logo
Should I empty my pension into an Isa to dodge the looming 'double tax' on inheritance?

Should I empty my pension into an Isa to dodge the looming 'double tax' on inheritance?

Daily Mail​27-05-2025

I am worried the size of my pensions will make my children liable for inheritance tax after the changes from 2027.
I'm over 55, so is it a sensible idea to start making pension withdrawals, while keeping my annual income under the higher rate income tax threshold, and over time decant these funds into a stocks and shares Isa instead.
The idea would be to empty my pensions entirely into my Isa by the time I reach state pension age.
One of my reasons for doing this is that if I died after the age of 75 with some of my pension pot left, my children could face double taxation under the proposed new system, with inheritance tax on the pot and then income tax on their withdrawals.
I realise any money left behind in Isas is liable for inheritance tax too, but the investments can grow in a tax efficient way like in a pension. At least I could access and spend the money freely without worrying about income tax, and maybe not inheritance tax in the end either.
What would be the pros and cons of this strategy?
Tanya Jefferies, of This is Money, replies: Many savers with larger pensions are keen to avoid a new inheritance tax levy.
The money remaining in pension pots is going to become liable for death duties like other assets, such as property, savings and investments starting in April 2027.
Some wealthy families will face a 'double tax hit' on inherited pensions.
If a saver is aged over 75 when they die, their beneficiaries are still going to have to pay their normal income tax rate of 20 per cent, 40 per cent or 45 per cent on pension withdrawals too.
For a 45 per cent taxpayer this represents a 67 per cent tax rate, and the tapering of the residence nil rate band down to nothing on estates worth £2million-plus would mean an effective tax rate of 70.5 per cent.
It's no surprise then that people are casting around for ways to cut or eliminate a heavy future tax bill for their family.
Before you even start worrying about this though, you should first consider if you really are likely to have a big enough estate to pay inheritance tax, especially after you have spent down your pensions during retirement.
Scroll down to check the rules on who pays inheritance tax.
Among those who will be affected, some are looking to cash in as much of their pensions as possible, while avoiding a big income tax bill - although it is better to avoid crystallising losses by making bigger pension withdrawals in market downturns.
Recent research showed many savers with larger pensions intend to spend them by splashing out on more holidays.
Other options include gifting out of surplus income which remains inheritance tax-free providing you can afford it, or buying life insurance and putting it in trust.
Some savers will be deciding whether to leave more or all of their estate to spouses, who can still benefit from estates free of inheritance tax, instead of their children to delay and minimise the eventual bill.
Wealth manager Evelyn Partners has suggested we could see a marriage boom or rise in civil partnerships among older couples as a result, and it has suggested six ways to cut inheritance tax on pensions here.
Meanwhile, some people have raised the idea of siphoning pension funds into an stocks and shares Isa - even though these are also liable for inheritance tax, and there are other pitfalls.
Several commenters on this recent story about families falling into the pension inheritance tax trap said they had started doing this already.
We asked an experienced financial adviser to give his take on this strategy below.
Ian Cook, chartered financial planner at Quilter Cheviot, replies: While it might seem intuitive to start drawing down a pension to move funds into a stocks and shares Isa in anticipation of inheritance tax changes, this approach comes with significant trade-offs that need careful consideration.
From 2027, the government plans to bring pensions fully into the scope of inheritance tax.
This has prompted concern among individuals with sizeable pension pots who are understandably looking for ways to mitigate a potential future tax bill for their beneficiaries.
However, emptying a pension now in favour of an Isa could backfire.
Firstly, withdrawing pension funds incurs income tax, and if you're still working or exceed your personal allowance, you could pay 20 per cent or more on each withdrawal.
For example, to invest £20,000 into an Isa, you'd need to make a gross withdrawal of £25,000, instantly losing £5,000 to income tax.
If those funds are then liable for 40 per cent inheritance tax later, you've effectively turned £50,000 in your pension into just £30,000 in net Isa capital.
Isas, while tax-free in terms of income and gains, are fully liable for inheritance tax.
Pensions while set to lose their favourable inheritance benefits still retain certain advantages, such as the ability to make gifts out of surplus income.
There's also the matter of future reform. Isa rules are currently under review and there is no guarantee that today's generous allowances or freedoms will remain.
Once you begin taking taxable income from your pension, you also trigger the Money Purchase Annual Allowance, reducing the amount you can contribute to pensions each year from £60,000 to just £10,000.
This can significantly limit your ability to rebuild pension savings later if your financial circumstances change.
And let's not forget longevity. At age 55, life expectancy stretches another 30 years or more.
With such a long time horizon, the benefits of compounding inside a pension wrapper are hard to beat.
For someone who doesn't need the funds urgently, leaving the money invested in a pension could result in significantly higher long-term value.
Converting pension wealth to Isa capital purely to try and dodge future tax could prove an expensive misstep
Ultimately, this kind of planning should be objective-led. If the aim is intergenerational wealth preservation, pensions still hold the upper hand.
If the goal is accessibility and spending flexibility, Isas have a role.
But converting pension wealth to Isa capital purely to try and dodge future tax could prove an expensive misstep.
We'd advise waiting until we have certainty on how the 2027 reforms will be implemented before making any drastic changes.
That said, if someone has a very large pension and looked set to go over the previous lifetime allowance, then the amount of tax-free cash available to them may now be capped.
Under current rules, the maximum amount that can be withdrawn tax-free is generally limited to £268,275.
In those instances, it may be sensible to begin building Isa wealth from other savings or income sources, rather than adding more to the pension.
This can provide greater tax-free accessibility later in life while preserving the pension's longer-term tax benefits.
How much is inheritance tax and who pays?
Inheritance tax is levied at 40 per cent on estates above a certain size.
Your estate is the term given to all the things that you own at death. Valuing this involves adding up everything, from your stake in your home, to your savings and investments, your car and your personal belongings.
As an individual, your estate needs to be worth more than £325,000 for your loved ones to have to stump up inheritance tax.
This can be doubled to £650,000, jointly, for married couples or civil partners, who have not already used up any of their individual allowances.
A further crucial allowance, the residence nil rate band, increases the threshold by £175,000 each for those who leave their home to direct descendants.
This gives a total potential extra boost of £350,000 and creates a potential maximum joint inheritance tax-free total of £1million.
But the own home allowance starts being removed once an estate reaches £2million, at a rate of £1 for every £2 above the threshold.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers

