logo
Families stung by 41% surge in inheritance tax investigations

Families stung by 41% surge in inheritance tax investigations

Times05-08-2025
Families are enduring a surge in inheritance tax (IHT) investigations as more are suspected of trying to avoid the 40 per cent charge.
The number of investigations opened by HM Revenue & Customs in the 2024-25 tax year reached a record high of nearly 4,000 — a 41 per cent increase on the previous year, when there were 2,807.
HMRC begins an investigation if it suspects IHT could have been underpaid, either through error or a deliberate attempt to undervalue the assets in a person's estate. The taxman can use wide-ranging powers to gather evidence from various sources to understand the dead person's financial situation.
Sean McCann from the wealth manager NFU Mutual, which used a freedom of information request to get the HMRC data, said: 'This can include analysing bank statements to identify income, which may suggest the existence of undisclosed assets such as investments or property, or significant foreign currency transactions.'
IHT investigations can often take months or even years to complete. They examine gifts made in the seven years before death (those made earlier are not counted as part of the estate for inheritance tax purposes), life insurance premiums and overseas assets — areas where families often make innocent mistakes when declaring assets.
In one case that reached a tax tribunal in 2015, two brothers believed that valuable paintings had been given to them many years before their parents' death, so should be excluded from IHT. But because the paintings had never left the family home, the parents were deemed to have continued to benefit from the gift — by displaying them — and HMRC ruled they were still part of the taxable estate. Such gifts are classed as 'gifts with reservation of benefit' and remain subject to inheritance tax even if their ownership has technically changed.
A common trap involves parents transferring ownership of their home to their children but continuing to live in it rent-free, which also counts as a gift with reservation of benefit. To remove a property from an estate for IHT purposes (providing it also passes the seven-year rule), the original owner must either move out or pay full rent— something many families overlook.
• Surge in wealthy using insurance to beat inheritance tax hit
McCann said: 'The interest rate you pay on overdue inheritance tax is 8.25 per cent a year, which can add a significant amount to the bill. This can compound what for many is already a challenging and distressing situation.'
It comes as more families are being forced to pay inheritance tax. A key driver behind the increase is the freezing of IHT-free thresholds — the £325,000 nil-rate band has remained unchanged since 2009, and the additional £175,000 residence nil-rate band (for those leaving a main home to direct descendants, unless their estate is worth £2 million, above which this allowance starts to reduce) has been frozen since 2020. Anything above these allowances is taxed at 40 per cent.
The thresholds will remain frozen until 2030, pulling more estates into taxable territory each year as asset values grow.
HMRC last week revealed that 31,500 estates paid inheritance tax in 2022-23 — a 13 per cent rise on the year before.
McCann said: 'The revenue recovered through these investigations is significant, and the rising value of assets and the potential sums at stake would appear to justify HMRC's time.'
Rachael Griffin from the wealth manager Quilter said: 'Frozen thresholds mean more families are unexpectedly caught by inheritance tax. With HMRC using more advanced data and technology, investigations are becoming more frequent — even for those who never thought they would be affected.'
Despite IHT being one of the most feared taxes, McCann says it remains 'the least understood'. While awareness is improving, many families still overlook legal ways to reduce their liabilities, such as giving away money in their lifetime, setting up trusts or keeping records of assets and exemptions.
Changes to pension rules from April 2027 could alter how families pass on wealth. From that point, pensions will form part of the taxable estate — meaning more people will exceed their IHT allowances and even begin to lose their residence nil-rate allowance if pension wealth tips their estate's value above £2 million. The £175,000 allowance is cut by £1 for every £2 that the estate is worth above this threshold.
• Steve Webb: The inheritance tax raid on pensions will pile misery on grieving families
However, anything left to a spouse or civil partner, including pensions from 2027, is exempt from inheritance tax. Couples can also combine their allowances to pass on a total of £1 million IHT-free, providing they don't lose their residence nil-rate allowance.
'Many people planned to leave their pension untouched as it can be passed on IHT-free — but with that changing soon it's likely we'll see an increase in withdrawals as people seek to make gifts or invest in IHT-mitigation products,' McCann said.
His advice to families is simple: keep clear records of gifts, valuations and overseas assets, and use HMRC forms such as the IHT403 to track lifetime gifting. He added: 'Getting it right the first time reduces the chances of any penalties or interest payments.'
HMRC said: 'The vast majority of people pay the correct inheritance tax. Investigations are only opened into cases where there's evidence the right amount of tax has not been paid.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Reeves faces challenge of how to break her word on tax pledges
Reeves faces challenge of how to break her word on tax pledges

Times

time21 minutes ago

  • Times

Reeves faces challenge of how to break her word on tax pledges

T he run-up to this autumn's budget is proving fraught. I am sorry to add to it with many weeks yet to go — we don't yet know how many — but needs must. There are two essential points to be made at this stage, one of which has not been commented on much. The familiar point is the significant political problem this poses for the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. Let us assume, in line with the consensus rather than the scarier National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates, that the chancellor needs to raise between £20 billion and £25 billion in extra taxes. This, plainly, falls foul of promises she made in the aftermath of her budget last October. In her Mansion House speech in November, she described it as 'a once in a parliament budget to wipe the slate clean'. Later that month she told the CBI's annual conference: 'I'm really clear, I'm not coming back with more borrowing, or more taxes.'

