Tag: Inheritance Tax

IHT on Pensions – It’s Iniquitous 

As you may be aware, the Chancellor in her last budget speech announced that unused pension funds would be brought into the scope of Inheritance Tax (IHT) from April 2027. There is a public consultation on this proposal, specifically to cover the administrative arrangements to enable collection of the IHT due on the death of a pensioner, but you can no doubt expand your explanations as to why this is a most iniquitous proposal.

I have already submitted a personal response to HMRC which is here: https://www.roliscon.com/_files/ugd/8ec181_315301fc03f24c828a7eceea00349a23.pdf . You are welcome to copy it. There is a link to the consultation in there. Please do respond to it.

As was said in an article in Investors Chronicle, “IHT on pensions will be a bureaucratic nightmare for grieving families”. It will inevitably slow down payments to inheritors or beneficiaries and will make for a considerably more complex tax system. Steve Webb, former Pensions Minister, said that bereaved families already face “huge challenges in winding up the financial affairs of a loved one”. This proposal will make their task even harder.

Not only will this proposal create needless work for lawyers and accountants, it will also mean more work for HMRC staff. All of this unproductive work could be avoided if the objective is simply to raise more tax revenue.

It is an ill-thought through proposal which has been rushed forward in the Labour Government’s hurry to raise more tax from the wealthy. It needs a rethink.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

Taxing Pensions – And Other Bad Ideas

It has been suggested in the national media that advisors to the Labour Government have recommended that the state pension should be subject to a means test. In other words, if you have other income you may not qualify for it even though you have been paying National Insurance for all your working life.

This is, I suggest, a most disreputable attack on those who plan adequately for retirement, or need to fall back on the state pension for basic living expenses. Life is very uncertain and sometimes illness can curtail working lives and lead to early retirement. The state pension is a useful backstop and making state pensions subject to a means test will undermine the principle that you receive the state pension because you have contributed to it.

After banning smoking in pub gardens this could be yet another unpopular Labour Government policy. I have not smoked for 40 years but I can see little scientific justification for such a regulation. Where is the evidence to show this will have any benefit in reducing cancer deaths when people can still smoke at home? It’s just another example of the Labour Government’s propensity to interfere in personal freedom and individual responsibility.

Other tax changes such as increasing Inheritance or Capital Gains Tax are also mooted. More unpopular changes that will have unintended consequences and may raise very little due to people taking avoidance measures. Capital Gains tax is already an unfair tax as it taxes imaginary gains generated by high inflation. This discourages investment as people will avoid investing and just spend all their income instead. Maybe that is the hidden agenda but it does not bode well for the health of the economy.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

IHT Business Property Relief on AIM Shares and Computerised Brain Implants

There were a couple of interesting articles in the FT today. The first was on the issue of Business Property Relief on AIM shares. You only have to hold them for 2 years to get 100% IHT tax relief. Some people consider that too generous and based on FOI Act requests it has been discovered that 68 estates obtained £1.8bn in relief in 2020-2021. In other words, relatively few people who might be classified as very wealthy obtained the relief.

This relief was intended to help family led businesses to remain in the control of the family the same as it is available for unlisted companies. There are a number of possible problems with removing this relief. Firstly it would discourage family controlled businesses from listing on AIM and hence limit their ability to raise equity for expansion. Removing the relief would undermine the careful long-term tax planning of wealthy individuals and there might be a rush to sell AIM holdings thus damaging the AIM market which already has a few problems with poor historic performance.

As a potential beneficiary of this relief I would be very opposed to any change in this area and a desire to raise more tax is hardly a justification for restricting the relief. It would make investing in AIM shares very unattractive as they are already very risky and generally have given poor returns.

The other interesting FT article was on Computerised Brain Implants and explained how they might help disabled people to walk again – for example those with damaged spinal cords. Even Elon Musk has an interest in this new technology field as it is seen as a possible way to enhance people’s intelligence and memory.

I might have found it useful myself a few years ago when I suffered from Intensive Care Neuropathy and had to learn to walk again. Whenever I watch the film Reach for the Sky, which I did again last week, I am reminded of this. This is the story of Douglas Bader who lost both legs in a flying accident but learned to walk and fly again using artificial legs. He rejoined the RAF and fought in the Battle of Britain. A truly great film from 1956 and the story of a very brave man.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Taking Cash From ISAs and IHT Reclaims

If like me you have been selling shares in your ISA during the market crash, you may now have a lot of cash sitting idle in your ISA. Most brokers pay no interest to you on it but prefer to collect it themselves. But now we are into the new tax year, there is a solution to this. Take the cash out and put it on deposit into a high interest current account. You will get over 1% interest.

