Vol. 310 No. 1
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (8), line 11, after "of section 3 (2)" to insert "and, where the asset was acquired by the person on the death of his spouse so that his period of ownership would, apart from this subsection, be treated as having commenced on the date of that death, his period of ownership shall be deemed to be extended to include his spouse's period of continuous ownership ending on that date".
Are we taking this in conjunction with my amendment or are we taking this separately?
We will take them separately. That is the way they are listed.
Before I deal with this amendment, Sir, I wonder if you could give me some guidance. A point was raised on Committee Stage by Deputy Barry which I undertook to look into. I wanted to give the result of my looking into it which is that I have not got an amendment in respect of it.
I think we will combine that with this amendment. We will give the Minister latitude to make an explanation.
I do not think the point the Minister is raising has anything to do with this section. Am I right?
That is correct.
There are no sections on Report Stage.
If the Chair will grant that latitude to me, it might be of some advantage.
If the House wishes the Minister to deal with it, the Chair agrees.
Will we be entitled to reply?
Once. Deputies may speak once only on Report Stage.
Each speaker? I am not sure whether we will want to speak at all. I just want to establish what can happen.
The Minister is coming in on a point of explanation on something that arose on Committee Stage and if the Deputy wishes to reply to that he will get an opportunity.
The purpose of this amendment is to extend, for the purpose of tapering rates, the period of ownership of a surviving spouse on the disposal by that spouse of assets acquired on the death of the first spouse. The intention is that the surviving spouse will benefit by the extension of his or her period of ownership to include the deceased's period of ownership extending from the date of acquisition of the assets to the date of death. The provisions of section 6 of the Bill are not being changed, so that the survivor will be treated as having acquired the assets on the deceased's death at their market value at the date of death, not at the deceased's cost of acquisition because this would, in general, be less favourable to the surviving spouse. In effect therefore the proposed amendment will affect only the rate of tax and not the amount of the gain on the disposal by the surviving spouse.
The point that I wished to refer to was in connection with a proposal by Deputy P. Barry that section 27 relief should be extended to assets which are added to qualifying assets but fail to qualify for relief because they have been owned for less than 10 years. The Deputy may remember he talked about a farm with land added to it within less than 10 years before the death. The purpose of section 27 is to enable a parent who owns the family farm or family business to pass it on to a child of his without having to provide for a liability to capital gains tax on the disposal at a time when, as is usually the case in such transfers, no cash consideration passes from the child to the parent.
The intention of the section is to cover the normal case of the parent who has devoted his working life to the farm or business up to the age of 55 years or over and who wishes to shed his responsibilities and pass the farm or business over to the next generation. It was felt that the capital gains tax should not be seen to discourage this type of transfer. It would be expected that normally the parent would have owned the assets for the whole or greater part of his working life. But the section had to provide for a minimum qualifying period of ownership.
Deputy Barry is concerned with the case where a relatively small part of the business assets fails to qualify for relief because it was acquired less than 10 years prior to the time of disposal. He pointed out that the small addition could add disproportionately to the value of the asset. He instanced the case of a small farm where the acquisition of additional acreage made it, say, an economic holding. It should be mentioned that the enhancing effect of the addition is treated as spread evenly over the whole farm so that the relief will apply proportionately to the enhancement of value.
For example if the addition of 10 acres to a 40-acre farm had the effect of doubling its value, the relief would be applied on the basis that 40/50ths of the farm was a qualifying asset. Bearing this in mind, and having regard to the fact that the 10 acres were held for less than 10 years, it does not seem unreasonable that he should have to pay some tax on the disposal. If the part acquired within the 10 years was acquired in replacement of trading assets that had been disposed of there is of course no problem because the combined period of ownership of the old and new assets is counted for the purpose of the 10 year test.
It is only therefore where the part which does not qualify is an addition to the business assets that a problem arises. The 10 year limit provided for appears to be quite generous. There seems to be no good reason for departing from it even where only a small part of the assets disposed of is involved. The individual who finds himself in the position mentioned by Deputy Barry can avoid paying tax by transferring the assets that qualify but holding the newly acquired assets until the 10 year test is satisfied. If he transfers the assets which were held for over 10 years, thus qualifying for relief, and dies within 10 years of acquiring the additional assets, there will be no charge to tax on his death on the passing of the additional assets to the child. The difficulty with trying to legislate for such cases is that it would open the door to avoidance which would be difficult to prevent because it would enable the parent to purchase assets in the knowledge that if a gain materialised he could avoid tax by transferring the assets to his child whereas if losses accrue he could himself realise the assets for set off against chargeable gains on assets that are not qualifying assets.
