Inheritance tax: who’s paying it, how much is it generating and is it just the rich who benefit from its abolition?
With political party conference season upon us and the Tories scrambling for ways to appeal to voters and lessen Labour’s lead in the polls, abolishing inheritance tax has again been floated as the next government giveaway.
So, how many people are paying inheritance tax and how much are they paying: will abolition allow grieving loved ones to save thousands or is this a boon to the homeowning Tory base?
Or is this just a sensible policy measure benefitting both groups, given house prices are still more expensive than they were before the pandemic and inflation stood for months in double digit territory?
With widespread dislike of inheritance tax, the incorrect belief among taxpayers that they’ll fork out because of the toll, calls for abolition and reform coming from all corners, yet only small percentages of assets being affected by the charge, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak may have landed on a policy that few would miss in its current form.
It is after all what Tories call the “most hated tax”.
While only a small percent pay inheritance tax, new data from the Institute for economic research, Fiscal Studies (IFS) says the sums could be significant to some: if all non-spousal inheritances transferred next year were equally shared between all 25 years olds, each would receive around £120,000.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The prime minister refused to comment on inheritance tax “speculation”.
How many are paying?
Latest available figures from the tax man, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), show 27,000 estates paid inheritance tax in the year 2020 to 2021. An estate encompasses a person’s assets: their house, any jewellery or other valuables they might own. Though inheritance tax isn’t paid on pension and insurance money.
For context, more than half a million (577,160) people died in England and Wales in 2022.
Essentially, less than 4% (3.73%) of estates paid inheritance tax in the 2020 to 2021 year.
And the number of estates paying inheritance tax is up by 4,000 people since the previous tax year, 2019 to 2020, as the numbers of people who died increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.
What are they paying?
At present, inheritance tax is charged at 40% and applies to estates worth more than £325,000. There are, however, allowances that can mean its only paid on more valuable estates.
If a main residence is being passed to children or grandchildren a £175,000 allowance is added, meaning only amounts of £500,000 are subject to inheritance tax. Married couples can share that allowance, doubling it and allowing a £1m estate to be passed on to children tax free.
Sunak is said to be looking at reducing the levy in the budget in March, working towards an eventual abolition.
Official HMRC statistics show £5.76bn of inheritance tax liabilities were racked up in the 2020 to 2021 tax year. This was higher than usual – to the tune of £800m, a 16% increase – as COVID-19 caused a greater number of deaths that year.
This year more than £3bn has been generated in just four months, provisional HMRC figures showed, and June broke the monthly record.
While new highs of inheritance tax are coming in, other forms of wealth tax, like capital gains tax (CGT) – the levy on things like income from a second property or shares – are also reaching new highs, greater than inheritance tax.
CGT added £16.7bn to the public purse in the 2021 to 2022 tax year and came from 94,000 taxpayers, HMRC said.
Meanwhile the inheritance tax take from April to August this year was £3.2bn, £300m higher than in the same period a year earlier as asset values have increased and rate rises meaning more interest is charged on late payments to HMRC.
It is worth noting that tax receipts are up across the board. This is not unique to inheritance tax.
A combination of higher wages and more expensive goods (again, due to inflation) meant income tax, national insurance and capital gains tax yields were up. Overall HMRC said £19.8bn more was taken in from April to August this year than last, adding up to a total of £331.1bn.
The cost of abolition is £7bn, according to analysis from the IFS.
Who’s paying?
Notionally people passing on estates worth more than £500,000 would pay, but the figures demonstrate only a smaller number of people, in practise, do.
In theory, rich people’s estates should be inheritance taxed but there are ways around paying. People with legal or tax advisers can limit their liability.
For example, gifts of up to £3,000 in value can be given tax free. This may be possible for (and benefit) a wealthier person giving away collectors items but not a middle income earner passing on the family home.
But commentators say the exchequer could get even more from inheritance tax soon.
Research from investment service provider, Wealth Club, says the number of people paying inheritance could rise by 50% in a decade and £9bn could be yielded by 2029.
“The combination of rising house prices and inflation will push up both the number of families paying inheritance tax and the amount they pay”, said Nicholas Hyett, Investment Manager at Wealth Club.
The IFS goes one further in its new analysis and says around £15bn could be gathered from inheritance tax in a decade’s time.
Who would benefit from inheritance tax cuts?
People who may not think of themselves as wealthy, have come in scope of inheritance tax. These people could benefit as house prices have grown and the recent inflation cycle brought prices up.
