
Most wealthy Britons FAILED this inheritance tax quiz - can YOU ace it?
Out of 3,000 people who earn above the £33,000 average annual salary and have at least £1,000 in cash savings, just a quarter aced a six-question test on the topic.
Misplaced confidence could lead to many families either caught off guard and facing burdensome bills or overprepared for future liabilities, said financial services firm Charles Stanley after carrying out the study.
The number of families paying inheritance tax is bound to rise in coming years due to frozen thresholds, high property prices and pending pension changes.
Inheritance tax is levied at 40 per cent on estates above a certain size. A couple leaving a family home to children and grandchildren can pass on a joint £1million tax free.
The key inheritance tax thresholds are explained below, or check our guide to inheritance tax.
Charles Stanley found 80 per cent of well-off people, weighted to be representative across all regions of the UK, claim they grasp how inheritance works.
Yet when probed further it turned out they were unclear on the rules, and especially on how much inheritance tax would be payable on their own estate.
Some 52 per cent said they knew how much their families would have to hand over to the taxman, but 48 per cent admitted they had no idea.
Meanwhile, some whose total assets are under the main £325,000 threshold for individuals wrongly think they will be liable.
The Charles Stanley research discovered the following knowledge gaps.
- Among those with an estate worth under £100,000, 42 per cent think that inheritance tax will be owed when they die, and estimate the amount at £35,000 on average although it would be zero.
- For those worth between £100,000 and £325,000, so still under the main threshold, 55 per cent think inheritance tax will be payable, and predict it as £48,000 on average.
- Many people with estates that could be liable are also in the dark.
Among those worth from £325,000 to £750,000, the average estimated to be payable was £56,000. Among those worth £750,000-plus the average estimated was £77,000.
However, thresholds are complicated so the amount could vary significantly in reality.
Some people's estates could be lifted out of IHT wholly or in part depending on whether they are married and passing a family home to their direct descendants.
But assuming no reliefs at all apply then on an estate worth £750,000, which is £425,000 above the basic individual threshold, a 40 per cent bill of £170,000 could be levied.
'Passing down an estate can be a great tool to building generational wealth, giving loved ones a chance to reap the fruits of your labour,' says Rob Morgan, chief investment analyst at Charles Stanley.
But he warns: 'A lack of understanding or knowledge around the IHT payable could catch them off guard, shouldering a large sum to pay which may result in the unnecessarily swift liquidation of assets or property sales.
'This is why estate planning is a critical aspect of wealth management - allowing you to make the most of your estate and finances, whether this is through gifting or donating in preparation, or even just keeping beneficiaries in the know to avoid any unpleasant surprises down the road in your absence.'
Do YOU understand inheritance tax? Take the test
Here's what Charles Stanley asked people to test their knowledge. Answer TRUE or FALSE to the statements below, then scroll down to find the correct answers and check your score.
1. Inheritance tax is only payable if the value of your home is above £325,000
2. Inheritance tax must be paid when anyone dies
3. If your estate is worth up to £325,000, inheritance tax must be paid on that full value
4. Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent if the value of the estate is above the £325,000 tax-free threshold
5. Everyone who received money from the individual who passed away in their lifetime is responsible for paying inheritance tax
6. Only those who received gifts from the deceased individual in the last seven years prior to their death need to pay inheritance tax, provided they gave away more than the £325,000 limit.
Answers
1. False. 2. False. 3. False 4. True* 5. False. 6. True.
How did you do?
Scored 0: See the box below and follow the links to our guides
Scored 1-3: You need to brush up on your knowledge
Scored 4-5: Well done
Scored 6: You aced it
Measure how you did against the original 3,000 people tested by Charles Stanley
The percentages who got a correct score for each question was as follows. 1. 30 per cent 2. 45 per cent 3. 42 per cent 4. 55 per cent 5. 44 per cent 6. 38 per cent.
* Some people might have got question four 'wrong' but really be right if they are knowledgeable about inheritance tax. It doesn't account for the residence nil rate band, which increases the threshold by a further £175,000 if you leave a family home to direct descendants, or that it is doubled if you are the surviving spouse in a couple.
