Homer says ‘Doh’ to DOTAS

The recent announcement that IHT mitigation via transfers into trust is likely, in future, to be included in the DOTAS (Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes) regime was received with some trepidation by advisers accustomed to assisting their clients with IHT mitigation.  In reality this proposal by the Treasury and HMRC is nothing more than was expected following the blocking in the Finance Act 2010 of two specific trust schemes which dramatically (and arguably artificially) reduced the value of assets gifted into trust.

Now that the coalition has nailed its IHT colours to the mast by freezing the Nil Rate Band (NRB) for 5 years it is backing this, much harsher than heralded, approach with supporting legislation to plug as many leaks as possible.  The consultation document introducing the DOTAS requirement does not seem unreasonable in the circumstances and certainly does not impact on most conventional IHT mitigation work using the various trust schemes which are widely available.  What is being suggested as far as disclosure is concerned?

The new rules will not require any existing schemes well known to HMRC (such as flexible and discounted gift schemes) to register because they are being ‘grandfathered’ in to acceptability.  Looking forward it will only be new trust schemes which (a) involve chargeable transfers beyond the donor’s current allowances, including any unused NRB – in other words where property becomes ‘relevant property’ – AND, (b) which involve an ‘advantage’ in relation to the IHT entry charge – an advantage being defined as the avoidance, reduction or deferral of a charge – which have to be registered.

This avoids any requirement to disclose straightforward situations where an individual simply transfers property into trust and relief or exemption is available in the same way it would have been had the property been gifted directly to another individual.  This is generally the case with most of the current crop of trust-based mitigation arrangements.  The proposals are only at the consultation phase so it is too early to be unequivocal about the requirements for plans launched in the future.  However the grandfathering facility will ensure that all existing plans of which HMRC are aware – and future plans which adopt the same principles as existing plans – will be quite safe.  In fact this is the nearest we have ever come to having a blanket approval from HMRC of all existing plans.

What does this mean for tax planners and their clients going forwards?  Well we should start by considering the position of taxpayers who have been relying on either the indexation of the NRB or, more recently, the Tory commitment to a transferrable £1m NRB, to lift them out of potential liability.  I think this is bad news for such optimists.  It is clear that a Lib-Con coalition government has a rather less generous approach to inherited wealth than that promised by the Tories.  Freezing the NRB for 5 years when the knock-on impact of ‘quantitative easing’ (printing money) is likely to be rampant inflation down the line is really quite serious.  I think most readers will agree that inflation is already rearing its ugly head no matter what interest rates are doing.  Looking further ahead there has been plenty of speculation that the coalition might well continue through until another term of government – especially if next year’s referendum delivers backing for the Alternative Vote electoral model.  This will mean a continuation of a cautious approach to raising IHT allowances.

The following chart shows the value of the NRB compared with assets starting at the same value rising with inflation.

This means that taxpayers currently on the cusp of a potential IHT liability will be severely disadvantaged by the freezing of the NRB – assuming inflation of 4% over the next 2 years followed by 8% for 3 years.  Readers may doubt such a scenario but not if they are German historians!  In the situation shown, a potential liability of nil at the beginning would become a liability of some 40% of £117,814 (tax of £47k+) after 5 years, simply resulting from inflation.

This brings me on to a favourite phrase of my IHT planning friend, Nick Chadwick, who constantly reminds taxpayers to ‘hope for the best but plan for the worst’.  This has served him well over several decades of capital tax planning and, I suspect, he will be proven right yet again!

So the message here is that all those advisers and their clients who, since 2008 when they were given false hope by the posturing of Alistair Darling and George Osborne, have put off their IHT mitigation planning, have no time to lose.  Since many of these people are relying on multiple use of the NRB, every day is important in clocking up those 7 year inter vivos periods.  Remember – hope for the best but plan for the worst – start your IHT mitigation planning today.

