Can anyone answer this

Agree. Also it’s v often siblings or father and son/ daughter etc. starmer using a couple as a base example is so backwards

I don’t think there is an answer other than it’s a reflection of the individuals who designed the policy and the way in which they perceive the social construct, coming as they do from finance backgrounds where patriarchal attitudes still persisted until very recently.

A very good point. Also worth noting that it also assumes that both of the married couple are involved in the farm. The other half would quite easily have a separate job and may well have assets in their own right!?

100%! My partner and I have no intention of getting married. We just happy as we are! It seems to me a very 1950s idealistic view of farming that we are all married with a wife at home etc!

Charlotte I agree with you they also appear to assume the farm is split 50/50 if you’re married. Majority I’ve spoken to, aren’t for succession or historical reasons, see my remarks in the attached tweet. All those you mention must surely know how farms are generally held if they got industry knowledge ⁉️

As an outsider looking in to these issues because I just want to understand them the blizzard of figures being dished out are bewildering. The marriage thing may just be an assumption that a small ag business cannot survive with a single persons input. Like mine pretty much

There are many widows and widower who carry on after normal retirement age. There are also a lot of divorced people with children who stand to inherit. Their children will be even more disadvantaged.

🎯. (and also if a widower)

There's similar issues too. For example, suppose you have a child, but are dubious about the spouse. If you hand the farm over to avoid IHT as a planning exercise, and something happens to the child, the spouse might run off with the lot. It just goes on...

Civil Partnerships too? Call me all modern etc.....