No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on ‘what the papers don’t say’ – without fear or favour.
To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.
The campaign against Labour’s planned changes to inheritance tax for wealthy farmers and landowners risks backfiring, amid a deluge of statistical manipulation and unsympathetic spokespeople.
Former Top Gear host and ‘Diddly Squat’ TV farmer Jeremy Clarkson is leading the charge on the front page of The Sun today, after pledging to join the farmer protests in the capital.
The Government couldn’t have handpicked a better opponent themselves. In a 2021 interview with The Times, the Conservative-voting controversialist said avoiding inheritance tax was “the critical thing” in his decision to buy his (then) £4m+ farm, so no surprise he’s a bit sore now.
Clarkson says he’s turning up to the protest against the advice of his doctors, who think he needs to avoid stress. It also appears to be against the advice of the National Farmer’s Union, whose president told BBC Newsnight on Monday that it was “probably not helpful” for the newbie-farmer loudmouth to rock up.
Don’t miss a story
Step forward also James Dyson, the Brexit-supporting billionaire who relocated his company’s headquarters to Singapore after the EU referendum. Dyson secured a Times front page earlier this month.
One fact the Times neglected to mention is that Dyson owns over 35,000 acres of farmland. As even the Conservative-supporting Spectator magazine wryly put it: “It is hard to believe that concerns about inheritance tax did not enter his head when he moved into farming.”
Dyson is understood to deny this.
However, the spectacle of two wealthy landowners fighting against tax reform is a gift to the Government
Minority Pursuit
Downing Street appears to believe it can weather this storm. For a start, the numbers of farmers actually affected are tiny. As Byline Times previously reported, the official data shows that fewer than 500 farms per year are expected to pay more inheritance tax as a result of the changes from 2026.
As has been repeatedly noted, married farmers who own property will now have an effective inheritance tax-free threshold of three million pounds. That’s about five times the £650,000 threshold for non-farmer couples.
It’s because married farmers can claim their £1m inheritance tax exemption (Agricultural Property Relief) twice. And then they can claim tax relief for their residence on the farm too. “For a married couple running a farm, their assets could be worth £2.65m before the restriction on the [IHT] relief costs them a penny”, tax expert Dan Neidle points out.
The Powerful Interests Fighting Jeremy Clarkson’s Countryside Culture War to Avoid Inheritance Tax
Lobby groups are accused of whipping up fears about Labour’s inheritance tax reforms despite figures suggesting the vast majority of UK farms will be unaffected
Neidle expects the number of estates affected to be far lower than 500. Those that are may not have to pay much tax. “The 20% tax is only on the excess over the threshold, so for most of the[m], the additional tax will be reasonably small.” Bear in mind that 20% rate is half the figure non-farmers have to pay.
Yet farming lobbyists have put out their own rival figures. Which seem to be based on some bizarre back-of-the-envelope estimates.
Funny Figures
See a startling claim by the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) that 70,000 farms – over a third of all UK farms – would be affected by the reforms.
Neidle has branded the figures “nonsense fake stats”. The CLA’s methodology appears almost laughably flawed.
I’ve got hold of it. Here it is:
- Total Ownership Change: The 70,000 farms impacted is based on the idea that all farms (100%) will change ownership over time, approximately over a 10-year period.
- Farm Value and Size: Farms between 50 and 99 hectares (30,000 farms) and 100 hectares or more (40,000 farms) have values above the £1 million tax limit, meaning they’d all be affected by the change — impacting around one-third of all UK farms.
- Long term certainty: Death is unpredictable, which means any business must make reasonable plans for such an event. If these 70,000 farms anticipate much larger tax bills as they grow their assets, they may decide to reduce their growth plans or investment. This could stifle innovation, not only in agriculture but in the many other businesses farmers run, limiting their earnings potential.
The group assumes, remarkably, that all farms will change ownership every 10 years.
It assumes that no farmers are married. In other words, they are assuming only the £1m tax limit, rather than the £2m that couples get.
They are assuming that no farmers claim IHT relief for their properties, removing the £325,000 relief you get on your home (again, effectively doubled for couples).
And the analysis makes sweeping assumptions about land values without accounting for regional variations, effectively suggesting land is worth the same everywhere, no matter its state.
These wonky figures have been trumpeted by the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in a flurry of press releases and angry parliamentary statements.
Privilege and Property: ‘How Reporting on Private School and Farm Taxes Reveals More About Newspaper Owners Than Anything Else’
Hysteria around Labour’s VAT on private schools and inheritance tax on farms are not the existential threats they’ve been made out to be in the press
Rather than rely on the CLA’s speculation, experts suggest focusing on the actual Agricultural Property Relief statistics. Again, they show that very few farming estates will actually be affected by the changes. It’s a detail that the campaign’s most prominent spokespeople seem keen to avoid mentioning.
Solid Ground
Ministers should stand firm with the message that this is about closing a loophole that can be exploited by super-rich land speculators and tax-avoiders whose investments drive up costs for those with a real stake in the sector. The proceeds will also be ploughed into crumbling public services.
Meanwhile, wealthy land-owners are crying wolf, with some so desperate to protect their interests, they are spreading needless fear about the numbers who will be affected.
Nor do the marchers fully represent rural communities, despite what the Telegraph might have you believe. Around 10 million people live in rural communities in the UK. Only about one per cent – 110,000 – are farmers.
The supply chain for farming is larger than 110,000 of course. But the overwhelming majority of people in rural areas do not work in farming or anything related to it. Their main concerns are the cost of living and the state of our public services. Much like the rest of the country.
The main issues for my family, having grown up in largely rural Cornwall, were insecure (and insufficient) housing, low wages and dire public transport.
But parts of the press will reductively present the farming protests as “speaking for rural areas”.
Questionable statistics are being peddled by even more questionable champions. We should see it for what it is: a bid to defend the indefensible.
Why should a billionaire be able to plough all their wealth into farmland to avoid the inheritance tax every other wealthy estate has to pay?
And if landowners don’t like these plans, what is their concrete alternative to finding the money our public services so desperately need?
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him…