On the whole it seems not unreasonable that tax should if exigible or chargeable be paid on any assets that have been held for less than 10 years and which therefore do not come within the intention of the section which is clearly to relieve gains on assets held over a long period when they are disposed of on retirement. It would appear also to me that the concessions sought could not inequitably be confined to land but would have to apply to business assets generally. I undertook, when Deputy Barry raised this, to look at the matter further and, if I thought it appropriate, to bring in amendment, but since I am not bringing in an amendment I thought, in fairness to Deputy Barry, that I should indicate the results of my having looked at it and my thinking on it having done so.
The amendment is also before the House at the moment.
We welcome amendment No. 1. It is eminently fair that a husband and wife should be treated as the one unit in the matter of assets like this. The surviving spouse should not be treated, on the date of the death of one of the partners as being a new owner. The situation moves on from there so that if the surviving spouse sells within the first five years he or she becomes liable for a tax rate of 35 per cent. Therefore we welcome this amendment.
As regards the point of explanation given by the Minister on the point I raised I do not accept what he said. I thought I had made it clear on the last occasion in the example I gave that if one piece of land, say 10 acres, had been sold just as one unit of land to some other owner it would not have achieved the same increase in value that it would achieve if it was added to a significantly bigger parcel of land. It is true probably, as the Minister said, that the larger parcel of land to which it is added will also be enhanced in value over the period, not to the same extent by any means as the smaller piece of land by being part of a 60 or 70-acre farm rather than a 10-acre holding in the meantime and it is to avoid that situation. In relation to any tax that is introduced one could argue the necessity for not being flexible and generous in its application because the Minister concerned wanted to eliminate avoidance. I am not sure if that is a very fair argument to use because I believe that a tax should be just and it should be seen to be just. Take the case of a businessman who has a fairly extensive business of, say, 2,000 square feet and there is a yard or a small shed belonging to a neighbour which he then purchases so enlarging his total holding. That piece of property by being part of the larger business is very much more valuable than if it had been sold to the neighbour at the other side purely as a coal shed or some sort of extension to his house. It is very much more valuable now as part of the business than it would be on its own or if it had been sold through the other neighbour. That is really, for that one piece of property or parcel of land, an exaggerated value over a relatively short period of time which would mean that the business, when the owner dies and passes it on to one of his children, would then be subject to a rate of tax which would not normally be applicable to it if it was on its own or sold to the neighbour next door. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Minister could not see his way to find some relatively easy means of catering for this problem which is perhaps not quite so applicable in towns or cities in regard to property but certainly applies in rural Ireland as regards land. However, we welcome the amendment introduced by the Minister but we do not think it goes far enough.
Our position is well known on the entire Capital Gains Tax Bill.
Could the Minister elaborate a little more on the exact impact of his amendment? Does it mean that there will be no capital gains tax due on a transfer from a husband to a wife on the death of a husband? We are all aware that capital acquisitions tax is paid on such an event and it seems inequitable that both capital acquisitions tax and capital gains tax should be cumulatively payable on the same event. If the result of the Minister's amendment is to create a situation where in the event of a husband dying and transferring to his wife or a wife dying and transferring to her husband that the only tax which will remain payable in the event of their having property of the relevant size is capital acquisitions tax and capital gains tax will not be payable, that is a fair result and the amendment is welcome.
Most of us agree in the case of interfamily transfers of this sort, where assets are not realised other than where they have to be realised as a result of an unduly heavy taxation, but where there is no intention of realising assets at that time, as there would not be in the case of a death because nobody intends to die at any particular time and any realisation which results directly as a result of death is not an intended realisation that it would not be fair that capital gains tax and capital acquisitions tax should be leviable on such an unintended realisation as would arise from the death of one spouse or the other. In so far as this amendment would prevent this double taxation occurring this side of the House welcome the Minister's amendment. I feel that it does not go far enough and that it should extend to all immediate family transfers. We will have an opportunity of arguing that issue on our amendment. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point because it would assist us in the debate on the next amendment as well as clarifying what his amendment means.
