The paper also looks at how cases which are chargeable to IHT should be identified and any charge quantified.IHT is encroaching into all areas of financial planning. As part of the advice process, you may find yourself recommending clients to exercise some of the flexibility offered by their pension plans, such as income withdrawal. However, if you accept the approach suggested by the Revenue, your clients could suffer an unexpected IHT bill – but then again, they may not. It is this doubt which will concern many of you. The paper states that “mini- sters are committed to tax-relieved pension saving but the generous tax reliefs granted are to encourage people to provide a secure income in retirement, not to permit the accumulation of capital sums for passing to heirs”. In principle, the Revenue expects to see few claims in this area. However, pension planning has progressed in recent times. Drawdown is a direct alternative to buying an annuity. As you will also be aware, from April 6, 2006, clients who have not committed to an annuity can continue in drawdown after 75 in the form of an alternatively secured pension. Logically, if your client elects to take drawdown, this should have the same IHT implications as buying an annuity. That would be too easy and, as we know, logic and tax do not go together. A claim to IHT may arise on schemes under S3(3) or S5(2), as extended by S151(4), Inheritance Tax Act 1984. A claim under S3(3) – omission to exercise a right – may arise where a personal pension or retirement annuity client elects to defer taking their benefits before they die. Section 5(2), as extended, applies where the member has a general power to dispose of benefits. An example of a general power would be the choice of the survivor to take a lump sum within two years of the member’s death during drawdown. If your client elects to take drawdown, IHT can be payable where they make decisions with the intent to benefit others instead of their own retirement. If the client makes an election for sound commercial and retirement reasons, a claim under S3(3) should not arise. A generally accepted rule is that if the member is in poor health, any such actions to defer benefits can be challenged. The discussion paper extends this position to all clients who elect to use ASP. But is this right? Is it not your role to continue to review all choices open to clients? For example, long-term care planning enables a client to decide which investments they should use to support an immediate need for care. A fully-funded LTC scheme might mean there is no need to draw further pension benefits. Your client could leave these funds to grow further and, hopefully, avoid any IHT. However, as suggested by the discussion paper, this might not be the case. You have to ask why a client, who has a clearly settled plan for his pension funds, should draw down further cash when it is not needed. However, it will be up to clients and their advisers to prove their case. The discussion paper suggests each case will be determined by its own facts. This is a recipe for even more confusion than has existed since the introduction of drawdown and should be opposed.
Stamp specialist Stanley Gibbons is using Sipps to promote purchases of coins and stamps, prompting calls for regulation of alternative inv- estment companies target- ing pensions. Gibbons is promoting rare stamps, coins and autographs as collectable assets for Sipp investments which can earn tax relief. The company’s website gives the example of rare stamps such […]
Clerical Medical financial services sales director Graeme Riddoch is moving within the HBOS group in a restructure of the intermediary division. The review was instigated by Clerical parent firm HBOS which has changed Riddoch’s former role. Clerical director of market development Keith Gilmour will take on Riddoch’s workload in the new role of director of […]
Stockmarket Linked Growth Bond
As the summer holidays come to an end, children prepare to return to school and the roads clog up in the mornings, there is time for reflection on the drive into Bri- stol every morning.
“Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels,” said supermodel Kate Moss, who is not often credited for her insights into policy making. Perhaps she should be. In politics, as in matters of diet, the course of action that is the best over the long term is often not the most desirable course of action in the short term. Add the instant gratification of the democratic electoral cycle and, instead of good policy making, you sometimes get the equivalent to a midnight binge in front of the fridge.
The value of an investment and any income from it can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested. Forecasts and past performance are not a guide to future performance. Some information and statistical data herein has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable but in no way are warranted by us as to their accuracy or completeness. These are Neptune’s views and as such this document is deemed to be impartial research. We do not undertake to advise you of any change to our views.
- Top trends
News and expert analysis straight to your inboxSign up
Latest from Money Marketing
A law firm is set to issue more than 30 cases against Liberty Sipp in what it believes is the largest number of claims issued against the provider to date. Anthony Philip James & Co alleges the Sipp provider is responsible for the misselling of Sipps between 2011 and 2013. It says it has up […]
Two years on from the sunset clause, advisers remain concerned over client poaching and how platforms deal with clients they have deemed “financial orphans.” The FCA banned platforms from retaining rebates from fund managers in 2014, but allowed the payment of commission to advisers to continue. The introduction of the sunset clause in April 2016 […]
The rise in IHT takings has prompted complaints around the new residence nil rate band’s impact