FTAdviser.com

Advertising

The controversial issue of inheritance tax has often been kicked back and forth with political parties using the much "hated" tax as part of their agenda. But why is it still the consistent weapon of choice within the political sphere?

It has now been more than a year since chancellor Alistair Darling tried to prevent the Conservatives from claiming any glory in the push for the reform of death duties by taking action a week after the Tories pledged to raise the threshold at which inheritance kicks in to £1m.

The chancellor announced that the current £300,000 threshold would be transferable between married couples and people in civil partnerships. It would double to £600,000 and rise to £700,000 by 2010/2011 at an annual cost of £1.4bn by then. He also said the move would be retrospective for 3m widows and widowers.

Having kicked back the political football, Mr Darling rejected the Tory scheme, saying that increasing the threshold to £1m would cost a further £2bn.

Labour sources stressed that Gordon Brown had intended to include the reform of inheritance tax in his Budget in the spring but could not find the money because he decided to cut the basic rate of income tax from 22p to 20p in the pound from next year.

The sources also claimed the chancellor's moves were fairer and more affordable than the Conservative proposals on inheritance tax and "non-doms".

The Conservative's response saw George Osborne, shadow chancellor, describe Labour's package as "a pre-election Budget without the election" and suggested that Labour's move on inheritance tax was "another tax con", saying it was much less generous than the Tory scheme.

So why is IHT still the consistent weapon of choice within the political sphere?

Mike Warburton, tax partner for Grant Thornton UK, believes that the IHT changes are not only detrimental to the political agenda, but will incur dramatic changes for all.

He said: "It is a much bigger issue for the voters than you would expect and heralds a dramatic outcome as it is seen as an unfair tax."

Mr Warburton explained that with mountains of paperwork that needs to be produced and organised - including a death certificate of spouse, and marriage certificate, which all has to be sent 24 months after the deceased has died - it is not as straightforward as is intended.

He said: "It is not a simple process and lots of forms need to be filled in, paperwork needs to be sent and although it is a good in thought, it is not necessarily good in practice.”

This is apparent as, according to HM Revenue & Customs statistics, about 34,000 people paid IHT in 2007/2008.

Also, it is estimated that about 24,000 people will still pay IHT in 2008/2009, a marked decrease in numbers.

Last year's Pre-Budget Report had intended to make the most significant changes to IHT, with the new rules allowing any unused nil-rate band to be claimed on the later death of the surviving spouse or civil partner.

These changes, however, did not just impact people from October 2007 onwards. Those who had been widowed prior to that date could take advantage of the new rules, making the retrospective initiative welcome, as previously the nil-rate band for IHT was wasted if the estate was left solely to the surviving spouse, since spouse exemption applied to that transfer.

Now, any unused nil-rate band can be claimed on the death of the surviving spouse or civil partner.

However, Julie Hutchison, head of estate planning for Standard Life, agrees that it is not an easy process and believes that a reality check is needed above everything else.

She said: "This seems like good news, but do not assume that the new double nil-rate band will automatically apply. The executors of the second to die need to prove that some or all of the unused nil-rate band can be transferred and that will involve completing the HMRC form IHT216. It is worth spending some time now looking at this form as once the second death occurs, historic information might be lost."

In considering how the IHT rules have affected advisers and their clients, Ms Hutchison said: "Despite these IHT changes being a year old now, I think there is still some way to go in embedding their importance in the financial advice process.

"But the client factfind needs to change. It is not enough to simply ask about current marital status, advisers need to understand whether the client has ever previously been widowed.

"To identify that scenario, only asking about current marital status risks may mean missing the key point."

For Keith Churchouse, director for Churchouse Financial Planning, he believes it is an extremely contentious tax and is likely to continue to cause concern politically and socially.

He said: "The changes to allow people to double the nil-rate band have been received very well. But it is a relatively hollow gain, because many people are aware and using it already.

"The government 'giveaway' is pretty limited and this has been drifting about for many years. It is one of those taxes that have been getting better each year, but no one has noticed it.

"As with most things in our industry, it tends to be more complicated than it actually is. The allowances are clear and transparent, but people do not know about them. It is only when they get to a latter stage in their lives that IHT is concentrated on.”

Mr Churchouse believes that education should be the focal point in addressing the problem and said: "There should be a form of education by insurance companies and the government. Inheritance tax needs to be talked about and something that needs to be thought about carefully.

"There are many clients that are IHT-ed out, which tends to put many people off. A more almost stakeholder pension type of education would be better."

Saran Allott-Davey, managing director for Newport-based IFA Heron House Financial Management Limited, agreed that education is necessary, but she said she also believes professional advice is the solution to understanding such complicated issues.

She said: "We definitely need to simplify IHT. One of the things is that many people do not understand its complexities and knock-on effects, so it is a minefield.

"Clients then therefore get less confident about what to do and then in turn do not make long-term financial decisions.

"The nil-rate band was a welcome policy, but it came without warning and, again, many people had no idea what is going on and still do not know what is going on."

But with the continued changes in legislation, she added this tends to have a negative impact and introduce implications and said: "There should be built-in flexibility to whatever tax strategy can be put in place. We are not keen providing IHT solutions that are contentious and use loopholes.

"IHT is one of those areas that are very difficult for clients to try and sort out themselves. But there are so many pitfalls and it is quite difficult to do that unless they have a thorough understanding.

"There will be real pressures on tax revenue in the future and I believe the government will be desperate to increase this, so IHT may be affected as a result.”

For Colin Parkin, director of Lincoln-based IFA Ample Financial Services, he believes the solution lies in the expertise and experience of independent financial advice.

Mr Parkin said: "Some label it as a ‘death tax’, but does it need to be called that?

"For any client, you have to have a bespoke solution, because it depends on individual circumstances and individual cases.

"You have to have the right things in place - the right team of advisers and accounts so it is all done properly and cannot be challenged later on.

"It is the most hated tax for anyone with money. They do not want their money going straight to the government, and are looking for alternative ways, for example in using self-invested personal pensions and income drawdown, but even that is no foolproof plan to avoid tax.”

In taking the political and social spotlight, inheritance tax has caused, and continues to cause, a flurry of concern, debate and lack of confidence.

Surely it is all about a simplistic approach to securing what is rightfully yours?

But having been described as a 'complex minefield' and 'death tax' is there any hope for politicians, providers or consumers to get their heads around the revolving issue?

Until politicians stop playing ball with policies and there is a clear and concise message to target the man on the street, it is a matter of who is next to put the boot in.