The position is that capital gains tax does not arise on a death. Therefore, in the case referred to by Deputy Bruton there is no liability for capital gains tax. This amendment seeks to deal with a situation where the surviving spouse disposes of the property. The purpose is that in such cases, on acceptance of this amendment, the surviving spouse on disposal of the property will get for the purpose of the tapering rates, the benefit not only of his or her period of ownership but also the deceased spouse's period of ownership. In effect, you combine the period of ownership of the two spouses in determining the tapering rate when the surviving spouse is disposing of the property. The death of the spouse who died previously does not arise in this case in so far as capital gains tax does not arise on that death. I hope that makes the position clear to Deputy Bruton.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister is making it clear that capital gains tax does not arise on a death but without this amendment the time would run from the date of death so that if a spouse sold in a year or two he or she would be liable to the full 30 per cent, or whatever it is, and this will give some relief in that sort of situation.
That is correct.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (8), line 11, after "of section 3 (2)" to insert "and, where the asset was acquired by the person on the death of his spouse or lineal ancestor so that his period of ownership would, apart from this subsection, be treated as having commenced on the date of that death, his period of ownership shall be deemed to be extended to include his spouse's or lineal ancestor's period of continuous ownership ending on that date".
This amendment is an extension of the Minister's amendment which we have just agreed to. If the Minister accepts the justice of the spouse being relieved of a liability for tax if he or she sells within the 21-year period of the tapering rates of taxes, then he should accept the extension that is envisaged under our amendment.
Let us take a simple example of a widower living with his son or daughter, an only child, who will inherit the entire property on the death of the parent. If the property has been in the family for two generations, more than 21 years, there is liability for tax when the father dies at the moment and if the survivor, who is not the spouse, sells that property within 21 years of the tapering rate. In the case of the wife or the husband there is no liability under the Minister's amendment. This relief should be extended to the children or the direct descendants, not nieces, nephews, brothers or sisters but to the children or their children, as the case may be, the lineal descendants of the person who is deceased if they choose to sell the property within 21 years at whatever rate is envisaged. We are moving this amendment to extend to the children and the grandchildren, the lineal descendants, of the deceased person the same rights as are given to the spouse under the Minister's amendment.
I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. I believe there is a clear distinction between the case of the surviving spouse and the case of the child or the grandchild. This amendment seeks to treat the surviving spouse in the same way as a child or a grandchild of the deceased person. I believe it extends to the parents and grandparents.
The wording corresponds with that used in the Minister's amendment.
Is the intention child or grandchild only?
Yes.
It transfers down.
As the Deputies know, in the capital gains tax code special treatment is accorded to the spouse which is not accorded to children or grandchildren already but it relates largely to gifts inter vivos. The amendment just accepted, taking account of the tapering rates which are introduced in this Bill, is extending it not just to gifts inter vivos but to property which has been inherited by the spouse from the surviving spouse.
No, it refers only to deaths of spouses.
It refers to property which has been inherited by a surviving spouse from a deceased spouse. That is the effect of the amendment we have just dealt with and it gives the maximum benefit possible under the tapering rates in such case. What is proposed here goes much further. It is not unreasonable, and it is equitable, to look at the combined successive periods of ownership of assets by a married couple particularly because in many cases they may be required to enable the surviving spouse to maintain as far as possible his or her established standard of living. To put it more bluntly, and this has been put to me in representations, there are cases, and perhaps they are as not as infrequent as we would like them to be, where a surviving spouse, particularly a widow, finds it necessary to sell off the property inherited from the husband merely to survive. To apply capital gains tax in such cases would produce inequity. In that case it seems reasonable that we should give the relief we have just given.
The same argument cannot be applied in relation to a son or daughter who will normally have a source of income divorced from the family assets. Where the son or daughter succeeds on a death, he or she will normally be young enough to qualify by virtue of his or her own period of ownership for tapering rates or for complete exemption from capital gains tax, if and when he comes to dispose of the assets received on the parent's death. This is the most likely situation particularly in regard to land or a business.
If the assets have to be disposed of by a child after a death to provide for a number of next of kin, which can happen, such a disposal will usually take place within a relatively short period after death. Only the relatively small gain since the death will, under section 6 of the Bill, which provides for a base cost equal to market value at date of death, fall to be taxed. This is one of the changes introduced in this Bill.
