Public backing for a reversal of Labour’s ‘cruel’ IHT plans

An NFU petition calling on the government to “reverse the family farm tax” has been signed by more than 260,000 members of the public, following a surge in support around the time of the union’s mass lobby of parliament last week.

The petition was launched soon after the 30 October Budget, highlighting the expected impact of limiting agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR) to just the first £1m of a farm’s asset value.

Above that, and after allowing for personal allowances, inheritance tax (IHT) will be applied at 20% – a move described as “cruel and ill-thought-out” by the NFU.

See also: New NFU analysis diminishes Treasury estimates of IHT impact

“Let’s be clear, if this tax change goes ahead, it will deal a hammer blow to farming families, after decades of tightening margins, record inflation, extreme weather and increased production costs,” said the petition.

Roughly 200,000 people had signed by the start of last week, but this leapt to 250,000 by the time the lobbying event took place on Wednesday (19 November). It has since risen to over 261,000.

“At a time when farmers believe government has lied to them and let them down badly, British farmers and growers are heartened to know that they have the support of so many members of the public,” said NFU president Tom Bradshaw.

New twist

The support comes at a time when the row about how many farm businesses will be caught by the planned introduction of IHT on farmers has taken a new twist.

The Treasury maintains that just 27% of farmers will ever by hit, based on past claims for APR. But recent analysis by the NFU, based on farm asset values, says the figure is actually 75%.

Support for this latter view emerged over the weekend when a prominent tax expert, Dan Neidle, who had previously endorsed the Treasury’s approach and been cited by Labour as a credible source, changed his mind over the likely impact.

In an extended thread on X, he set out why the number of commercial farmers affected will be much higher than initially thought, especially after taking BPR into account.

He also argues that the “super rich”, who also hold shares on the Alternative Investment Market as a shelter from IHT, are probably getting off too lightly.

He suggests setting a much higher threshold for IHT, at say £20m, to target just the very largest farm businesses.

Other farms should be freely transferable to the next generation, with IHT only charged (at 40%) if that land is subsequently sold, rather than farmed by the incoming generation.