THE surviving Burden sister from Ogbourne St George will not be forced to give up the family home, a Government spokesman has promised.
The campaign by Joyce, 89, and 82-year-old Sybil Burden to change the inheritance tax laws to give them the same rights as married couples and civil partners, was taken to the House of Lords.
Peers lined up to urge the Government to change the "mean-spirited" situation that does not give siblings the same rights as married or civil partners.
Responding to the calls, Lord Davies of Oldham, for the Government, vowed that on the death of one sister the other would not be forced out of her home.
But he ruled out a change in the inheritance tax law, saying that "the line has to be drawn somewhere".
The Burden sisters, who have lived together in Ogbourne St George all their lives, have been campaigning since 1976 for changes to the inheritance tax laws to exempt cohabiting siblings.
advertisement
But last month their appeal against a European Court of Human Rights ruling was turned down, leaving them with no higher court to take their case.
Speaking in the House of Lords debate, Crossbench peer Baroness Deech asked if the Government had plans to change the inheritance tax rules to give some leeway to siblings living together.
Lord Davies said that there were no plans for change and that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) was "not in the business of dispossessing people of their homes".
He added: "HMRC works sympathetically in cases such as the one that has been identified by the two sisters. No one is contemplating one of them losing her place in the home if the other dies. That will not happen."
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Newby said: "Does the minister accept that while the current situation may be clear, it is also seen by many people as extremely mean-spirited?"
Lord Davies insisted that a line had to be drawn somewhere and that "at the present time a clear line is drawn in terms of spouses, either of marriage or of civil partnerships".
Posted by: Mumstheword, Walcot on 7:57pm Sat 10 May 08
I am glad that at last the sisters have the reassurance that they are not going to lose their home. But, I can not understand why the law should not be changed for long term, cohabiting siblings? Can somebody explain this to me?
I am glad that at last the sisters have the reassurance that they are not going to lose their home. But, I can not understand why the law should not be changed for long term, cohabiting siblings? Can somebody explain this to me?
The government will take all your money to waste on all that they see fit.
That is the Labour way. That is what plenty of morons have voted for THREE times.
What did you expect?
The government will take all your money to waste on all that they see fit.
That is the Labour way. That is what plenty of morons have voted for THREE times.
Posted by: A GINGER, South Marston on 7:47am Sun 11 May 08
Looking at the state that English Taxation has got into,the inhabitants will be forced to pay more each year by an establishment that does not have to EARN it,do not sell anything , just spend on their own whim,responsible to no one,they are not elected, but are the permanent officials,.
These ladies,the Burden sisters would have made a breakthrough had they won the case which could not be accepted by the Establishment,ie,ano
ther thin edge of the wedge in the public battle against unfair taxation of this kind,.
If two men or two women can be entwined in civil ceremony whatever has this great country come to,but sisters NO, and I suppose ,brothers NO,Marriage is for the procreation of children,in a permitted degree,the entwinement is not able to do just that,so who made this law,oh yes ,that group trying to get out of paying inheritance tax.
Looking at the state that English Taxation has got into,the inhabitants will be forced to pay more each year by an establishment that does not have to EARN it,do not sell anything , just spend on their own whim,responsible to no one,they are not elected, but are the permanent officials,.
These ladies,the Burden sisters would have made a breakthrough had they won the case which could not be accepted by the Establishment,ie,ano
ther thin edge of the wedge in the public battle against unfair taxation of this kind,.
If two men or two women can be entwined in civil ceremony whatever has this great country come to,but sisters NO, and I suppose ,brothers NO,Marriage is for the procreation of children,in a permitted degree,the entwinement is not able to do just that,so who made this law,oh yes ,that group trying to get out of paying inheritance tax.
Posted by: thutch, highworth on 8:20am Sun 11 May 08
Lord Davies said that there were no plans for change and that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) was "not in the business of dispossessing people of their homes".
He added: "HMRC works sympathetically in cases such as the one that has been identified by the two sisters. No one is contemplating one of them losing her place in the home if the other dies. That will not happen."
Absolute tosh. HMRC are a law unto themselves and will turn anyone into the street if they can make a bob or two out of it. Time this unheeding government and all their well paid but untalented minions were dumped. Problem is of course, they will just be replaced by another bunch of untalented wannabees.
Lord Davies said that there were no plans for change and that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) was "not in the business of dispossessing people of their homes".
He added: "HMRC works sympathetically in cases such as the one that has been identified by the two sisters. No one is contemplating one of them losing her place in the home if the other dies. That will not happen."
Absolute tosh. HMRC are a law unto themselves and will turn anyone into the street if they can make a bob or two out of it. Time this unheeding government and all their well paid but untalented minions were dumped. Problem is of course, they will just be replaced by another bunch of untalented wannabees.
Posted by: Terence, Swindon on 9:38am Sun 11 May 08
Changing the law to include cohabiting siblings and based upon the principle of maintaining a person's lifestyle after their cohabitant's death would lead to creditable claims from others such as children who continue to live with their parents until death (indeed, Crossbencher Baroness Deech called for it) and even between longstanding friends (not so far-fetched when registered homosexual couples are exempt). As Lord Davies states a line must be drawn somewhere, we don't live in a perfectable world and unfortunately some cases will always appear unfair.
Changing the law to include cohabiting siblings and based upon the principle of maintaining a person's lifestyle after their cohabitant's death would lead to creditable claims from others such as children who continue to live with their parents until death (indeed, Crossbencher Baroness Deech called for it) and even between longstanding friends (not so far-fetched when registered homosexual couples are exempt). As Lord Davies states a line must be drawn somewhere, we don't live in a perfectable world and unfortunately some cases will always appear unfair.
Posted by: dalekdave, Swindon on 7:18pm Sun 11 May 08
[quote][bold]Frontier(s)[/bold] wrote:
Inheritance tax is unfair, period.[/quote] Couldn't agree with you more on this one. Inheritance tax is just further tax on possessions purchased from income already taxed.
Frontier(s) wrote:
Inheritance tax is unfair, period.
Couldn't agree with you more on this one. Inheritance tax is just further tax on possessions purchased from income already taxed.
Posted by: amlorusso, Swindon on 7:36pm Sun 11 May 08
Inheritance tax is a long standing law that did not spring up yesterday specifically just to be mean to these two women.
And for those of you who got party political, no other party before Labour amended inheritance tax to include a siblings, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Neither has any party proposed it in their manifesto since Labour has been in government. Baroneess Deech is the first I've ever heard of, and she's a crossbencher.
No government official or civil servant has the power to make exceptions to a law, where that power is not specifcally garinted, because they think it is unfair. If someone has promised not to turf one of them out of their homes when this happens, the government should only restrict itself to whatever it can do within the law.
Whatever they can do then they absolutely should.
Inheritance tax is a long standing law that did not spring up yesterday specifically just to be mean to these two women.
And for those of you who got party political, no other party before Labour amended inheritance tax to include a siblings, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Neither has any party proposed it in their manifesto since Labour has been in government. Baroneess Deech is the first I've ever heard of, and she's a crossbencher.
No government official or civil servant has the power to make exceptions to a law, where that power is not specifcally garinted, because they think it is unfair. If someone has promised not to turf one of them out of their homes when this happens, the government should only restrict itself to whatever it can do within the law.
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
