Inheritance TaxAug 19 2020

Supreme Court rules ill-health pension transfer not liable for IHT

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Supreme Court rules ill-health pension transfer not liable for IHT
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled a pension transfer made in ill health was not liable for inheritance tax in a landmark case coming to a close after six years.

In its final judgment in the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Parry & Ors case, better known as the Staveley case, the Supreme Court ruled this morning (August 19) HMRC was not right to charge IHT on the claimant's pension transfer, though it was right to charge it on what HMRC deemed an 'omission of benefits'.

Industry experts expect the ruling to set a precedent for ill-health transfers going forward.

The case involves a woman, Ms Staveley, who, after an acrimonious divorce, transferred a portion of a pension she had set up with her husband into a new pot and bequeathed it to her children. She died a few weeks later.

Because the woman was terminally ill, HM Revenue & Customs treated the transfer as a "chargeable lifetime transfer" followed by an "omission to act" as she did not draw any benefits, and applied IHT. 

It argued the two actions were linked and designed to reduce the value of her estate for IHT purposes. But the woman's estate argued the transfer was exempt because it was not meant to confer a "gratuitous benefit".

This case has divided courts with the Court of Appeal ruling in favour of HMRC in June 2018, finding it was right to apply IHT to the transfer as well as on Ms Staveley’s omission to draw any benefits, after two tribunals beforehand had found otherwise. 

The Supreme Court today partially upheld the Court of Appeal's judgement, though it found the transfer and omission were not linked as part of an overall plan as Ms Staveley could have left her sons her death benefits without the transfer.

The court said IHT could be charged on the omission, as it was the main cause of increasing her children’s share of her estate but could not be charged on the transfer itself as it “had not been motivated by any intention to improve the sons’ position”.

It added: “[Ms] Staveley’s sole intention in transferring the funds was to eliminate any risk that any part of the funds might be returned to her ex-husband. 

“The mere fact that the sons’ inheritance was intended to be enjoyed in a different legal form after the transfer did not mean that [Ms] Staveley intended to confer a gratuitous benefit her sons.”

Under current rules anyone who is in ill-health, transfers their pension and then dies within two years could see their remaining pot hit with a 40 per cent tax charge.

An HMRC spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the Supreme Court upheld HMRC’s view of the tax rules in this case and are carefully considering the implications of this decision.”

Much needed clarity

Tom Selby, senior analyst at AJ Bell, said today's judgment brings certainty to those in ill-health looking to pass on their pension pots to loved ones.

Mr Selby said: “After years of wrangling in the courts this ruling finally brings some certainty to people who transfer their pensions while in ill-health.

"If the Court of Appeal ruling from 2018 had been upheld then DC pension transfers would have been at risk of being hit with a tax charge where the member dies within two years even where the primary motivation was to change provider or lower annual charges. 

“This protracted case has exposed the complexity and confusion that exists around pensions and IHT. Research has exposed a gaping lack of understanding when it comes to gifting and IHT, and this is even more pronounced when pensions are thrown into the mix.

“It is within the gift of politicians to address this confusion and the common sense solution to this complexity would be to remove pensions from IHT altogether.”

Jessica List, pension technical manager at Curtis Banks, said the ruling will set a precedent on ill-health transfers going forward.

Ms List said: "The judgments have changed at every stage, and even in this final ruling the judges were not in complete agreement, showing what a highly contentious issue this has been.

"It’s hugely reassuring for the industry that the transfer itself has been found not to create an IHT liability, for reasons which would seem to set a precedent for other similar cases."

Previous rulings

In May 2014 the First Tier Tribunal found against HMRC, saying it was satisfied that in making the transfer Ms Staveley had not had any intention to confer a gratuitous benefit.

However, it also held that by Ms Staveley failing to take lifetime pension benefits her estate had been diminished and the estates of her sons (to whom the death benefits were subsequently paid by the pension scheme administrators) had been increased.

Both parties appealed the judgment, and in January 2017 the Upper Tribunal dismissed HMRC’s appeal and allowed the taxpayer’s appeal.

It ruled that although Ms Staveley’s unaccessed pension had been the source of the funds which were paid to the sons, it was the action of the pension administrator which had been the effective cause of the increase in their estates.

In June 2018, the Court of Appeal reversed both elements of the Upper Tribunal’s decision.

The Court of Appeal accepted HMRC’s argument that the pension transfer was an "associated operation" and was therefore taxable.

It also ruled that there was enough of a link between the fact that Ms Staveley didn’t access her funds and the increase in her son’s estates.

amy.austin@ft.com

What do you think about the issues raised by this story? Email us on fa.letters@ft.com to let us know.