You can put the cash back into your ISA without losing the tax reliefs so long as you do it within the same tax year (i.e. before April 2021). It is worth checking with your broker or platform provider that their systems support this though – mine certainly does.

If you expect the market to rebound quickly, you may not consider it worth bothering to do this, but the economic news and company results are surely going to be depressing for the next few months. Or as an article in the Financial Times said today: “The UK economy is heading for a recession that is forecast to be deeper than the 2009 financial crisis and one of the most severe since 1900; the coronavirus pandemic has seen consumer demand collapse and many businesses forced to close or significantly reduce operations”. Government moves to stimulate the economy may help but it still uncertain when business will get back to normal so holding cash in an interest paying account makes a lot of sense until the picture is clearer.

There was another interesting point raised in an article in the FT today under the headline “Wealthy seek inheritance tax rebates”. There may have been a number of deaths of elderly and wealthy relatives when stock markets were much higher. Inheritance Tax applies to the value of assets at the date of death, but it can take many months to obtain probate and for an executor to realise the assets. Shares may now be at a lower value so the tax is excessive. But for listed shares you can claim a rebate from HMRC. There is a similar provision for property.

Readers who are exposed to this problem should read the FT article and take professional advice on the subject.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Inheritance Tax Simplification – Perhaps

On Friday (5th July) the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) published their second report on the simplification of Inheritance Tax (IHT). You only need to read the report to see how complex it is at present. They have made some recommendations for changes but they are relatively minor. Major changes were ruled out. Even the suggested changes need to be accepted by the Treasury so they may not be implemented, and even if they are it appears likely that they would not happen quickly. These are some of the key proposals:

  • Exemptions for gifts might be simplified. For example, the exemption for “normal expenditure out of income” is unclear in effect and requires detail record keeping for many years which few people are capable of doing. They suggest it be replaced with a higher personal gift allowance. Tip: keep a spreadsheet of all income and expenditure (including gifts) if you are making personal gifts at present.
  • The 7-year period after which gifts are free from IHT also creates problems in record keeping (even bank statements are not retrievable after 6 years), particularly as it can extend to 14 years. Taper relief is another complication. The proposal is to scrap taper relief and have a simple 5-year rule for exemption.
  • The residence nil-rate band introduced a lot of complications in IHT calculations and received a lot of negative comments but they don’t propose to remove or simplify this area as they say it’s still relatively new and more time is required to evaluate its effectiveness. But it says some solicitors choose not to advise clients about this concession because it is so complicated!
  • They propose no change to the provision that reduces the IHT tax rate on all assets to 36% if a person leaves more than 10% of their estate to charity despite the fact that it is little used. Note: this is a very useful facility so if you have a will that does not include such a provision then you need to review it because it can reduce your overall IHT bill.
  • Business property relief, particularly on “unlisted” AIM shares, was considered in the review. It questions whether third party investors in AIM traded shares meet the “policy objective” of Business Property Relief (BPR). But it makes no specific recommendation other than noting that removing APR (Agricultural Property Relief) and BPR would fund a reduction in the main rate of IHT to 33.7% from 40%. However it does point out the anomalies in determining whether a business is trading or is just an investment vehicle and in non-controlling shareholdings held indirectly. It suggests this be reviewed.

Is there a threat to IHT relief on AIM shares? It is not clear that there is and certainly not in any short-term time frame. In any case, investing in AIM shares simply because they offer IHT relief is a bad policy. Investment should never be driven by tax considerations. In addition the requirement to hold them for 2 years makes for dubious trading decisions and the complexity in record keeping if one trades in the shares of AIM companies can be mind-boggling.

In summary the proposed changes, even if HM Treasury supports them, are not going to simplify IHT that much. You will still need to take expert advice on this area of your financial affairs and tax accountants will not be put out of work. There is no revolution proposed.

