
My mother's plan to leave her house to my sister and I could create more problems than solutions
My mother's will currently leaves her home equally to my sister and I. My mother has minimal alternative assets. My sister lives with my mum.
I am wondering if the home is left jointly to myself and my sister and my sister buys me out, will she be liable for
CAT
on her portion of the inheritance?
it is unlikely for my sister to be able to raise the funds to cover the market value of 50 per cent of the
property
.
Although I myself have a sizeable mortgage and significant dependents, it is not in my interest to see my sister and her children
homeless
. Furthermore I have doubts on how practical it would be for my sister to vacate the property if it was needed to be sold to execute the will.
READ MORE
I am concerned that I end up with a large liability from an asset that, in reality, I have no access to or ability to sell.
Is it possible to say during the probate period that I don't want 50 per cent of the property, can I just have 25 per cent, and if so what are the tax implications?
Ms BW
Families are complicated things – deeply intertwined, generally emotionally interdependent and, for all the familiarity, inevitably unique one from the other in subtle ways.
And that's very much how it is here. Your mother's home is more or less the sum total of what she will leave behind and she is understandably keen that it should be shared between her two children.
The fact that your sister lives there with her own family is, somewhat depressingly, no longer as unusual as we would like to think it should be. Bad luck in love, in business or in life means many of us are not as independent as we would have expected to be well into our adult lives.
But it does certainly complicate things.
There seem to be two distinct issues here – the initial inheritance and then how you two can find a workable solution.
As of now, a person can receive an inheritance of up to €400,000 from their parents. Assuming neither of you inherited from your father or benefited from a valuable financial or other gift – something over the value of €3,000 in any one year – then you have the full inheritance tax-free limit to play with.
So, as long as your mother's property is not worth more than €800,000, there should be no question of capital acquisitions tax (CAT), better known as inheritance tax, for either of you.
[
Inheritance tax: How to avoid leaving your loved ones with a hefty bill
Opens in new window
]
If it is worth more than that, however, then you will have a tax liability – 33 per cent of anything above your personal limit. So if the property is worth, say, €950,000, your half share would be worth €475,000. You would pay 33 per cent tax on the €75,000 of value above your tax-free threshold – a bill of €24,750 each.
Unless you both have ready access to that sort of cash, then you would be looking at having to sell the property and paying the tax owed. Your sister would have a net €450,000 to go and find a home thereafter and you would have your inheritance in cash of the same amount with no further tax owing on it.
But let's assume the property is worth less than €800,000. What then?
In simple terms, congratulations, you are joint owners of your mother's house.
If you simply retain your interest in the house as an asset, there is no issue. When it is eventually sold, you will receive half the proceeds and your only 'liability' will be that any increase in value over the time you inherited it will be subject to capital gains tax – again at 33 per cent.
There would need to be agreement between you and your sister, preferably in writing, that any running costs, regular maintenance, utility bills, local property tax etc would be met by her as they are her living costs, not yours.
But what if your own financial circumstances dictate that you really need to get access to your inheritance or some of it?
You say your sister would most likely not qualify for a mortgage to buy out your half: perhaps she could buy out a smaller portion, leaving you with reduced ownership of the property and some cash in hand.
That would not leave her with any tax issues apart from a modest stamp duty bill. And, as it will be her family home, there will be no tax issues when she eventually sells it either.
You could agree a staged purchase of your share over an extended period to make it more affordable to her. That would complicate things for you as each stage could trigger a capital gains charge if the gain on the portion being sold was greater than €1,270 in any one year. And there would also be stamp duty implications.
Or you could agree to sell the house provided your sister is happy that her share of the sale proceeds would allow her to buy a home elsewhere or the wherewithal to raise a mortgage on a smaller home. How practical that is really depends on how much value there is in this current family home.
In a world where you, understandably, do not want your sister and her family homeless, the realistic options are to sit on your inheritance and consider it an invested asset, get your sister to buy a portion of your share or agree to sell the property and use the proceeds for her to start again.
