Inheritance tax review ordered by the government

Published by Marina Gerner on 02 February 2018.
Last updated on 02 February 2018

Inheritance tax review ordered by the government

Chancellor Philip Hammond has written to the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) to order a review of inheritance tax (IHT).

He argued that the system is ‘particularly complex’ and needs simplification. The review, he wrote, should focus on the technical and administrative issues with IHT, as well as practical issues around routine estate planning and disclosure.

He added that current gift rules could also be reviewed. In the letter Hammond said: ‘I would be most interested to hear any proposals you may have for simplification, to ensure that the system is fit for purpose and makes the experience of those who interact with it as smooth as possible.'

The letter adds: 'It could also look at how current gift rules interact with the wider IHT system, and whether the current framework causes any distortions to taxpayers' decisions surrounding transfers, investment and other relevant transactions.'

In the last tax year, HMRC received £4.84 billion in inheritance tax. Rising property prices and a static IHT threshold, which has remained at £325,000 since 2009, have been the biggest drivers behind death tax payments rising. 

Sarah Coles, personal finance analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, says: ‘Anyone who has ever wrestled with estate planning and inheritance tax can appreciate that the whole system can be a nightmare of complexity.’  

According to Coles one area to be reviewed might be to do with transfers that are potentially exempt from IHT. The current rules state that after seven years, any gift is considered out of your estate for IHT purposes. ‘This rule is widely misunderstood, and in certain circumstances IHT can still apply to gifts made up to 14 years before death. It can also encourage people to make large gifts before it makes financial sense for them.’ She says there has been speculation this could be reduced to two years.

The status of pensions and Isas might also be reconsidered. Since pension freedoms, it has become more tax-efficient to pass on a pension than an Isa, because the former is free of IHT in most cases, while Isas are not. Coles says: ‘Death taxes have always had the potential to distort planning decisions, but since the pension freedoms, the IHT efficient solution has been to take a U-turn on how you spend your retirement savings.’

Elsewhere, Anthony Nixon, partner and inheritance tax expert at Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth, says he hopes for a reform, or perhaps an abolishment, of ‘the ridiculously complex new IHT allowance linked to the value of one’s home’. The residence nil rate band (RNRB) was introduced last year by the government to stop families with modest incomes being liable for IHT.  

In a nutshell the RNRB, used together with the existing allowance of £325,000 per person or £650,000 for married couples and civil partners, will enable couples with a home to pass on up to £1 million to their direct family free of inheritance tax. 

Nixon, however, is not a fan. He argues it ‘discriminates against those who do not own their own home, those who do not have children, and those who not married.’ Instead, he argues, the current £325,000 allowance should be raised for everyone. 

Other experts, including Sean McCann, chartered financial planner at NFU Mutual, agree a simpler system that people can easily understand is ‘desperately needed’. 

He adds: ‘Even the most recent change, the residence nil rate band, introduced last April to help people pass on more of the value of their family home to their children and grandchildren, is riddled with ifs and buts.’ 

This article first appeared on our sister website Money Observer.

Free Consultation: 5* Rated Financial Adviser

Advertisement
  • UK's no. 1 financial adviser rating site, 80,000+ client reviews
  • Enter your postcode to see the top 5 rated advisers near you
  • Search 5,000+ fully vetted financial advisers
  • Claim a free 1 hour consultation to clarify your options

 

Leave a comment

i had a chat with my

i had a chat with my accountant a couple of yrs ago on this subject, the up shot of it was i'm not making any gifts or giving any assets away, what ever is left at the end of the day my children are very welcome to , if they have to pay iht on it then so be it, and if i've spent the lot then nobody gets anything.

I can imagine that Hammond

I can imagine that Hammond will want to help the wealthy of London to further avoid IHT when passing on their overpriced properties. However, given the fiscal dire straits of the government (weighed down by welfare costs and lacking the courage to address the deficit meaningfully), I think it is more likely that the Chancellor will want (certainly he will NEED) to 'simplify' IHT by closing as many loopholes as possible, in order to further increase the revenue stream.. In fairness to all, the RNRB should be scrapped and an identical allowance be given to everybody.

Tax on earnings, tax on

Tax on earnings, tax on investment, tax on spending, death tax on assets. How many more times can the same money be taxed? I'm sure the chancellor will think of something.

This is the clever bit about

This is the clever bit about taxation - you are taxed on income, then your savings are taxed and your spending is taxed and your death is taxed. The government takes over 40% of all income ultimately. Unfortunately, it spends more like 45% of all income, hence the budget deficit and the out-of-control national debt. It used to be better-balanced - budget surplus in good years and deficit in bad years, averaging out over each 11-year economic cycle - until Gordon Brown (as Labour Chancellor in the previous decade) introduced in-work benefit payments for low-earners. This reduced the amount of tax being paid by a lot of people. Then the coalition government started hiking personal allowances ahead of inflation, further reducing the amount of tax paid by a lot of people. Ever since the middle of the last decade (if not earlier), there has never been a balanced budget, let alone a budget surplus