In addition, indexation will apply where it is appropriate to compensate for the inflationary element in the gain. A general provision relieving disposals by children of assets acquired on a parent's death by aggregating the parent's period of ownership would, I suggest, be an unnecessarily wide relief to cater for the few, if any, cases in which any hardship would arise on such a disposal by a child to provide for claims against the parent's estate.
I think I should stress that what we are talking about here is a child or grandchild, who, having inherited property, decides to dispose of it. That is what we are talking about, not just their inheritance. The same applies in the case of a farm or business where the child or grandchild continues to run the farm or business, but having inherited it, they decide to dispose of it. Such a decision can be made for very good reasons, such as, as I said, where they have to pay money to others of the next of kin and they have to raise money for this purpose. Where the property is disposed of, having held it for some time and deciding that there was a good gain to be made from selling it, on the face of it there does not seem to be any case for such persons not having to pay capital gains tax. That is in effect what we are being asked to do. It may be said that the amendment does not go quite that far, but it could.
I would like to draw Deputies' attention to the situation that can arise under this proposed amendment. Let us suppose a grandfather owned assets for 21 years and left them to his son. The son would inherit the 21-year period of ownership. If he died ten years later and left the assets to his own son, the grandchild would inherit a 31-year period of ownership from his father. Thus, through a chain of deaths, capital gains tax is effectively neutralised and simply would not be payable in respect of a disposal of those assets.
The fact that a husband and wife are normally much the same age limits the effect that the previous amendment would have on the yield from the tax. The surviving spouse gets the benefit of the combined period of ownership of the deceased spouse but cannot pass this on to the child under the amendment we have dealt with. In the cases I have described this amendment would effectively exempt from capital gains tax a disposal of assets at, in some cases, an enormous gain, by children or grandchildren who had inherited them from their grandparents. I do not think there is an adequate case for a relief of this kind. There is an adequate case for it in the case of spouses, as I tried to indicate, but to extend it this way is going much too far. Nothing I have heard in references to this on Committee Stage or in what Deputy Peter Barry said in proposing this amendment, convinces me that there is any genuine case for this special exemption from capital gains tax in the case of children or grandchildren inheriting property, be it land, a business or whatever where in some cases there can be a very substantial gain. It is not clear to me why the Deputies opposite argue that in such cases there should be no liability, or a very limited liability, to capital gains tax. It seems to me that the case for this is far from proved. The extension to the spouse is justifiable for the reasons I have given, but the extension to the child or grandchild goes much further and is not justified.
I am disappointed the Minister has not seen his way to accepting this amendment. I would like to give him an example where the need for this amendment could arise, and I am sure on reflection he will be sympathetic to it. I am thinking particularly of a farm which is a continuing business. It is not an asset one buys and sells in the market place like stocks and shares in a company. The asset is the one unique means of livelihood of the family. Assuming we are talking about a farm, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the increasing likelihood that in the event of a father dying and leaving the farm to some of his children, the capital acquisitions tax payable will be so high that the only way it could be paid would be for some of the farm to be sold.
It would not have to be sold immediately because the exact capital acquisitions tax liability would not be known immediately. There would be a series of negotiations between the inheriting person and the Revenue Commissioners regarding the valuation of the property and on the question of what rates should apply and so on. However, after two or three years or even four years, because these matters can be protracted, it might become very clear that the only way to preserve the farm and pay the capital acquisitions tax would be to sell part of the property. This would be the case in particular if there was an outstanding debt at the bank which would prevent the person concerned raising further money.
The likelihood of this type of situatoon arising has been increased greatly by the failure of the Minister in the 1978 Finance Act to raise the thresholds for capital acquisitions tax in respect of precisely the sort of situation envisaged here. The Minister raised the threshold in respect of transfers to a nephew or to a brother or sister but he choose deliberately not to raise the threshold in respect of transfers from father or mother to a son or daughter. No ac-count was taken of the fact that property values between the time of the 1975 Finance Act, when the capital acquisitions tax was introduced, and the 1978 Finance Act had doubled or even trebled in some cases. Further, there is no provision for indexation in respect of capital acquisitions tax. There may be such provision in respect of capital gains tax but this tax is more applicable to the speculator, to the person buying or selling property, a practice that is much more characteristic of a businessman than of a farmer operating a family farm on a continuing basis.