You can read the OTS report here: https://tinyurl.com/y65jubxz

Or read my original comments on what should have been done here: https://roliscon.blog/2018/05/31/inheritance-tax-review/

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

 

Majestic Wine, Brexit, Proxy Voting and Inheritance Tax Simplification

Majestic Wine (WINE) issued their interim results yesterday (22/11/2018). I no longer hold the shares but I am a customer of theirs. The financial results were disappointing with adjusted earnings down 63% and reported profit turned into a loss from a £1.5 million profit in the previous half year. Their explanation is increased marketing expenditure particularly on Naked Wines. Revenue overall was up 5.4% but what is the point in generating more revenue at a loss? As a customer I seem to be receiving fewer marketing communications from the company. No pre-Christmas promotion so far for example. Does this explain part of their difficulty?

Their “adjustments” that enabled them to report adjusted profits are, shall we say, interesting. It includes an adjustment for “en primeur” orders where title has not passed to the customer as it has not even shipped from the supplier so cannot be recognised as a sale. They also throw in a whole mass of acquisition and restructuring costs in their adjustments.

Needless to say, they are burning cash at a great rate, including putting more into inventory (see below), so I am not convinced they have a sound strategy. The share price dropped on these results despite the announcement being full of positive comments about the future.

One might call this “reporting dissonance” where the fine phrases and positive comments about future prospects do not match the hard financial facts.

Brexit

One interesting comment in the Majestic results was that they are stockpiling wine above their normal levels “to mitigate any supply chain Brexit disruption in March 2019”. That should really annoy the chattering classes in London if their booze supplies are disrupted and they cannot obtain their favourite tipples.

But we do now have an expanded (7 pages to 26) publication explaining the proposed UK’s relationship with the EU after the Withdrawal Transition period. You can find it here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/progress-on-the-uks-exit-from-and-future-relationship-with-the-european-union .

You’ve probably heard the phrase “gesture politics” which refers to how politicians make grandiose gestures with little real impact. This “Political Declaration” as it is called is surely one of the grandest of all gestures. It commits neither side to anything very specific although there are lots of fine words in there.

But it does cover some areas that I complained about in the Withdrawal Agreement. It’s the kind of political statement that is aimed to appeal to all sides of the political debate in the UK over Brexit plus EU bureaucrats and politicians. But it does not resolve clearly and unambiguously the issue of no border controls in Northern Ireland and our future trading relationship with the EU, or the Gibraltar issue that Spain is complaining about. Mrs May might just get where she wants to be at this rate, but whether she can do enough to win the support of the electorate, and even more importantly, the votes in Parliament, remains to be seen.

Proxy Voting

As a past shareholder in US companies, I always used to think their proxy voting system worked well. But apparently not according to an article in the FT this week. Under the headline “SEC urged to shake up proxy voting system” it reported that it was expensive, complex and prone to error. It actually took two months to calculate if a proxy vote on a board appointment at Procter & Gamble was won or lost. I was aware that the US system was prone to “over-voting” where more shares are voted that the company has in issue, but just as in the UK the turnout of retail investors in the vote is now very low at 29%. Companies, or people fighting a proxy battle, cannot get through to the end investors or beneficial owners and lending of shares by institutional investors also causes many shares not to be voted.

In summary the system is too complex and prone to error. The SEC is to undertake a review on how it could be improved. We surely need a similar initiative in the UK and the solution is a well-designed electronic system where every shareholder is on the register of a company, including those holding shares in nominee accounts.

Inheritance Tax

I mentioned in a previous article that the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) is looking at Inheritance Tax. They got a lot of submissions to their public consultation apparently and have now published a “first” report on the subject. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/office-of-tax-simplification-inheritance-tax-review . Here are some initial comments:

It is surprising to read that the average amount of tax paid, as a percentage of an estates value, increases up to the £2 million level and then levels off at about 20%. But if your estate is worth more than £8 million then the percentage decreases. In other words, the very wealthy pay less tax. These figures are explained by high levels of exempt transfers to spouses but particularly for the rich, the extensive use of reliefs. This is surely a case of the very wealthy employing clever tax advisors while the middle classes whose wealth can reside mainly in expensive houses find it more difficult to avoid. This just demonstrates that the tax is not exactly rational nor equitable.

The OTS received many negative comments about the complexity of IHT returns and these on the issue of Lifetime Gifts:

  • The various gift rules and exemptions can be complex and confusing and are not always well understood, especially those relating to the tapering of the tax rate for gifts given in the seven years before death.
  • The financial limits for the various exemptions have not kept pace with inflation (it being recognised that increases would have an Exchequer cost).
  • For many, it is difficult to either maintain or reconstruct records of lifetime Gifts.

