View more on these topics

Claire Trott: Big news for ill-health pension transfers and IHT

Landmark court case sees pensions transferred in serious ill health liable to significant tax charge

There have been some very interesting developments lately with regards to pension transfers in serious ill health – in particular around inheritance tax. In a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal has found in favour of HM Revenue & Customs in a case commonly known as the Staveley case.

As a result, anyone who makes a pension transfer in ill health could be subject to an IHT bill.

The case in question concerned the estate of a woman who transferred her Section 32 contract to a personal pension to avoid her former husband benefiting from it. The transfer took place just weeks before the woman, Mrs Staveley, passed away in 2006 after developing cancer two years earlier.

Tony Wickenden: Is IHT in line for a shake up?

Her personal pension passed to her sons and HMRC claimed IHT on the basis there had been:

  • A transfer of value which reduced her taxable estate at the time of transfer;

  • An omission to exercise a right with the intention of deliberately increasing the estate of another, which led to a lifetime transfer of value immediately before death. This is on the basis Staveley could have taken retirement benefits but chose not to.

The sons challenged the decision, bringing the case to the First Tier Tribunal, which found in their favour and which was backed by an Upper Tier Tribunal, before HMRC took it to the Court of Appeal.

At this point, it should be noted the original transfer this case relates to took place in December 2006, just after the introduction of pension simplification.

This has a bearing on the case and how it would be viewed now because a few things have changed.

The omission to exercise a right rule is no longer relevant. This was where IHT could be payable if benefits were available but were not accessed. This changed in the Finance Act 2011. In addition, pre-A day death benefits in occupational pension schemes, including Section 32 plans, were limited to Inland Revenue maximum benefits and any excess could be refunded to the sponsoring employer.

Death benefits are no longer limited like this, so it is not likely to be a driver for transfer in the same way as in the Staveley case.

Need to know

That said, it is vital advisers are aware of the IHT issues when it comes to pension transfers.

The main one is that, during the transfer, the right to decide who receives the death benefits comes back to the estate and is then taken back out of the estate once the benefits are at the discretion of the receiving scheme administrator.

Lisa Webster: Transfer troubles with ill-health early pensions

If the member is in good health, the death benefits have little or no value, so nothing is deemed to have been given away. However, if the member is in serious ill health, the death benefits have a value to the estate and a transfer of value for IHT purposes can occur. If the member does not survive the transfer for two years, it must be declared on the IHT 409 form and HMRC will decide if IHT is payable.

Previously, it had been thought that, if a Section 10 exemption could be proved, it would not be subject to IHT. Section 10 of the IHT Act 1984 refers to the “intention to confer a gratuitous benefit” or, more importantly, the lack of intention.

The Court of Appeal overturned the other tribunals’ findings that there was no intention, even though it was clear Staveley’s intention was to prevent her ex-husband from benefiting from her pension on her death. There are other factors to bear in mind too. In calculating the transfer of value, the deceased member’s pension rights before the transfer need to be considered.

For people who transfer at age 55 or over into a flexible pension plan, the value of these rights can be significant and could considerably reduce the transfer of value.

Rachel Vahey: Pension rules on early retirement due to ill health

Indeed, for people who had a (provable) expectation of life of more than three years, the next transfer of value could be significantly reduced because of actuarial calculations.

Misunderstanding

In many cases, advisers who have considered the issue of the two-year rule in relation to transfers assume there is only a problem if the transfer changes the resultant beneficiaries or the type of death benefit.

This is not the case. All pension transfers or switches have the same issues when it comes to IHT. The point at which the fund transfers, irrespective of the type of scheme, is when the death benefits are deemed to return to the estate. So if they have a value because of serious ill health, an IHT charge could occur.

As noted, there are many factors to consider when establishing how much the transfer of value really is and, in many cases, it may be negligible. That said, this issue cannot be ignored in cases where the client is in serious ill health.

Claire Trott is head of pensions strategy at Technical Connection

Recommended

Money-Cash-Coins-GBP-Pounds-UK-700x450.jpg
98

How much are advisers charging for pension transfers?

Defined benefit pension transfer charges are being put under the microscope again as the regulator turns over more potential conflicts of interest. With the British Steel Pension Scheme the latest to dominate headlines and the FCA ready to interrogate further as it extends its review to include all firms authorised to give pension transfer advice, […]

Budget briefcase illustration

Budget 2018: Personal allowance and higher rate tax thresholds increased

The personal allowance will rise to £12,500 from April 2019, chancellor Philip Hammond has announced in today’s Budget. This means a basic-rate taxpayer will pay £1,205 less tax in 2019-20 than in 2010-11. The higher rate tax threshold will also increase to £50,000 in April 2019, a year before expected. It was announced 1m fewer […]

2

Budget 2018: Govt tightens entrepreneurs relief rules

Chancellor Philip Hammond has decided not to scrap entrepreneurs relief, but has made conditions for qualifying stricter. To ensure it is going to genuine entrepreneurs, the government will extend the minimum qualifying period from 12 months to two years. However, Hammond said he wanted the UK to be a leading global player in global technology, so […]

MM-AutumnBudgetBanner
3

Lifetime allowance 2018/19 increase confirmed but pensions absent

The Government has confirmed that the lifetime allowance 2018/19 will rise in line with inflation, but savers have been offered little else in the Autumn Budget. The lifetime allowance will increase from £1m to £1,030,000 to match CPI from 2018/19.  Though the maximum amount the can be saved each year into a Junior Isa or […]

Portfolio-Bonds-Investment-Business-700x450.jpg

Signs of an M&A Boom?

Mark Martin, Head of UK Equities, Neptune After a quiet year for M&A in 2016, UK equities have been bolstered by increased deal activity year-to-date. Neptune’s Mark Martin explains why he believes M&A could continue to drive the outperformance of small and mid-caps in the coming months. Read article here:   Important information Investment risks Neptune […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Claire – I don’t know whether you read comments but here goes. Was the S.32 under trust? If not presumably it was in the member’s estate before the transfer but potentially not afterwards. Does this have any relevance or is it a red herring?

    • My understanding is that it is a red-herring. As far as the before and after is concerned, before is when the receiving scheme receives the transfer value and the after is when the receiving scheme applies its death benefit provisions to the value of the arrangement. The death benefit provisions, trust etc that applied to the ceding scheme have no bearing whatsoever. For this reason, I would be interested to hear Claire’s further comment on her observation ” In calculating the transfer of value, the deceased member’s pension rights before the transfer need to be considered.”

Leave a comment

Close

Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com