How much is inheritance tax and who pays?
Inheritance tax is levied at 40 per cent on estates above a certain size.
You need to be worth £325,000 if you are single, or £650,000 jointly if you are married or in a civil partnership, for your loved ones to have to stump up inheritance tax. This threshold is called the nil rate band.
A further allowance, the residence nil rate band, increases the threshold by £175,000 each - so £350,000 for a married couple - for those who leave their home to direct descendants.
This creates a potential maximum joint inheritance tax-free total of £1million.
This own home allowance starts being removed once an estate reaches £2million, at a rate of £1 for every £2 above the threshold. It vanishes completely by £2.3million.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said in the last Budget these thresholds will be frozen until 2030.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Centrica, Energy Capital Partners to buy National Grid's LNG terminal for $2 bln
Aug 14 (Reuters) - British Gas owner Centrica (CNA.L), opens new tab will jointly buy National Grid's (NG.L), opens new tab Grain LNG terminal with U.S.-based infrastructure investor Energy Capital Partners (ECP), it said on Thursday, for an enterprise value of about 1.5 billion pounds ($2.04 billion). The LNG terminal, owned and operated by a National Grid subsidiary, is located on the Isle of Grain in Kent, in southeast England. It is the largest LNG import terminal in Europe by tank capacity and one of the largest in the world. "The Isle of Grain terminal is a strategic asset that will support the UK's energy security for many decades to come, keeping energy flowing reliably and affordably to households and businesses across the country as we transition to net zero," Centrica CEO Chris O'Shea said in a statement. LNG has become a vital source of gas for Europe, especially after the Russia-Ukraine conflict and as the subsequent Western sanctions on Russia disrupted energy markets. The resulting price surge continues to weigh on British consumers. Centrica said its 50% share of the equity investment in the terminal was about 200 million pounds, with roughly 1.1 billion pounds of the total deal value being debt related to the project. The agreement, first reported by the Financial Times on Wednesday, follows Centrica's bid in July to hold a 15% stake in the planned Sizewell C nuclear project. ECP is one of the largest private owners of natural gas generation and infrastructure assets in the U.S., which has become a major export hub for LNG. Subject to regulatory and national security approvals, the LNG transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of this year, Centrica said. ($1 = 0.7365 pounds)


The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Lloyds becomes UK's first bank to introduce £300 rule from end of this month
Lloyds customers will soon be able to use a new app feature to deposit coins and banknotes into their account at the same time as dropping off a parcel or picking up a pint of milk in stores. The feature uses a barcode, enabling people to deposit up to £300 per day in notes and coins, up to a maximum of £600 a month. People will be able to pay money in at more than 30,000 locations which have PayPoint. Nick Wiles, chief executive of PayPoint, said the network 'provides a vast range of essential services at the heart of communities across the UK, for everything from banking, utility, parcel, cash and government services. 'The ability of Lloyds customers to make cash deposits into their accounts at over 30,000 PayPoint locations will deliver more convenience and access for customers close to where they live.' After showing the barcode, which will be scanned, and depositing the cash, the money will appear in accounts within minutes, Lloyds said. The feature will be available from August 26. Customers of Lloyds and its brands Bank of Scotland and Halifax will be able to access it through the 'everyday' area in their app, generating a barcode, which remains valid for two hours. Customers can also continue using any branch of Lloyds, Halifax or Bank of Scotland for their everyday banking, or pay in cash at more than 11,500 post offices, the bank said. Gabby Collins, payments director at Lloyds, said: 'Our latest app feature now allows customers to pay in cash at their local PayPoint in just a few minutes – ideal if they are popping in for milk or dropping off a parcel.'