The complexity of the Inheritance Tax forms that executors are expected to complete is acknowledged as an issue and the recommendation is that these should be replaced by a digital system. Pending such a system being implemented the current paper forms should be changed and the guidance that is provided simplified.

At present inheritance tax must be paid within 6 months but forms only need to be returned within 12 months. There is also the problem of having to pay the tax before the assets may have been realised. All the OTS says on these issues is that HMRC should explore potential solutions.

They also suggest some possible simplifications of the IHT regulations for Trusts. But in general this report only suggest relatively modest changes to the administration of estates rather than a proper simplification of this area of taxation. Perhaps there will be more in future reports.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Inheritance Tax Review

The Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) have published two items that will be of interest to investors. Firstly they have called for evidence to support a review of Inheritance Tax (IHT) and secondly a note on “routes to simplification” of the taxation of savings income. The latter is horribly complex so I will deal with that later in a separate post.

Inheritance tax is slightly less complex but since recent Chancellors decided to use it as a sop to the middle classes with such rules as the ability to leave property to children and grandchildren of up to £1 million, it’s been getting a lot more complex. It’s now reached the level where few people understand it and what effect it may have even when their tax affairs are otherwise relatively simple.

Part of the problem has been rising property prices. More than 14,700 homes were sold for more than £1 million last year according to Lloyds, and a lot of those will have been in London and the South-East. The Government sees it as a popular political stance to enable such homes to be passed on to children, rather like one can pass on certain pensions now, while not requiring their sale to meet medical or social care in later life.

Rather than simply raise the inheritance tax threshold, to stop the rapid increase in the number of people who are liable for inheritance tax (although that’s still less than 5%), the clever folks in the Treasury devised alternative rule changes that ameliorated the impact of increasing property wealth for certain sections of the population (e.g. property owners). But those who have to act as executors and deal with probate are faced with increased complexity.

You can see the impact of rising property prices if you know that IHT is charged at 40% and applies to assets as little as £325,000 (that’s where the nil rate band ends) – so almost everyone living in London may pay it if they have no close relations or other “allowable” exceptions such as business assets.

It’s not just property that causes complications though. Unlisted companies such as AIM stocks are business assets and hence with typical private investor share portfolios now often holding a significant proportion of such shares these complicate the calculation. That is particularly so as not all AIM shares qualify and they need to have been held for some years.

The OTS are keen to hear from individuals as well as professionals with an interest in this area. There is an easy on-line survey you can complete here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/inheritance-tax-review-call-for-evidence-and-survey

Please help them by responding. You can also send comments to them via email to: ots@ots.gsi.gov.uk . You might suggest to them that the present arrangements seem to generate work for tax accountants while baffling the general public but at the same time generating very little in revenue to HMRC. It’s certainly a tax that requires simplification. The original objective of inheritance tax seems to have been the socially beneficial aspect of preventing large wealth being passed on and accumulating through the generations. But at present the rich mainly avoid it – they set up trusts or move to another country. Meanwhile the middle classes tend to pay it and suffer the absurd complexity at the same time.

Here are some personal suggestions from me for simplification:

  1. The nil rate band should be raised to £2 million – effectively covering most normal family homes and avoiding the need to sell the house to meet IHT liabilities for children still in occupation. The Osborne changes that permitted property to be passed on should be scrapped.
  2. The IHT exception for AIM shares should be abandoned. The complexities of what may or may not qualify for that make planning difficult and potential savings on IHT are a poor reason or motivation for buying high-risk AIM shares. The desire to encourage investment in early stage companies is hardly a justification for most retail investors as they can rarely buy AIM company shares in IPOs and management/founders have other tax incentives such as entrepreneur relief. If such encouragement is required then other tax concessions (e.g. on capital gains) might be better.
  3. The seven-year rule for exemption of gifts is actually more complex than it first appears to be and can extend more than 7 years if multiple gifts are made I understand. Together with the tapering of such relief, it can become difficult to predict the likely liability particularly as forecasting when the donor might die is usually not easy. I suggest this relief be restructured to provide more certainty about the tax liability and it’s worth considering switching to a tax on gifts received.
  4. The existing IHT rate of 40% should be reduced as it encourages complex, and expensive, tax planning. A lower rate of tax might actually encourage more people to pay it rather than go to the trouble of setting up complex plans to avoid it.

In summary IHT has become too complex and needs to be simplified. However it’s worth bearing in mind that individuals have often planned their financial affairs based on existing tax rules. Abrupt changes to tax rules and allowance should be avoided.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.