the last 79 years they could have given part- shares in the house to the next generation: these are called potentially-exempt transfers, ie they are exempt from tax if you live seven years after making them. Perhaps a lawyer can correct me, or explain why this problem wasn't sorted out years ago. Even now, this lady could mortgage the house to pay the tax, plus future mortgage repayments, and repay the lump sum out of the estate post-mortem(thereby reducing the tax bill due at that point). We complain when governments tax us when we're living: so they tax us when we're dead, and we're still not happy!
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