Paul Wilcox,
Chairman & Technical Director, WAY Group
9th August 2010

Posted on 9th August, 2010 | Tags: HMRC, IHT Mitigation, Nil Rate Band |
Comments: Have Your Say

Don’t sit on the fence – you’ll only get splinters!

With at least one budget and at least one election in prospect for 2010, WAY Investment Services Ltd’s Technical Manager Mark Benson says that there is no time to delay before putting in place IHT mitigation plans for your clients. Given the average gestation period of an IHT case from agreement to settlement and with the (first) budget possibly a month away, the time to start is really today.

A recent IFA enquiry caused me to open the file of a WAY Inheritor Plan settled in February 2004 with an investment of £1,100,000. A number of thoughts sprung to mind such as how growth of over £300,000 in the investment value since then is safely out of the estate of the settlor and thus not subject to IHT on their death, and how in a year’s time the whole trust fund should also fall out of the estate at the end of the 7 year inter-vivos period. The overriding thought that came to mind however was “£1.1m transferred into a flexible trust – those were the days!” Whilst cases of such a size are unfortunately rather rare, it is interesting to reflect on how easily planning could be put in place for such amounts prior to the surprise change to the IHT rules in the 2006 Budget, which shut the door on PET based transfers to discretionary or interest in possession settlements. Nowadays unfortunately our settlor could not put much more than the amount of growth they have enjoyed into trust without breaching the nil rate band and generating a lifetime IHT charge of 20%.

There is a cautionary tale here as 2010 promises to be something of a white knuckle ride for tax planning as the political parties try to balance the challenge of dealing with the financial crisis with the desire to be generous in their manifesto promises ahead of the election. What is certain is that we must have one budget and one election this year. However, whilst May 6th remains a solid favourite for the date of the election – in particular since local elections are already scheduled for that day and cash-strapped local authorities could do without paying for two polls within a few weeks – the odds on the Conservatives as favourites to win that election have lengthened somewhat as the opinion polling shows a narrowing of their lead. With the likelihood of a change of government and the possibility of a hung parliament we cannot discount the possibility of at least one more budget and perhaps one more election this year.

When considering the dismal state of the nation’s finances and the unconvincing emergence from recession, it would seem that there is one thing we can be certain about: The forthcoming budget(s) will make the tax code more hostile to our clients’ income and capital. It is possible that the availability of trust based IHT planning might be attacked itself, akin to the changes introduced in 2006. Moreover there is also the strong possibility that an unfavourable change to the rate of income tax, CGT or IHT would dilute the savings on offer. Some may argue that the Conservatives have pledged to increase the IHT nil rate band to £1m in the first term of a prospective government, however we feel that given the fiscal challenges that lie ahead this might be a policy that remains an aspiration only. Any prospect of a first term introduction surely lies nearer the last year of the parliament.

The prospect for the next few years is that IHT will remain a challenge to succession planning, and if another aggressive attack on the use of trusts is made we might in time look back on the present as another golden opportunity that has passed. Where clients are hesitant to put plans in place due to the uncertain future, their minds can be put at ease by the recommendation of flexible arrangements such as the WAY Inheritor Plans. Our plans can adapt to the client’s changing circumstances by granting flexible powers to the trustees and also to changes to the rates of lifetime taxes by (uniquely in the market) offering access to collective investments and offshore bond wrappers. Furthermore, since clients are limited to investments within the nil rate band it is necessary to start at a younger age and (hopefully) make repeated use of the nil rate band over the years to come.

At some point in 2010 a government will face up to the reality of our financial crisis and present the bill for the remedy to taxpayers.  Those still sitting on the fence at that time will suddenly feel the splinters!

Mark Benson, TEP CertPFS,
Technichal Manager, WAY Investment Services Limited.
19th February 2010.

Posted on 19th February, 2010 | Tags: IHT Mitigation |
Comments: One Comment

IHT – avoid but don’t evade

It has been a frenetic few years for IHT mitigation.  Pre-owned assets tax (POAT) in 2004, the taxation of trusts in 2006, false promises by the Tories in 2007 and a major fall in asset values in 2008, have all kept taxpayers and financial planners well and truly on their proverbial toes.

