Planning for inheritance tax

So, you want your family to pay more inheritance tax on your death? How very public spirited of you! HMRC will take your money, the chancellor will watch the exchequer grow - but your executors won’t be getting any thank you notes for your post-death generosity, says Mike Fleming.

Let’s take a look at what you can do in your lifetime to reduce the amount of IHT your family will have to pay when you die. An opening caveat - when does proper tax planning transgress into unacceptable avoidance or even evasion? The answer: who at this time really knows? Not even HMRC seem to know with any degree of certainty and the expected introduction of a GAAR (General Anti-Abuse Rule) will only further muddy the waters. 

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments
JAADAMS's picture

You probably know this...    3 thanks

JAADAMS | | Permalink

My STEP tutor always said ..

' There are only two ways to not pay IHT - spent it or give it away'.

We all know IHT is an unfair tax and should be abolished

Planning for Inheritance Tax

Paul Edwards | | Permalink

Surely there is a major omission from the list of 'major' exemptions, that for transfers made 'as part of the normal expenditure of the transferor' (Section 21 IHTA 1984) or 'gifts out of income' as I generally call it for short. Never mind £3,000 p.a.: this can be worth £300 million p.a. if you have sufficient income!

As well as charitable donations    1 thanks

hiu612 | | Permalink

What about gifts to political parties?

These were noticeable by their absence when Dave C went on his moralistic rampage about the inequity of the "rich" being able to avoid tax by choosing to re-direct their income to a charity of their choice.

What a shame no one asked him about the moral grounding for exempting political donations from IHT, especially given the requirement for the party to have at least 2 elected MP's - who in the house of commons would vote against that?

cfield's picture

Just an advert    2 thanks

cfield | | Permalink

I'm surprised this article was approved for publication really as it is a blatant advert with little or no analysis or insightful advice. Even a first year accountancy student should know this much. I doubt it contains anything useful for regular AW readers.

I would have been more impressed if the author had talked about things like pilot trusts, avoiding common pitfalls with BPR, keeping good records for gifts out of normal income (to avoid problems validating them many years later) or leaving business property to the next generation (so they could sell back to the surviving spouse for an IOU and hopefully get 2 lots of BPR on the second death).

But I guess useful titbits like that must be paid for, hence the blatant plug for the firm he works for.

Even the non-domiciled spouse bit was not all that helpful. You don't have to be here 17 years to jump that hurdle. There is such a thing as domicile of choice. The 17 years is just when you can no longer claim to be non-domiciled, so it is a ceiling for non-doms rather than a target for those wishing to be domiciled.

@cfield

BryanS1958 | | Permalink

I entirely agree....nothing that any self-respecting accountant wouldn't know already:-)