Therefore, concessions in the area of capital gains tax are of no value to farmers. They do not intend selling their properties. They will sell only if they are forced to do so. The Minister's failure to take account of inflation in relation to capital acquisitions tax while being generous in that regard in respect of capital gains tax indicates the type of activity with which he has most sympathy. But that is another day's battle. What I am seeking to establish clearly is that, because of the failure to adjust the thresholds in respect of capital acquisitions tax, it is increasingly likely that if a farm of 100 acres or even one of 70 acres is transferred from father to son, capital acquisitions tax will have to be paid.
Only if it were worth more than £250,000 to each child.
People endeavour generally to transfer farms as on-going businesses.
It would still have to be worth more than £250,000 to each child before liability would arise.
Perhaps Deputy Bruton would get away from capital acquisitions tax and concentrate on his amendment.
Because of the failure to adjust the threshold it is likely that in many cases people will be forced to sell parts of their farms in order to pay the capital acquisitions tax. It is very unfair, too, that people should be asked to pay capital gains tax in respect of a property from the time of the death of the father and the sale of the property. The Minister should be satisfied with getting capital acquisitions tax without looking for capital gains tax also on whatever gain may have accrued during the period.
Our amendment meets fairly well the type of situation we are describing. It does not extend to transfers to brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces or to more distant transfers. The Minister has pointed out that the provision would apply also to grandchildren because of the use of the words "lineal ancestor". While I am not authorised to speak for Deputy Barry I should be happy to forget about the grandfather-to-grandchild transfer which is usually a windfall situation. I would have no objection to our amendment being changed to that extent. Subject to that rider the case for our amendment is strong and I trust the Minister will accept it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I wish to ask the Minister a question.
As we are on Report Stage, the Deputy will un-derstand that if he asks a question he will be regarded as coming in on the debate.
(Cavan-Monaghan): My question relates to a remark made by the Minister across the Floor. Am I correct in understanding him to have said that capital acquisitions tax on a gift from father to son will not come into operation unless the value of the acquisition is £250,000?
Yes, that would be so in the case Deputy Bruton was talking about which concerned a farm. Each child could inherit up to £250,000 and not be liable for capital acquisitions tax.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is that because of the valuation of the land?
Yes. It is because also of the provisions of the capital acquisitions tax. That was one of the reasons for not altering the threshold. Up to the end of August the Revenue Commissioners have no record of any case in which a farmer beneficiary who was a child of the disponer had paid any capital ac-quisitions tax.
Any such case would not have gone through yet.
It is not in order on Report Stage either to ask questions or to answer them across the Floor of the House. I have allowed some latitude in this respect.
We are pleased with what has been granted in respect of a transfer from a husband to a wife because without this concession there could be a situation almost as iniquitous as was the death duty system. Having regard to the small amount of revenue involved I expect that the Minister will see his way to accepting the amendment. What we are discussing is not an everyday-type of situation. If a farm is passed on to a son or daughter they will generally preserve it even if they must borrow to do so and a sale will occur only in a very rare instance such as in the event of there not being a will. In such circumstances a young man who has stayed at home to work on the family farm would find himself in the situation of his brothers and sisters having as much right to the farm as he had although they might not have contributed anything to the estate. In that sort of situation the victim of the circumstances would probably have to sell the farm and in addition would have to pay capital gains tax.
I suspect that there is much more revenue involved in what the Minister has conceded already than would be involved in meeting our case. We should have much fairer legislation, especially in view of inflationary trends. The price of land has gone out of all proportion to its real value in so far as making money is concerned. Inflation has really taken hold with regard to land and because of that and the fact that it would be committed to acquisition tax at any rate, I hope that the Minister will see his way to helping to further the interest of families.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am in full agreement with the system of capital gains tax. Until capital gains tax was introduced a person could manipulate the buying and selling of property in such a way that he would have a substantial income but would not be liable for any tax, income tax or otherwise. That was an outrage, especially since the PAYE system of tax-ation was introduced here. It was a disgrace which needed to be cleared up. The Minister let his attitude to capital gains tax be known as a desire to get after the man who made “the quick buck”. That was the phrase used by the Minister and his party on several occasions.