You say your mother's 'current will'. I am assuming then that she is still alive. If this looks like becoming an intractable mess but you think your sister could raise enough to buy you out of a quarter share – and you are content that the inheritance will be lopsided according to your respective needs – you can always see if your mother is open to adjusting her will. Obviously, the choice is hers.
[
Who gets the house: have you spoken to your parents about happens when they die?
Opens in new window
]
Can such cases end up in legal dispute? Yes, they can where one side wants to sell and the other refuses. But, really, the only winners in that scenario are the lawyers.
Finally, on your suggestion that you might just say during probate that you only want a quarter of the house, not a half, I'm afraid that won't work. It is possible to 'disclaim' an inheritance – ie, say that you do not want it – but you cannot disclaim and then try to rewrite the will to say I don't want all of this, just some of this or a bit of that.
If it is a bequest – ie, half the property has specifically been left to you by name – and you disclaim, it falls into the residue of the will. Now, it could be that you are one of the benefits of the residue, in which case you might have to disclaim again.
Disclaiming a bequest and/or the residue would not prevent you accepting any other specific bequest that was made in your favour – such as for a favoured piece of art or jewellery, for instance. But it would rule you out of any benefit from any of the residue – including any of the house your mother intended to leave you half of.
You cannot say, for instance, I would like only a quarter and not a half.
There is one way this could work for you, depending on how your mother's will is worded.
As it is, you and your sister are getting 50 per cent each of the house. Assuming that is by bequest, you can disclaim the bequest. Your share then falls into the residue – assuming there is a residuary clause in the will. There really should be in every will, if only to account for forgotten assets, but it is not always the case.
Anyway, assuming there is a residue and it is again split evenly between you and your sister, she will get half of your half, leaving you with 25 per cent ownership.
In terms of tax implications, whether it is a quarter or a half will have no effect as long as the value of what you receive is under €400,000. However, if this arrangement meant your sister got 75 per cent of the house and that portion was valued at more than €400,000, she would face a bill of 33 per cent of everything above that figure.
That could, of course, force her to sell the house anyway which would defeat the object of the exercise. So you really do need to think this through carefully, and ideally get professional advice. The one thing you don't want is this gift from your mum leading to family discord.
Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street Dublin 2, or by email to
dominic.coyle@irishtimes.com
with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘It's just beginning and it's going to get ugly': Pro-Trump Polish president-elect reflects divided nation
Warsaw mayor Rafal Trzaskowski was quick to claim the Polish presidency on Sunday night – too quick. Minutes after a first exit poll gave him a 0.6 point lead, the 53-year-old joked with supporters that the phrase 'na zyletki' – razor-thin margin – would now enter the Polish language and politics. It has. But a razor can cut both ways and, hours later, the joke was on him. Poland's electoral commission announced early on Monday that he was not Poland's next head of state after all – rather it would be his 42-year-old rival, Karol Nawrocki . READ MORE A political newcomer backed by the opposition national conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, Nawrocki took 50.9 per cent of the final vote against 49.1 per cent for Trzaskowski with a record turnout of 72 per cent. It was a remarkable political achievement for Nawrocki, closing a 16-point point gap to overtake a government-backed political veteran to finish around 370,000 votes ahead. While Poles woke up on Monday shocked or delighted by the news, depending on their political affiliation, Warsaw's allies around Europe are wondering who they will be dealing with in future: the liberal-centrist prime minister Donald Tusk or the new populist right-wing president. In Warsaw, no one is sure. Tusk slipped out of the party during Trzaskowski's speech and, after a premature congratulatory tweet, remained silent until Monday evening when he announced a confidence motion in his 18-month-old coalition government. Tusk is facing his gravest political challenge yet in Nawrocki, who presented himself to voters as an everyman to protect ordinary Polish interests, identity and security from the Tusk-led Warsaw liberal elite, the EU, Germany and immigrants During a White House visit on May 1, Nawrocki secured the personal backing of US president Donald Trump – and promised a 'Poland first' approach to domestic politics. A conservative historian and former amateur boxer, Poland's new president pulled in far-right voters from the first round while retaining conservative backers as well