Now Alastair Darling’s pre-budget report (PBR) has thrown yet another cat amongst the pigeons.  The double whammy this time is the removal of a previously legislated increase in the Nil Rate Band/NRB (under the Finance Act 2007, the personal nil rate band was due to rise to £350,000 in April 2010, but it will now stay at £325,000) and an attack on some specific strategies which have been using legislative loopholes relating to trusts.

Some commentators have speculated as to whether Darling’s comments in the PBR, about future legislation regarding trusts, spell the end for IHT mitigation as we currently know it.  In fact HMRC has no desire to upset conventional IHT planning using long-accepted trust-based solutions – all of which were brought into the taxable ‘relevant property’ regime in the Finance Act 2006.

HMRC and the Treasury remain fair and even-handed in their approach to collecting IHT.  All absolute gifts, at any level, remain potentially exempt transfers (PETs), whilst chargeable gifts to the full extent of the taxpayer’s NRB can be made every 7 years without any tax being incurred.  Furthermore regular gifts of any amount, from surplus after tax income, are immediately exempt.  All of these facilities remain, as do the various long-established trust schemes that have been available over the last decade and more.  It is flagrant abuse and the exploitation of inadvertent loopholes which is being attacked in forthcoming legislation.

As Nick Chadwick (well-renowned architect of some of the signature IHT mitigation schemes of the last two decades) recently explained to me “the acceptable spirit of tax avoidance has to reside within the house of fair play as secured in case law. Thereby evolving rules, where the law is inevitably silent on many issues, offer no protection from retrospective legislation at worst and swift blocking at best. HMRC will give confirmation of schemes that fall within the acceptable spirit of IHT avoidance. Failure to obtain this will be fatal for some providers, sooner or later”.

There are many conventional trust arrangements available, now and for the foreseeable future, which permit taxpayers to efficiently remove assets from their chargeable estates, whilst maintaining suitable ongoing flexibility for both themselves and their beneficiaries. There is therefore little need to seek out schemes which operate outside the confines of acceptable tax mitigation.

By far the bigger problem is the inertia suffered by many potential IHT payers who still seem to think this tax will somehow either mysteriously disappear or their estate values will be overtaken by the Tories enhanced NRB.  It should be clear to everyone at this point that for the foreseeable future there will be no appetite for either reducing or eliminating the impact of what is still seen as a wealth tax.  Not only does the ongoing budget deficit make it a non-runner but current public ambivalence toward MPs, bankers and others perceived as wealthy and privileged makes the easing of Inheritance Tax politically unthinkable.

George Osborne recently admitted on the Andrew Marr show that the Tory ambition to substantially raise the NRB was now pencilled in for later in their term of office.  But if New Labour can reverse actual enacted IHT legislation after only 2 years we surely know what expediency to expect from the Tories during their own turn in government.

With asset values likely to continue their recovery over the next year or two the business of carefully planned and executed IHT mitigation (particularly taking full advantage of somewhat depressed current values) is likely to blossom once more.  But be warned; HMRC will take an increasingly dim view of those attempting to exploit schemes operating on principles which rely on “reading between the lines” of existing tax legislation and are against the spirit of the law.

The two recently closed loopholes related to the purchase of (exempt) interests in excluded property trusts and the absolute gift (and therefore potentially exempt transfer) of retained reversionary interests within trusts. 

The first of these permitted a purchaser to buy (exchange taxable cash for) an exempt family interest in an exempt trust, thereby removing any future potential IHT charge from that value.  The second loophole involved the immediate and absolute gift of a retained reversionary interest which had already benefited from a discount to its value.  In this arrangement the taxpayer used a two step process to convert an otherwise chargeable gift into a combination of an initial small chargeable gift swiftly followed by a larger potentially exempt transfer.