Inheritance tax bands have been frozen since 2009 and they’re not due to be revised until 2028 even though most prices haven’t stayed at 2009 levels.
Those who didn’t have a spouse to share tax credits with or who do not wish to pass their estate to a child or grandchild, missing out on the exemptions in the process, are the kinds of people in line to benefit.
Research by the IFS says around half (47%) of the benefit of banning inheritance tax would go to those with estates of £2.1m or more, who represent the top 1% of estates.
That group would benefit from an average tax cut of around £1.1m, IFS figures show. The vast majority (roughly 90%) of estates not paying inheritance tax would not be directly affected by the ban.
Who would not benefit, according to the IFS, are people without assets. By the time inheritances arrive, the think tanks says, wealth inequalities are already well entrenched and hard to undo.
In other words, unless you already have rich parents, inheritance tax isn’t much good to you.
The question of whether binning this policy is designed to benefit people like Rishi Sunak, who are wealthy, depends on what the tax is replaced with, or not.
Why might it be in line for the scrap heap?
Inheritance tax is widely disliked.
Despite the data showing less than 4% of estates end up paying the levy, the public believe they’ll be affected, according to YouGov polling done for The Times.
Nearly a third (31%) of survey participants thought their assets will be valuable enough to pay inheritance tax and 15% thought they themselves would have to pay the tax on things they inherit.
Just 5% said the threshold for inheritance tax was £1m.
That’s not to mention the objections of politicians. It’s not the first time the Conservatives have tried to scrap the toll. Not three months have passed since the last time Tories flew this particular policy kite.
Labour in recent days have been staunch in their opposition to getting rid of inheritance tax but only because it is an unfunded tax cut.
Even left leaning think tank, the Resolution Foundation, and the IFS, want the tax gone.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What’s happening with inheritance tax?
Alternatives
Both the Resolution Foundation and the IFS have ideas about what should fill its place.
For its part the Resolution Foundation proposes a lifetime allowance for everyone. Each person can inherit up to £125,000 over the course of their life and after that you should pay a tax rate of 20% on what you get for anything up to £500,000, for anything higher than half a million received after the £125,000 cut off, a tax rate of 30% should be applied.
Gifts and assets transferred between spouses should be exempt, the foundation proposes.
The financial benefits would better than inheritance tax as it currently stands, according to analysis the think tank has done: £5bn more could be collected a year, compared to the amount gathered in the 2020 to 2021 year. That would equate to tax revenues of £11bn.
Another positive, the Resolution Foundation says, is everyone has a lifetime benefit and so wealth is more likely to be spread around, among families for instance.
A further option, proposed by the Wealth Club, is to keep the tax as is but just raise the points at which you’re taxed in line with inflation.
Either way, voters are unlikely to hear an announcement on the tax future until Sunak’s Tory Party conference speech in early October or the government’s autumn statement in November.
Sources have told Sky News that, despite reports, no changes will be made this year.
Business
‘Absolutely gutted’: £16,500 Glastonbury packages won’t be fulfilled after company goes bust
Glastonbury ticket holders have been left thousands of pounds out of pocket after a luxury glamping company went bust.
Festival-goers who booked their tickets and accommodation with Yurtel have been told the company can no longer fulfil its orders and has ceased trading with immediate effect.
Money: Read all the latest news here
Some had spent more than £16,500 through Yurtel, with hospitality packages starting at £10,000.
In an email, Yurtel said it was unable to provide customers with any refunds, advising them to go through a third party to claim back the money once the liquidation process had started.
To add insult to injury, customers found out that Yurtel had failed to purchase the tickets for the 25 -29 June festival that they thought had been booked as part of their packages.
In a letter to customers, Yurtel’s founder Mickey Luke said: “I am deeply sorry that you have received this devastating news and am writing to apologise.
“Yurtel is a hospitality business who pride themselves on looking after our customers, delivering a unique product and striving to create a better client experience year on year. Due to a culmination of factors over the past years, we have failed to be able to continue to do so and are heartbroken.”
The Money blog has contacted Yurtel to see if the business has anything to add.
Several people have also reported that they were unable to pay by credit card at the time of booking, with the company instead asking for a bank transfer.
This means they are unable to use chargeback to get a refund. You can read more about that here…
Pic: PA
‘I feel really ripped off’
One of those customers was Lydia, who told Money she was “absolutely gutted” after spending thousands.
This year’s festival was “really important” to her as she was forced to miss out last year despite having tickets due to a health issue that left her needing an operation.