as struggling older and welfare-dependent Poles, particularly in eastern and southeastern regions. Poland's head of state holds veto powers over domestic policy, an ill-defined role in European affairs and is titular head of the defence forces. As president, Nawrocki has vowed to block any Nato membership for Ukraine and could blow up the Tusk reform agenda, in particular liberalisation of strict abortion rules. The other winner of Sunday night was PiS chairman Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who cheered his candidate's triumph over what he called a 'Niagara of lies' during the campaign. These included revelations about an undeclared second home and participation in football hooligan street brawls confirmed by Nawrocki, and reports he denied about links to organised crime and the red-light scene in his native Gdansk. 'We have won because we are right,' Kaczynski said to supporters on Sunday night, 'because we speak the truth about Poland, about its future, about its present and about all that's wrong in our country today.' Sunday's win for PiS is likely to complicate the country's relationship with the EU. Until 18 months ago, EU officials clashed regularly with the PiS-led government over judicial reforms and campaigns against the LGBTQ+ community – even freezing EU funds after years of failed talks. Largely on trust, and in expectation of judicial reforms from Tusk, Brussels unfroze those funds. On Monday a spokesman said the European Commission was 'confident that the reforms that have been started by the Polish government will be pursued and will continue', without saying what made it so confident. Nawrocki has vowed to retain controversial PiS-appointed constitutional court judges, dubbed illegal by Tusk. Failure to progress judicial reform will increase pressure on commission president Ursula von der Leyen to freeze EU funds once more, reigniting tensions with Warsaw. Polish tensions with Germany are likely to rise, given Nawrocki has joined PiS-led calls for second World War compensation from Germany – a call rejected by Berlin. Amid muted congratulations from major capitals, the loudest cheers came from far-right and populist political leaders. Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orbán congratulated Nawrocki on his 'fantastic victory' on X. French National Rally leader Marine Le Pen called the win 'good news' for Europe and a setback for the 'Brussels oligarchy' and its 'authoritarian policies and federalist ambitions'. By midmorning, Trzaskowski offered his concession and voiced regret that Poles had failed to back his vision of 'a Poland that is strong, safe, honest and empathetic'. With the new president not due to take office until August, no one knows for sure how far the political independent will take his role as Polish head of state. In particular, no one knows how loyal Nawrocki will remain to PiS once he is installed in the presidential palace. 'It's quite likely he will get power-hungry, go rogue and see himself as a kingmaker in a future government alliance of PiS and the far right,' Mateusz Mazzini, a Warsaw political analyst, said. 'This wasn't just a referendum on the government, it was the marginalised rural voters and rebellious youth voting out the urban, globalist, middle class. It's just beginning and it's going to get ugly.'


Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ukraine and Russia agree to new prisoner exchange in Istanbul
Ukraine and Russia agreed to hold a new prisoner exchange and swapped memorandums on a possible ceasefire to end Vladimir Putin's three-year war, despite a gulf remaining between the two sides' positions at a meeting in Istanbul on Monday. After talks at the Çırağan Palace on the Bosphorus, Kyiv's and Moscow's delegations said they had agreed to swap all seriously wounded and sick prisoners, as well as prisoners of war under 25. The talks, which lasted for just more than an hour, were the second round of negotiations brokered by Turkey and the US after the peace process resumed last month for the first time since early in the conflict. Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the meeting was 'great' and added that he would move to organise a summit involving Mr Putin, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskiy and US president Donald Trump . READ MORE Vladimir Medinsky, the head of Russia's delegation, said the upcoming exchange, set to involve '1,000 to 1,200' prisoners, would be the largest since the war began, adding that Russia was 'satisfied with the results' of the talks. But the two delegations did not shake hands and suggested they had made little progress on any potential deal as Mr Putin refuses to budge from his demands to cut down Ukraine's sovereignty or accept Kyiv's calls for a ceasefire. Vladimir Medinsky (secon from right), head of the Russian delegation, delivers a statement to the press after a second round of direct talks between Ukrainian and Russian delegates. Photograph: Getty Images Mr Medinsky said Moscow had offered a ceasefire for 'two to three days' on 'specific areas of the front' that would allow the sides to pick up the dead. Ukraine's delegation said that Russia had rejected its proposal for an