In conclusion then, with the Tories recently announcing, that based on their analysis of ONS statistics in the newly published ‘Wealth in Britain’ report, some 4 million taxpayers are still likely to incur an average IHT bill of £60,000 (Guardian newspaper 29 December 2009) there is no time to lose.  Help your clients avoid this heinous tax by engaging in good down-to-earth IHT planning including, where necessary, the use of one or more of various highly-effective but conventional trust-based mitigation arrangements which remain available.

Paul Wilcox,
Chairman & Technical Director, WAY Group.

Posted on 22nd January, 2010 | Tags: IHT Mitigation |
Comments: Have Your Say

Still strong reasons to run adviser funds

New guidelines on distributor influenced funds are designed to ensure customers are treated fairly and should not prevent advisers from offering their own portfolio-style collective funds.

Access to financial advisers’ own portfolio-style funds can bring benefits for clients. I outlined these benefits in a previous article, which struck a chord with a number of discretionary investment managers, some of whom already run such funds and many who do not but would like to.

Several firms have expressed concerns about the cost, inconvenience and responsibilities of taking this path, as well as the imminent impact of the retail distribution review (RDR) and the alleged negative attitude of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) towards ‘distributor influenced funds’ (DIFs).

Having been involved with DIFs since 1991, I am an avid fan of delivering discretionary investment management to clients via the most effective means: collective investment. What I mean here is delivering sound, bespoke, portfolio-style management via the most cost-effective and tax-effective route by pooling clients’ assets into collective funds.

One size does not fit all, so you will have to supplement this approach by:
(i) having more than one single strategy (fund) to suit different risk appetites and possibly capital and income objectives;
(ii) being prepared to supplement such core solutions with more specialised investments to finely tune each client’s individual portfolio solution.

Two advantages of adviser funds
There are two key arguments for clients entrusting their investment funds to their advisers’ own portfolio-style funds. First, there is far more accountability: the client can meet face-to-face with a good local and personal investment team for regular reassurance about the style and substance of the management.

Second, a good portfolio manager is not the same as a good fund manager. A portfolio manager is running portfolio substitutes and therefore has a keener eye on the overall risk aspects of managing the client’s money. A specialist fund manager works to tight specifications of where they can invest and to what extent they need to maintain liquidity.

The most recent regulatory changes have allowed collective funds to mix and match underlying funds and direct equity investment, and to blend a much wider range of asset classes. This means contemporary portfolio-style funds can effectively mirror and replace virtually any bespoke portfolio.

The right firm for the job
Several firms service the third party fund market. Some are investment management firms, which tend to have more empathy with their guest managers, and others are administration companies, which focus on large scale administration activities. Either type of firm is likely to be able to guide new entrants through the steps needed to establish their own funds.

Whether a firm should embark on this is broadly down to a handful of criteria:

* Are they authorised to perform discretionary management or do they have an associate company who is?

* Do they have sufficient clients and assets under management to make the establishment of such funds a viable proposition for all parties, especially the clients themselves?

* Is there adequate understanding of the regulatory issues involved in running such funds?

* Are such funds likely to survive the commission-free/remuneration policies expected from the final guidelines to come out of the RDR?

* Do the funds comply with FSA guidelines on DIFs?

Support network is growing
A new trade association for companies associated with running their own portfolio-style funds, the Investment Funds Association, is a source of contact and support for its members and a centre of influence with the regulator. The nascent body (ifassociation.co.uk) has a growing membership that includes service providers, and many advisers who run their own branded portfolio-style funds. It may well become an essential forum for parties interested in this sector of the funds industry.

The target of regulations
The FSA has made it clear that its new guidelines on DIFs are not aimed at fund managers, collective scheme operators or private client investment managers whose investment management is central to their business proposition. These groups are already well regulated. They may be affected by the guidelines on DIFs, however, if their appointment as manager or their ongoing investment approach or accountability is under the control of the distributor of the funds in question.

