Inheritance tax on lifetime gifts
Your parents have received conflicting advice about reducing their potential inheritance tax (IHT) liability by making gifts. One view is that they need to survive at least three years from when a gift is made to save IHT. The other advice says they must survive seven. Which view is correct?
Gifts and IHT
The inheritance tax (IHT) rules for gifts made during a person’s lifetime are especially tricky. In this case the seemingly conflicting advice is correct in both instances. There can be an IHT saving if you survive at least three years after making a gift but you might also have to survive at least seven years. Which of these statements applies depends on the value of the gift.
The three and seven year rules
If a person survives at least seven years from the date of a gift to an individual, it’s called a potentially exempt transfer (PET) and is ignored for IHT purposes when they die. But if they don’t survive that long the value of the gift is taken into account when working out the IHT on their estate. However, any IHT that becomes payable on the gift is reduced as follows:
Example. Arlene dies in December 2022. Just over five years earlier she made gifts to her family. The gifts were PETs but became chargeable to IHT because she didn’t survive seven years. Because she survived between five and six years after making the gifts, the full IHT rate is reduced to 40% of its normal rate, i.e. 16% (40% IHT x 40% tapering).
The taper trap
Taper relief only reduces IHT where it’s payable on the value of the gift (PET) itself. Broadly, if the value of a gift is less than the IHT nil rate band there’s no IHT payable on it even if it forms part of the estate for calculating the tax payable.
When a person dies the IHT on PETs which become chargeable (known as failed PETs) is calculated before the IHT on the rest of estate. This means the IHT nil rate band (NRB) (the part of the estate taxable at 0%) applies to the failed PET first. So, unless the total value of all failed PETs within the seven years before death exceeds the NRB (including any NRB transferred from the deceased’s spouse or civil partner), there’s no IHT payable on the PETs and so nothing to taper. Nonetheless, the failed PETs have resulted in extra IHT on the estate.
Example. Nearly seven years ago Henry’s father’s estate was worth £900,000. In an attempt to reduce the IHT he made a gift of £250,000 to Henry. Unfortunately, his father dies before seven years had elapsed. The gift is a failed PET and so treated as the first part of the father’s estate. It therefore uses £250,000 of the estate’s NRB. Zero tax is payable on the value of the gift, so no tapering relief is due, but the NRB is reduced by £250,000 meaning there’s less to use against the remainder of the estate. This in turn increases the IHT on the estate by £100,000 ( £250,000 x 40%).
Insurance companies sell policies specifically to cover IHT bills resulting from failed PETs. They can be costly but overall cheaper than the tax on a failed PET and so are worth consideration. An alternative to an insurance product - a discounted gift scheme - is also worth considering. It can remove some of the value of a gift from your estate with less risk than a PET.
Related Topics
-
HMRC writes to non-domiciled taxpayers following rule changes
HMRC has begun issuing “one-to-many” letters to individuals affected by recent changes to the tax rules for non-UK domiciled taxpayers. The letters prompt recipients to review their tax position under the new regime. What does this mean if you receive one?
-
Can officers ignore minor input tax errors?
If your business has claimed input tax on an invoice where the supplier has charged VAT incorrectly, HMRC can disallow your claim by issuing an assessment. Can the officer waive that power to achieve a common sense outcome?
-
Practical guide: Tax-efficient will planning with residential property
An individual has a significant property portfolio which provides them with their sole source of income. They want to gift shares in some property to their daughter but retain the income. Can they do this without triggering the reservation of benefit rules?