Opinion: Inheritance Tax inconsistencies prove it's time for wholesale reform

The richest aren’t paying their fair share of Inheritance Tax. It’s time to start again on this hated charge.
It’s no secret that Inheritance Tax is one of the least popular levies around.
A study by YouGov a few years ago found that 59% of people found it unfair, while it’s a subject guaranteed to lead to frayed tempers over the dinner table at many homes across the nation, mine included.
But it’s also a big earner for the Government. According to data from the taxman, the Government pocketed around £5.2 billion in Inheritance Tax receipts in the 12 months to January 2019.
In theory, the rate that you pay seems pretty simple – 40% on the value of your estate, above the Inheritance Tax threshold, which currently stands at £325,000.
But the actual effective tax rates people pay can be significantly different.
Make sure your valuables are protected: compare home insurance with Confused.com
How the super-rich are sidestepping Inheritance Tax
Canada Life has analysed data from HM Revenue & Customs to break down the effective Inheritance Tax rates paid by estates of different sizes, and it makes for some shocking reading.
The firm claims that estates worth more than £10 million end up paying an effective Inheritance Tax rate of just 10%.
That’s just half of the 20% effective rate paid by estates worth between £2 million and £3 million, while even estates worth £1 million to £2 million pay around 17%, significantly more than the richest.
Canada Life argues that this is down to the different assets likely to be seen in larger estates.
For example, the wealthiest estates are less likely to have a significant portion of that wealth tied up in residential property, but more likely to have significant amounts in securities, which can benefit from 100% tax relief.
In other words, the actual make-up of the estate becomes as important as the actual value when working out what you are likely to end up paying in Inheritance Tax.
Fail to prepare, prepare to fail
As Neil Jones, market development manager at Canada Life, puts it a “willingness to plan” will make a big difference to the effective tax rate your estate pays after you pass away.
As the tremendous, and comprehensive, loveMONEY guide to Inheritance Tax points out, there are a whole host of measures you can take to reduce the amount your estate has to hand over to the taxman before it gets divided between your loved ones.
By doing your homework in advance and making use of things like gift allowances – as well as moving your money into assets that are more likely to benefit from tax relief – you can make a significant difference to your eventual bill.
Make sure your valuables are protected: compare home insurance with Confused.com
What do we want from Inheritance Tax?
But this raises the question of what we want Inheritance Tax to be.
On the face of it, it seems a simple tax – if you leave an enormously valuable estate when you die, then you pay a flat rate of tax on a portion of it.
It seems like a progressive tax too, since only the richest estates pay it – currently just 5% of estates in the UK are subject to Inheritance Tax.
However, this clearly isn’t the reality of it, with the wildly inconsistent way that different assets can benefit from tax relief, to the various loopholes and potential tax breaks open to you if you start planning how to divide your estate up well before you actually die.
If you’re wealthy and have a decent financial adviser, you will end up paying less than people who are far less well off but who happened to purchase a home in the south before the house price boom.
That’s a ridiculous situation to end up in, and the only way to fix it is to strip the tax back to its fundamentals.
Last year the Office of Tax Simplification published its first report on Inheritance Tax, though this very much focused on the process side of things – the difficulties people face in filling in forms, the complicated nature of the guidance from the taxman, and the fact that the entire system is not online.
The body’s second report is due out this year, and should look in more detail on the actual make-up of the tax itself.
The current system is so complicated because, for years, the authorities have fiddled around at the edges rather than have the guts to carry out a wholesale reform.
It’s time to start again, removing all of the well-intentioned but unnecessarily complicated additions that have turned Inheritance Tax into a mess.
It may be bad news for the super-rich and their financial advisers, but that’s a price worth paying for a tax system that is fair.
Most Recent
Comments
-
Inheritance tax was originally conceived as a means to break the power of the landed gentry by forcibly reducing the size of their estates. The threshold was set very high. The Balmoral Castle and estate would have easily been exempt from the current £320000 threshold in 1850. I understand that most of the income from the crown estates goes directly to the government, so breaking up the crown estates would actually be a reduction in government income long term and counter-productive to tax receipts for HMRC. Due to currency depreciation caused by fractional reserve banking and other deliberate government policies, quite modest estates are now affected by this tax. The threshold hasn't been index linked. It suits government since they have an insatiable thirst for funds to facilitate their long list of boondoggle policies. Fairness went out of the window a long time ago. Governments are now desperate for cash to fulfil the socialist entitlement mentality of modern society which they court for votes.. The end result will be like Venezuela if no-one steps forward to counter the likes of Corbyn and others, whose solution is to increase taxes on everything that moves. I remember very well the time Denis Healey went cap in hand to the IMF for funds when 95% super tax on the rich wasn't working for labour. Scrap corporation tax, fix income tax at no higher than 45%, fix government inefficiency, fix NHS inefficiencies. Start by realistic pensions for civil servants. Proportional representation for MP's. No MP'S serve more than 2 terms. No person who has never had a proper job apart from studying politics at UNI is allowed to stand as an MP. Get a minister for SME's which are the core of our economy and pretty much ignored. I could go on but no-one is listening and I'm ready for my lunch break. Peace to everyone. LOL
REPORT This comment has been reported. -
They need as much tax as possible to prop up this failing system of the UK. It pays the people who make up the rules extremely well so why would they want to change it? I view the salaries of the government and H O Lords as benefits just like the benefits of the work shy. The only difference is the authorities know exactly how to look after their own interests ie. massive wages, pensions we can only dream about, long holidays, dubious expenses and they don't even need to be cutting edge or competent. Don't expect a change in inheritance tax any time soon!!
REPORT This comment has been reported. -
Its an insidious tax that undermines peoples perception of a fair and just system. But then there are many insidious taxes that undermines peoples perception of a fair and just system. To win you have to start young, claim poverty as a lifestyle and everyone else will keep giving you money. The titled (those with a job title) keep the entitled! At some point this system will collapse - Oh! I think it is happening right now! Better tax the titled some more.
REPORT This comment has been reported.
Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature
14 May 2019