unconditional ceasefire and for the US to be more involved in the talks after Mr Trump suggested he might attend to bring Mr Putin and Mr Zelenskiy together. Kyiv also said Russia only handed over its memorandum on a possible path to end the war at the meeting and declined to comment on it further. After the meeting, a senior Ukrainian official said that no major breakthroughs had been achieved, 'just minor steps as we expected'. The official added: 'It seems they're staging a picture of diplomacy for Trump.' Rustem Umerov, Ukraine's defence minister, said Kyiv's delegation gave Moscow a list of several hundred Ukrainian children who were deported to Russia during the war. Mr Medinsky said Russia would work to reunite stranded children with their families in Ukraine when possible but accused Kyiv of turning the issue into a 'shameful show' for the Europeans. [ Analysis: Kyiv braced for Russian summer offensive Opens in new window ] Russia's intransigence has frustrated the US president, who had bragged that he could solve the conflict on his first day in office and thought his close relationship with Mr Putin could help broker a deal. Instead, Russia dismissed a 22-point US peace plan and held fast to its demands, prompting Mr Trump to suggest the US would take a back seat in the peace process after the first round of talks in May. On Sunday, Ukraine launched one of its most daring military operations of the war, hitting dozens of Russian aircraft at four airfields as far away from the front line as eastern Siberia. Those attacks themselves came just hours after Russia launched its largest drone strike on Ukraine since 2022, attacking the cities of Kyiv, Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia with 472 unmanned aerial vehicles. Remarks by Mr Medinsky other senior Kremlin officials in the weeks following the first meeting indicated that Moscow was not prepared to budge from its insistence on solving the 'root causes' of the conflict. [ Putin wants written pledge to halt Nato expansion in return for peace Opens in new window ] Mr Putin has previously demanded that Ukraine withdraw from four regions partly controlled by Russia — Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — accept caps on its armed forces, and pledge never to join Nato. During the first round of talks, Mr Medinsky made what Ukrainian officials called 'unacceptable' territorial demands and threatened that Russia would conquer more regions if its conditions were not met. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov also said after the first round of talks that Moscow wanted Kyiv to enshrine protections for Russian speakers in the country and roll back much of the legislation passed under Mr Zelenskiy's government. Ukraine argued that those conditions would amount to surrender and the end of its existence as a sovereign state. Russia has also downplayed the possibility of a face-to-face meeting between Mr Putin, Mr Zelenskiy and Mr Trump, saying such a summit could only be planned after results were reached at the talks in Istanbul. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025

Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on consumer rights in Ireland: transparency in pricing vital
The least consumers should expect from retailers is honesty and transparency when it comes to product pricing. This is of particular importance during sales windows, when shoppers can be particularly vulnerable to manipulation. In a blizzard of promotional promises it can be difficult for the public to assess if deals on the table are real, or if the figures have been massaged to exaggerate the scale of the bargains. Sales pricing legislation introduced in 2022 requires traders to base discounts on the lowest price over a 30-day period before a sale begins and to display that lower price clearly - in essence it stops retailers hiking prices briefly in the run-up to a sale, before slashing them to suggest bigger savings. The early tests of the legislation have found some retailers wanting. Last week in the Dublin District Court, Boots admitted breaching the legislation following an online pricing sweep conducted by the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) in November 2023. READ MORE That sweep pinpointed three products that were listed as being on sale at prices that were either higher or at the same level as they had been at in the days leading up to a Black Friday sale. In erring in such a fashion, the pharmacy joined Lifestyle Sports, DID Electrical and Rath-Wood Home and Garden World who were before the courts in March. Boots expressed regret for the pricing anomalies which they attributed to human error and pointed out that the products represented a minuscule fraction of what was on promotion at the time the CCPC conducted its investigation. And no doubt this was indeed the case. While the transgressions were limited in scale, the CCPC deserves credit for taking the actions which should serve as a warning to others. The shops will no doubt wish they had not made headlines in such a fashion but ultimately, they and other retailers as well as consumers will benefit from the knowledge the system is slowly becoming more robust and more transparent.