The guidelines focus on several areas of responsibility that together ensure advisers are treating their customers fairly. In essence an adviser must be demonstrably competent, will be aware of, and will manage, any conflicts of interest, is obliged to be independent and deliver only suitable solutions, and must communicate all of these considerations to the client. Included in these issues will be those relating to costs and remuneration.

If this sounds off-putting then take heart: what is genuinely in the best interests of clients will undoubtedly pass muster with the FSA.

Nothing to fear
Regulation on DIFs is there to assist and protect clients and not to deny them the most effective and contemporary investment management solutions.

The regulator has an unenviable task of weeding out the incompetent, unethical or lazy among us. The competent, professional, ethical and conscientious adviser has nothing to fear.

The establishment of well-managed, portfolio-style collective funds will be a major benefit to all participants, advisers as well as clients.

Paul Wilcox,
Chairman & Technical Director, WAY Group.

Posted on 10th December, 2009 |
Comments: 2 Comments

When is a fund a portfolio?

Advisers’ own label funds are highly tax efficient
Clients who invest into IFA firms’ own-label portfolio-style collective funds can gain freedom from capital gains tax on their returns as well as keener pricing and the ability to mix and match funds.

When is a fund a portfolio?
Peter and Mary Singer are recently retired and have been taking advice on how to invest their surplus savings which, of course, includes tax-free lump sums from both Peter’s and Mary’s pensions.

Their adviser works within a major IFA firm which has its own fund management company offering discretionary investment management to clients such as the Singers. They have been advised to place a large part of their available funds within the firm’s own portfolio style collective funds with a smaller proportion directly invested in specialist funds and shares. They are concerned as to whether they are being shepherded into a fund which is as much for the benefit of the adviser as it would be for them.

This is an interesting dilemma which in some ways is part of the focus for the FSA’s current work on the much heralded Retail Distribution Review (RDR) and their recent thoughts on the merits or otherwise of ‘Distributor Influenced Funds’ (DIFs).

The answer lies in provenance
Following the 1980s scandals surrounding broker bond funds it would be lazy to simply write off ‘own label funds’ as yet another self-interested money-making idea for adviser firms. In fact in almost all cases this would be an incorrect assumption. To put these portfolio-style funds into context we need to follow their provenance from the discretionary investment services which have existed for more than a century, to their current highly contemporary manifestation.

It was traditionally the stockbroker to whom investors turned and the stockbroking community has a long history of managing individual bespoke portfolios for wealthy investors. The benefit of bespoke services was that each investor’s own requirements could be satisfied, by an individually-tailored selection of investments making up a personal portfolio. Furthermore the client was in direct personal contact with their stockbroker and was able to derive confidence from the personal nature of the relationship. Going back one hundred years or more the whole industry worked in a more leisurely and controlled manner than hitherto, commensurate with the limited speed of communications and administration of the day. In spite of increasingly volatile markets throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the manner in which these services operated continued undisturbed.

Sea change in control
It was only in the 1980s that a major sea change occurred following Margaret Thatcher’s removal of exchange controls in 1979. Investment managers then had increasing access to the international markets in order to buy shares in successful companies from across the world at the forefront of the new age of globalisation. This coincided with the information age when computerisation and global media access changed the investment scene forever. From that point on it became extremely difficult to operate effectively as a private client stockbroker whilst holding oneself out as an investment manager. Each of those jobs became so specialised that it was impossible to do both well. Either you were a client-facing stockbroker or you were a specialist investment manager. This demarcation has fed through to the typical high net worth advisory firms of today, whether stockbrokers or financial advisers, and the person you see for advice is generally the GP who within the practice employs investment specialists to actually manage client portfolios.

Own-brand portfolio evolution
All very interesting, but the relevance of ‘own brand’ portfolio-style funds is a direct consequence of this evolution and the various factors behind it. I remember managing over 700 individual discretionary portfolios back in the 1980s in the build-up to the market crash of 1987. When a change of direction was called for, my colleagues and I trawled through every single portfolio marking out the necessary re-balancing prompted by our strategic decisions. This certainly meant that every client received our individual attention but the process was fraught with stress and difficulty.

I recall many times when we worked through the night, collating all the dealing which we deemed necessary and which, in an ideal world, we should probably have done a day or two earlier had our systems allowed it. The problem was that any decision, say, to reduce exposure to Japan, which had fallen some 12%, in favour of an opportunistic exposure to Hong Kong, which had fallen more than 50%, involved a real decision on each client’s individual portfolio. This was because every single client had a slightly different Japanese exposure, depending on when they joined the service and which Japanese funds were favoured at the time. This scramble to re-balance portfolios rarely involved an examination of each client’s Capital Gains Tax (CGT) status because there just was not enough time to take that into account. This could always be justified by not allowing the ‘tax tail to wag the investment dog’.

The rise of the model portfolio
The result of that 1980s stockmarket fallout was a move by investment managers to convert these bespoke portfolios into ‘model’ portfolios, where clients with similar objectives and attitudes to risk held identical but suitably scaled portfolios. These were then deliberately managed for investment results and CGT was put to one side. With this new ‘model’ approach every single portfolio could be re-balanced in a trice because they were identical and could be managed via a simple spreadsheet.

Then in 1991 the unit trust regulations were changed, to allow collective funds which contained other collective funds to operate on a commercially viable basis. This was the penultimate step in the evolution of unitised portfolio management via portfolio-style funds. Compared with the evolved ‘model’ portfolios these new collective portfolios offered far greater economies of scale, much keener pricing (because of greater bargaining power) and complete freedom from CGT on underlying management. My firm ‘share-exchanged’ most of those 700 portfolios spread across three ‘models’ into three newly-constituted unit trusts launched specifically for that purpose.

The most recent changes to regulations have allowed collective funds to mix and match underlying funds and direct equity investment, as well as to blend a much wider range of asset classes. This means that contemporary portfolio-style funds can now comprehensively and effectively mirror and replace virtually any (far less efficient) individual, bespoke portfolio.

Trust in financial advisers
There may be very good reasons why the Singers should seriously entertain the advice of their financial adviser. The first is that a good local and personal investment management department can be met and ‘eyeballed’ by the client to offer regular reassurance about the style and substance of the management – there is far more accountability.

Secondly a good portfolio manager is not quite the same as a good fund manager. The portfolio manager is running portfolio substitutes and therefore has a keener eye on the overall risk aspects of managing the client’s money. The specialist fund manager works to very tight specifications regarding where they can invest and to what extent they can protect their funds by going liquid (the majority of specialist funds require the manager to remain relatively fully invested within their specialist area since that is the objective of the fund as specified in the prospectus).

A word of warning regarding the current obsession with performance tables. Do not be tempted to buy a portfolio-style fund based on performance tables. The job of a portfolio-style fund is to deliver safe and competitive ‘portfolio’ performance.

This means that individual constituents of the portfolio (the underlying holdings) need to be competitive within their own sectors, from a performance perspective, but the overall portfolio itself is meant simply to offer a sensible and rounded financial lifestyle solution.

Paul Wilcox,
Chairman & Technical Director, WAY Group.

Posted on 9th October, 2009 | Tags: Capital Gains Tax, CGT, IFA |
Comments: Have Your Say

Darling incentivises the wrong investors

Margaret Coles is a fit and healthy 73 year old widow.  Her late husband used his Inheritance Tax Nil Rate Band by leaving a holiday property to his children. She remains fairly well off with a house, various investments including an ISA portfolio, a healthy sum on deposit and two pensions.  Her son, Raymond, helps his mother to manage her financial affairs and has suggested she take immediate advantage of the new ISA limit for older persons announced in Alastair Darling’s recent Budget. He thinks there will be a stockmarket recovery within the next few months and believes she should capture the maximum benefit by adding to her substantial ISA portfolio by investing her 2009/10 ISA allowance now.

The primary benefit of placing investments within an ISA ‘wrapper’ is that they are then permanently exempt from Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and from higher rate Income Tax. But how beneficial are these concessions in general and, in particular, to Mrs Coles? Anecdotal evidence from advisors indicate that a high proportion of ISA holders could easily hold and manage their investments perfectly well and effectively tax-free by utilising their existing annual CGT allowances. Most ISA investors, such as Mrs Coles, are not higher rate Income Tax payers and so will not suffer any further tax on dividends/distributions. So, are they needlessly investing in ISAs?

The only real beneficiaries of these tax-exempt investments are either:

•  (a)those taxpayers who invest in cash or fixed interest investments (not equities or mixed funds) and who benefit from exemption from standard rate Income Tax on those specific investments, or
•  (b)higher rate taxpayers who are already utilising their annual CGT allowances.

For these two groups the continuing concessions are very good news. In particular young, dynamic, higher-rate taxpayers saving on a monthly basis into high growth funds for school fees and other medium term commitments, and doing so with the added benefit of pound cost averaging, are likely to benefit most. Whilst Mrs Coles is interested in boosting her flagging income, which has fallen with interest rates over the last year or so, she is certainly not in the second group. Even in her search for income the benefits of Income Tax relief on currently miniscule yields are not great.

In reality the Treasury is actually misleading naïve investors into thinking there are substantial tax benefits in retaining ISA portfolios into one’s dotage, while simply ensuring that it can continue to collect large amounts of IHT from the unwitting and unprepared elderly investor. Arguably investors from their mid-sixties onwards who believe they will have an IHT liability should no longer be holding ISAs and certainly should not be buying more. What so many of them do not realise is that they will suffer a punitive IHT sting at death, whereby at the top end they and their families potentially lose a colossal 40% of their hard-earned savings. This loss completely dwarfs the often marginal annual tax benefits resulting from the ISA wrapper.

So what can Mrs Coles do to avoid IHT on her accumulated savings? The answer is simple, she should encash her ‘tax-free’ ISA and supplement the proceeds to a total of £325,000 by selling a portion of her stockmarket investments and then make a gift of the total sum to her chosen beneficiaries via a flexible reversionary trust. Although gifts into such trusts constitute an IHT taxable transfer there will be no tax so long as the gift is within the current Nil Rate Band for IHT – £325,000 per person.

Such gifts then fall out of account after 7 years and so there is an opportunity for each taxpayer to make gifts up to this level every 7 years. Mrs Coles has a life expectancy of some 13+ years and so should easily survive the first 7 year inter vivos period and might even survive a second. Even should she not survive to see her gift fall out of account, any growth (recovery) enjoyed by the gifted assets will occur outside her chargeable estate.

A good flexible IHT gift trust will offer Mrs Cole’s trustees extraordinary ongoing flexibility over the trust whereby she can be supported with regular or occasional ‘reversions’ to top up her conventional income. In her case she will certainly need to replace income from her surrendered ISAs (Capital Gains Tax exempt) and part of her share portfolio (which she was able to dispose of within her annual CGT allowance and without incurring Capital Gains Tax).  Since the assets will have been placed within a gift trust then it is proper that drawings or reversions from the trust should be made available to replace that sacrificed income. The trust wording is sufficiently flexible to also allow the trustees to continue to look after the needs of her children and grandchildren in exactly the same kind of way as before the gift.

Assuming she does live those 7 years then she will have dramatically reduced the potential IHT liability on her death.   Moreover her ‘income’ is maintained and, via her trustees, she retains tremendous flexibility over the future return of funds from the flexible trust.  The table shows that at current levels her family is likely to benefit from a tax saving of some £130,000 which completely dwarfs any conventional’ benefit she is likely to receive from her ISAs.

 

Paul Wilcox
Chairman & Technical Director, WAY Group.

Posted on 24th April, 2009 | Tags: Budget 2009, IHT, IHT Mitigation, Inheritance Tax Nil Rate Band, ISAs |
Comments: One Comment