“We tried to get Glastonbury tickets through the normal kind of route and couldn’t get them,” the accountant said.
She ended up booking with Yurtel in November, sending over all the funds a month later.
“It’s super expensive. It was really, really important to us. Last year was gutting with the surgery and the whole situation around that was very traumatic, so it was a very special thing to then get the opportunity to go this year. It’s really gutting,” she said.
“I feel really ripped off and I’m really disappointed in the festival, to be honest. I think that response is just pretty rubbish.”
More from Money:
Chef’s top steak tip
Secrets of a London cabbie
How roaming fees compare by network
Yurtel did not pay for festival tickets, Glastonbury says
Glastonbury said Yurtel was one of a small number of campsites local to the festival site – Worthy Farm – with limited access to purchase hospitality tickets for their guests in certain circumstances.
But, it had not paid for any tickets for the 2025 festival before going into liquidation, and so no tickets were secured for its guests, it added. Every year, Glastonbury’s website says that ticketing firm See Tickets is the only official source for buying tickets for the festival.
“As such we have no records of their bookings and are unable to take any responsibility for the services and the facilities they offer,” the festival said.
“Anyone who has paid Yurtel for a package including Glastonbury 2025 tickets will need to pursue any potential recompense available from them via the liquidation process as outlined in their communication to you.
“We are not able to incur the cost or responsibility of their loss or replacement.”
Instead, the festival has urged Yurtel customers to contact Yurtel@btguk.com to confirm their consent for personal data and details of their party to be shared with Glastonbury.
“We will then be able to provide details of alternative potential sources for those customers to purchase tickets and accommodation for this year’s festival,” the festival added.
‘Only option’ on offer is ‘pretty weak’
Lydia said she agreed for her details to be passed on to Glastonbury, and the festival has told her the only option is to pay for the tickets again from another provider.
“They are not giving us the opportunity to buy the tickets at face value. We would then have to go again and spend another stupidly unreasonable amount of money to be able to go. It’s pretty disappointing,” she added.
“It’s pretty weak that the only option they’re giving people who’ve already lost out on huge amounts of money is to go and spend huge amounts more money.”
It’s left her feeling like she won’t go to the festival this year – and she’s not hopeful about getting her money back.
She said: “To be honest, I just don’t think I can afford it.
“It’s already so much money wasted, and I’m not at all optimistic we’ll get anything back.”
Business
Federal judges rule Trump tariffs can stay in place for now – as president rages at trade court’s ‘country threatening decision’
A federal appeals court has ruled that Donald Trump’s sweeping international tariffs can remain in place for now, a day after three judges ruled the president exceeded his authority.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has allowed the president to temporarily continue collecting tariffs under emergency legislation while it considers the government’s appeal.
It comes after the Court of International Trade blocked the additional taxes on foreign-made goods after its three-judge panel ruled that the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs – not the president.
The judges also ruled Mr Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The CAFC said the lower trade court and the Trump administration must respond by 5 June and 9 June, respectively.
Trump calls trade court ‘backroom hustlers’
Posting on Truth Social, Mr Trump said the trade court’s ruling was a “horrible, Country threatening decision,” and said he hopes the Supreme Court would reverse it “QUICKLY and DECISIVELY”.
After calling into question the appointment of the three judges, and suggesting the ruling was based on “purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP’,” he added: “Backroom ‘hustlers’ must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump asked about ‘taco trade’
“The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly.
“If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!”
The US president unveiled the controversial measures on “Liberation Day” in April, which included a 10% tariff on UK imports and caused aggressive sell-offs in the stock market.
Mr Trump argued he invoked the decades-old law to collect international tariffs because it was a “national emergency”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
From April: ‘This is Liberation Day’
Tariffs ‘direct threat’ to business – Schwab
The trade court ruling marked the latest legal challenge to the tariffs, and related to a case brought on behalf of five small businesses that import goods from other countries.
Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Justice Center – a nonprofit representing the five firms – said the appeal court would ultimately agree that the tariffs posed “a direct threat to the very survival of these businesses”.
Read more:
Trump reduces Chicago gang founder’s sentence after Ye lobbying
‘I was going to die with this’: Ex-Diddy assistant breaks down
Trump furious over ‘TACO’ dig – what inspired the phrase?
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
US treasury secretary Scott Bessent also told Fox News on Thursday that the initial ruling had not interfered with trade deal negotiations with partners.
He said that countries “are coming to us in good faith” and “we’ve seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours,” before saying he would meet with a Japanese delegation in Washington on Friday.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway