Fake Outrage

A further post on my 7th November one about IHT on farms.

Jeremy Clarkson has recently turned his ire to Inheritance Tax (IHT) rules, claiming they’re unfair to farmers. But scratch the surface, and the complaint starts to feel more like an attempt to justify a tax dodge rather than a genuine agricultural grievance. 

Clarkson argues that IHT is a burden on farms like his, even though by his own admission, his children have no intention of running the operation. Why? Because they have no interest in earning the meagre combined income of £114 that the farm reportedly generates. That raises the question: if it’s not a viable, working farm that supports future generations, should it even qualify for agricultural tax relief? 

If Clarkson’s farm were truly a working farm - managed for agricultural production rather than as a TV backdrop or pet project - he could have already addressed the IHT issue. Options like gifting the farm to his heirs (tax-free after seven years) or placing it in a Trust for long-term family benefit are perfectly viable under the current system. These mechanisms are widely used by genuine farming families to preserve their agricultural heritage. 

The reality seems to be that Clarkson wants the farm classified as agricultural land for tax purposes, even though it appears to operate more like a hobby farm or commercial entertainment venture. If it’s not producing enough income to interest his children, is it really a business deserving of tax relief, or is it simply a luxury estate wrapped in a farming façade? People like him also push up the price of agricultural land to unaffordable levels, bringing many farmers into IHT.

Inheritance Tax exists to prevent wealth hoarding and to encourage the proper use of resources. Genuine farmers, whose land supports food production and rural communities, can access generous exemptions. Clarkson’s case seems more about keeping an expensive asset in the family without facing the usual tax consequences—a luxury most actual farmers could never afford. This isn’t about saving Britain’s farming heritage; it’s about saving Clarkson’s wallet. 

When the solution is so simple - gift the farm or put it in a Trust - is it just me, or does the saturation coverage on social media posts, expressing vehement outrage, have more than a whiff of Tufton Street about them? The outrage isn't justified, by any stretch of the imagination. Tufton street and its client media has a way of persuading tax payers to defend tax avoiders, to their own detriment.

However, if the solution is indeed so simple, why muck around with APR in the first place, unless it's targeting farms that aren't really farms, which is surely a good thing?