UK visa services firm sues ex-boss for £6m over alleged improper use of profits
UK visa services firm sues ex-boss for £6m over alleged improper use of profits

The Guardian

time21 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

UK visa services firm sues ex-boss for £6m over alleged improper use of profits

The company that runs visa services for the UK government is suing its former chief executive for £6m over her alleged improper use of profits earned during a period of record immigration. Cloud Bai-Yun, who once represented the UK on an international ethics and fraud advisory body, is accused by Ecctis of a breach of fiduciary duty, according to court filings. The company claims that she oversaw profit making on a not-for-profit government contract and this money was ultimately used in 2021 to pay her £17.587m for her shares in Ecctis's holding company. Ecctis's claim against Bai-Yun is for £4.63m, plus more than £2m in interest. Bai-Yun said: 'I wholly deny the allegations made against me by the new management of Ecctis and will be defending myself in court.' Ecctis runs the official language tests and qualification recognition services for those applying for certain UK visas or permissions. Under a not-for-profit contract with the Department for Education (DfE), it is claimed that Ecctis was obliged to reinvest any profit earned or to keep a maximum of half of the net gain in reserve. It is alleged that Bai-Yun, who was chief executive from 2014 and a director since 2006, instead improperly approved large dividend payments in 2016 and 2017 to a holding company. Bai-Yun was the sole shareholder of the holding company and in 2021 that money was used to buy her shareholding for £17.587m, it is claimed. The shares were then transferred to an employee-owned trust. Bai-Yun's defence claims there were no restrictions in Ecctis's articles of association on paying dividends and that it was for her as the shareholder to make the decisions on the payments. The legal action by Ecctis follows its repayment to the government of £13.64m after a DfE audit concluded the company had failed to reinvest profits in its services. Bai-Yun, who had moved from being chief executive to chief adviser on the sale of her shares, was asked to resign from the latter role after the 2022 audit. The Guardian revealed details of the scandal in January this year, leading the DfE's most senior civil servant to tell the Common's public accounts committee that officials had undertaken a 'very hard review' of 'serious failings'. The new legal row will be an embarrassment to the DfE, which renewed Ecctis's contract this year with changes that ensured all profits were directly paid to the government. Insiders at the company have voiced concerns that Ecctis continues to hold a monopoly on services they say would be better run directly by the state. Ecctis has seen a huge increase in revenue in recent years owing to historically high levels of immigration, particularly in the post-Brexit period. According to Ecctis's particulars of claim, the payment in 2016 of a £2.16m dividend to the holdings company was questioned at the time by the finance director at the company, Robert Wall. Wall wrote that his understanding was that they were supposed to operate 'as a not-for-profit business', it is claimed. Despite this, the board, with Bai-Yun in attendance, went on to approve a further dividend in 2017 of £2.5m. Ecctis claims the dividends were 'constituted almost entirely of net profit' from the government contracts, leaving it in breach of the agreement with the DfE. The company further alleges: 'In February 2021, funds including the 2017 dividends were passed to the defendant as part of the £17.587m sale price.' Ecctis's claim for £4.6m plus interest in 'remedy' covers only the 2016 and 2017 dividend payments. There is a time limitation on claims. The claim refers, however, to the DfE's audit which found that £16.63m in dividends were paid in total up to 2021 and that this money was ultimately 'put towards the purchase price' of £17.587m paid to Bai-Yun. Ecctis claims Bai-Yun failed in her duty as a director of Ecctis to promote the success of the company and avoid conflicts of interest. In her defence, Bai-Yun claims the price she received for her shares was £17.5m and not £17.587m. She claims there was no contractual restraint on the use of the balance of the net profit once appropriate investments in the services were made. She denies a conflict of interest as she approved the dividends as the shareholder of the holding company, rather than as a director of Ecctis. She claims Wall was mistaken in his understanding of the contract with the DfE. A DfE spokesperson said: 'Our new, strengthened contract, alongside a new leadership team at Ecctis, means the department can continue to work with Ecctis to provide a good service to the public on the recognition of qualifications, which is a requirement under international law.'

Darlington FC 'still committed' to stadium move despite setbacks
Darlington FC 'still committed' to stadium move despite setbacks

BBC News

time21 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Darlington FC 'still committed' to stadium move despite setbacks

A football club has said it remains committed to finding a long-term, permanent home despite difficulty Football Club admitted finding a new location was an "incredibly complex process", as it has faced multiple setbacks since revealing an ambition to move in it announced its intention to leave its Blackwell Meadows ground, the National League North side said it hoped to build a new site with additional sports, retail and hospitality executive David Johnson said the club had been discussing several potential locations. The new stadium was initially planned to be built in time for the 2024-25 season, but the project has been repeatedly delayed."This is an incredibly complex process involving many stakeholders and is therefore extremely time-consuming and unfortunately very slow-moving," Mr Johnston said. Securing Darlington FC's future Board members remained committed to finding a "long-term, permanent home to secure the future of our club", Mr Johnson are in talks with stakeholders about several possible locations, including the football club's former home, Darlington Mowden Park RFC, which currently plays at the arena, recently outlined its ambition to partner with other sports clubs to develop the site, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service."We have been discussing several options for the arena site, as well as other locations, but what we as a board are very clear on is that we cannot envisage a move back to the Darlington Arena in its current form," Mr Johnston said."The aim is to deliver a sustainable sports facility for the town, that hopefully will meet the needs of as many stakeholders as possible, but we will not enter any proposal that could jeopardise the long-term future of the football club." Follow BBC Tees on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store