The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A policy that benefited the richest and cost the UK £100bn: it's long past time to end the fuel duty freeze
Nothing speaks so eloquently of the rundown state of Britain than potholes on the roads. Motorists rightly complain of the damage caused to their vehicles. Cyclists risk serious injury every time they mount their bikes. Increased road use from a rising population is one reason for the problem. Cuts to repair budgets are another. Fixing the problem will be expensive, with one estimate putting the cost of mending potholes in England and Wales at a hefty £17bn. Complaints about the state of the roads have made governments reluctant to arouse the ire of motoring lobby groups by raising fuel excise duty – the tax paid at the pump on fuel. The last chancellor to do so was Alistair Darling 15 years ago. The cumulative cost to the exchequer of the freezes and cuts to fuel duty since 2010 is put at £130bn – a colossal sum given the struggle governments have had to balance the books during that time. In reality, the days are numbered for fuel duty. Of the 34m vehicles on the UK's roads, 1.6m are fully electric, but that figure will rise steadily over time. Once petrol and diesel vehicles are phased out completely, the £24.4bn currently raised from fuel duty will dwindle to zero. That represents a sizeable and permanent hit to the public finances. Rachel Reeves has more immediate things to worry about. The weakness of the economy means the chancellor is at grave risk of breaking her self-imposed rule that day-to-day government spending should be matched by tax receipts. Reeves fears that breaking the rule would incur the wrath of the financial markets, while cutting spending would incur the wrath of Labour MPs. So she is scrabbling around for tax increases that don't break Labour's manifesto commitment not to raise the rates of income tax, VAT or employee national insurance contributions. This is not going to be easy. One estimate last week said Reeves will need to find more than £50bn to stick to her fiscal rule with a reasonable margin for error. Even though other forecasts suggest the figure may be lower than that, there will still be difficult choices to make. Faced with these pressures, Reeves should do two things. First, she should end the freeze on fuel duty, which has been kept in place no matter whether the cost of petrol and diesel is high or low. It is not just that Reeves could well do with the several billion pounds that a rise in fuel duty would harvest. Fuel duty is now a third lower, in real terms, than it was when Darling was at the Treasury, effectively cutting the cost of motoring and so creating incentives to drive more. Increased congestion and the potholed roads are consequences of that. The stated rationale for the protracted freeze since 2010 is that it helps hard-pressed motorists, but the main beneficiaries have not been white-van man but the better off, who drive more, own more vehicles and buy gas-guzzling SUVs. The richest fifth of households have benefited twice as much from the fuel duty freeze as the poorest fifth. Raising fuel duty in the budget should be a no-brainer for Reeves. But the chancellor also needs to come up with a plan for what to do once the era of all-electric vehicles finally arrives, and here there is an obvious solution: road pricing. Conceptually, there should be little problem with this idea. People expect to pay more for a train journey in rush hours. Hotels charge more for rooms on a Friday or Saturday when demand is higher. The same principle should apply to roads. There are reasons why ministers are reluctant to grasp this nettle. Fuel duty, while a regressive tax, is easy to understand. There are no issues with privacy and surveillance, as there would be with road pricing. Governments are sensitive to charges that they are planning to wage war on motorists. Given that only 5% of vehicles are electric currently, the transition may take longer than originally envisaged. No question, doing nothing has its attractions. But the costs of inaction will grow over time. A report by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI) said the loss of tax revenue from cars would be £10bn by 2030, £20bn by 2035 and £30bn by 2040. This would inevitably lead to chunky tax increases. Reducing the cost of motoring by continually freezing fuel duty would lead to more and longer traffic jams. Those still driving petrol and diesel vehicles would face a triple whammy: spending longer in traffic; paying higher taxes elsewhere to compensate for the lost fuel-duty revenue from those who transferred to electric vehicles; and paying three to four times more for tax and fuel than those who drive EVs. The TBI report outlined the four ways road pricing might work. Drivers could face a flat-rate charge for each mile they drive; costs could vary according to geographic area or specific roads, with costs increased in areas where congestion was higher; road users could be charged for each minute they spend driving; and finally an 'Uberised' model, where charges vary dynamically on the road used and the time of travel. Technically, it would be possible to make any of the approaches – or a combination of them – work. It speaks volumes that the report was published four years ago this month, since when inertia has reigned supreme. That needs to change because the do-nothing option is really no option at all. Larry Elliott is a Guardian columnist