Telegraph

time9 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers

Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper.

EXCLUSIVE Ministers admit they spent £35,580 - more than a nurse or teacher's annual pay - on thousands of BEER MATS in pubs to boast about minimum wage going up
EXCLUSIVE Ministers admit they spent £35,580 - more than a nurse or teacher's annual pay - on thousands of BEER MATS in pubs to boast about minimum wage going up

Daily Mail​

time41 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

EXCLUSIVE Ministers admit they spent £35,580 - more than a nurse or teacher's annual pay - on thousands of BEER MATS in pubs to boast about minimum wage going up

Labour ministers have admitted they spent £35,580 - which is more than a nurse or teacher's starting salary - on beer mats in pubs. The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) revealed the sum was spent on printing the drink coasters as part of an awareness campaign. Some 500,000 beer mats were distributed to 1,000 pubs across the country to help ensure workers were aware of this year's increase to the national minimum wage. Those who used or saw the beer mats were urged to 'make sure you're getting paid correctly' by visiting the website. Justin Madders, the minister for employment rights, said the distribution of beer mats was 'a unique opportunity to engage audiences in a social, high-dwell environment'. He described pubs as places 'where financial conversations naturally occur', adding: 'This setting encourages discussion and word-of-mouth sharing about rate changes.' According to the Government's National Careers Service website, the salary of a nurse at the beginning of her career is £31,000. And a newly-qualified secondary school teacher can expect to earn £32,000 a year. Mr Madders revealed the spending on beer mats in reply to a written parliamentary question by Tory MP Richard Holden, the shadow paymaster general. He said this year's campaign to advertise higher rates of the national minimum wage and national living wage was budgeted to cost up to £650,000 in total. 'The cost to advertise in pubs using beer mats was £35,580, which was approved at official level,' Mr Madders added. 'The 2024 campaign saw an increase in reach to eligible workers. 'However, recognition remained low, reinforcing the need for bolder, more engaging formats for the 2025 campaign, which expected to deliver an estimated 3.2 million impressions.' In April, the national living wage for those aged 21 and over rose from £11.44 per hour to £12.21 per hour. Meanwhile, the national minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds was increased from £8.60 to £10 per hour. But, despite the boost to pay packets, experts warned working age households are on track to be £400 worse off on average in this tax year. The Resolution Foundation said households were facing a 'triple hit' from the impacts of tax, higher bills, and benefits that are not keeping pace with the cost of living. Long-running freezes to personal tax thresholds will mean some people are dragged into paying more tax. And Labour's hike to employer national insurance will feed through to households through slower wage growth as employers recoup costs, the think tank said. The hospitality industry - including pub bosses - issued dire warnings about the impact of the national insurance hike when it was announced at October's Budget. They expressed fears about a 'double whammy' increase to costs, due to the rise in the national minimum wage coming in at the same time.

Why Man United can freely spend in transfer window
Why Man United can freely spend in transfer window

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Why Man United can freely spend in transfer window

Manchester United cut their wage bill by £20m in the third quarter of the financial year, aiming to comply with Financial Fair Play regulations and fund summer spending. Sir Jim Ratcliffe 's cost-cutting measures led to over 250 staff redundancies, reducing staff payments to £71.2m from over £91m year-on-year. Departures and loan deals for players like Marcus Rashford, Antony, and Tyrell Malacia, along with the absence of Champions League bonuses, contributed to the reduced wage bill. United have initiated summer transfer activities, agreeing to a £62.5m deal for Matheus Cunha from Wolves and bidding £45m for Brentford 's Bryan Mbeumo. Despite recording a net profit of £0.7m for the quarter, United acknowledges a disappointing season with their lowest finish in half a century and failure to qualify for Europe, expecting significant improvement next season.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store