However, it is not reasonable that in a transaction between one spouse and another where one spouse acquires a property on the death of the other spouse, the receiving spouse should be treated as having purchased the property on the date of the death of the other. The Minister in his amendment has so said and has accepted that principle. The ownership of the spouse who receives the property will go back and include the period during which his or her predecessor owned the property. That is as it should be. However, unless this amendment is accepted, a child acquiring from a parent will be deemed to have acquired the property for the first time on the death of a parent and time will run against him, so to speak, from that date. If he sells the property in a year or two years he will be liable for the full 30 per cent or whatever it is, and time will start to run in his favour only from the date of death of the parent.
He will be liable for the commitment in that short period only and it will be subject to indexation.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I appreciate that, but Deputy Bruton made a good point when he said that the property will have at-tracted capital acquisitions tax on the date of the death of a parent. The Minister has pointed out that the gift or donation would require to be very substantial. I think £250,000 was what he said.
In agricultural land, yes.
(Cavan-Monaghan): But not in the case of a business premises.
Then it is £150,000.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That amount of £150,000 used to be a frightening figure, one which people could not really com-prehend. You hear people talking about £150,000 now as if it were a mere nothing. Here we are not necessarily talking about agricultural land all the time. We are talking about agricultural land on the one hand and about family businesses on the other. If a child acquires a family business on the death of his father he becomes liable for capital acquisitions tax at £150,000. As Deputy Bruton has pointed out, that may be the very reason why that child will have to dispose of the family business, or some of it, in maybe one, two or three years. I understand that there is a sliding scale down to 21 years and if a child has to dispose of the property or some of it in order to defray the capital acquisitions tax he is going to be caught for capital gains tax. That is not reasonable, fair or equitable. Furthermore, we are getting outside the whole principle of capital gains if when talking about passing property from a parent to a child we regard the date on which the child gets the property as really the date on which it was acquired. When we talk about a parent and child we are talking about family ownership. I agree with Deputy Bruton that to go back to the grandfather and avail of the description of lineal descendant in order to manipulate things so that there would be an unfair advantage is something that could be disregarded. While I would not be prepared to settle for that I would include the nephew or niece in respect of whom the uncle or aunt is in loco parentis, the child having lived with that relation for over five years. That case should be dealt with by our amendment.
I emphasise that the policy behind the capital gains tax was to get at the manipulator, the person who wanted to manipulate his life in such a way that he could enjoy a substantial income without being liable for income tax or any other tax to the State. That was outrageous. It was intolerable that you could have a manipulator arranging his affairs in such a way that he would enjoy an income ten times that of a PAYE person and pay no tax. However, capital gains tax was never intended to intrude into transactions from parent to child. The Minister would be doing a good day's work if he accepted this amendment in addition to his own amendment in regard to the spouse. I am not convinced by the argument put forward by the Minister that there is any real difference between spouse and spouse and parent and child. It is all a family transaction. It is all part of family property that is going from one member of a family to another immediate member. The fact that capital acquisitions tax comes into play is another point well worthy of consideration. It is not right that any person should be caught for capital acquisition tax today and in a few years time be caught on the same property for capital gains.
Deputy Bruton, Deputy Hegarty and Deputy Fitzpatrick have made the position quite clear. We are talking here only about the tax which will have to be paid when a gain is realised on the sale of an asset after the death of the original owner. I suggest that in 999 cases out of 1,000 when a property passes to a son or to a daughter that property will not be sold. It will be worked in the same way as the father worked it. The chance of the property being sold and a gain realised is far more likely in the case of a spouse.
The other day Deputy Callanan gave a very good example of what could happen when a farmer dies. Suppose he married at 20 years of age and his son is on the farm for a year short of the length of time the spouse has been on the farm and the son, for reasons of health or some other reason, decides to sell the farm after three years, he will be liable for tax at the rate of 30 per cent on the gain made in that period. Now this is the case we are trying to cover in this amendment. As I said, in 999 cases out of 1,000 the farm will not be sold by the son or the daughter because it will be his or her livelihood and he or she will continue to work it. It is far more likely that it will be sold in the case of the spouse. Because of the very, very, few cases that will be involved, from the point of view of equity and justice and the recognition of the farm or business as a family unit, the Minister should accept this amendment.
