Connect with us

Published

on

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?

More on Tax

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.

Continue Reading

Business

Thames Water creditors line up McTighe to spearhead rescue deal

Published

on

By

Thames Water creditors line up McTighe to spearhead rescue deal

One of Britain’s top corporate troubleshooters is being lined up to spearhead a multibillion pound rescue of Thames Water after the company’s preferred bidder walked away.

Sky News can reveal that Mike McTighe is working with Thames Water’s largest group of creditors on a plan to restructure the company’s debts and inject new funds in the hope of avoiding nationalisation.

Mr McTighe, whose portfolio of chairmanships includes the Daily Telegraph’s publisher and Openreach, BT Group’s infrastructure arm, is said to have begun meeting stakeholders in recent weeks.

If the Class A creditors’ proposal is successfully executed, Mr McTighe would probably take over as chairman of Thames Water, according to people close to the situation.

Mr McTighe has earned a reputation as a turnaround expert, but also chairs companies such as IG Group, the financial spreadbetting company, and Together Financial Services, the non-bank lender.

The recruitment of such a prominent businessman to lead the lenders’ efforts will add momentum to a plan which increasingly looks like the only alternative to landing British taxpayers with a vast rescue bill.

The group’s proposal would include swapping several billion pounds of Thames Water’s debt for equity, as well as injecting substantial new funding.

More on Thames Water

Thames Water is Britain’s largest water utility, serving more than 15 million customers.

However, decades of poor performance and financial engineering have left it carrying close to £20bn of debt and facing hundreds of millions of pounds in regulatory fines.

Pic: istock
Image:
Pic: iStock

The Class A creditor group, which represents about £13bn of Thames Water’s borrowings, includes some of the world’s most powerful investors.

Elliott Management, the New York-based firm, is among those exposed to a collapse that could leave Thames Water in a special administration regime (SAR) – a government-sponsored insolvency process aimed at providers of key infrastructure services.

Other members of the creditor group include institutions such as Aberdeen, Invesco, Apollo Global Management and M&G.

A source close to the creditor group said: “We have done a huge amount of diligence and work on a plan to turnaround Thames.

“We are the only bidders who will be able to complete this transaction within the necessary timeframe.”

The fact that Mr McTighe has been persuaded to join their effort will revive hope that a private sector solution to Thames Water’s crisis can still be found.

On Tuesday, the company announced that KKR, its preferred equity partner for the last two months, had decided not to proceed with a deal.

Sky News revealed that talks between Henry Kravis, the KKR co-founder, and Sir Keir Starmer’s top business adviser had taken place over the weekend in an effort to prevent the deal from collapsing.

Money latest: ‘Death by 1,000 increases’ – three major lenders push mortgage rates up

It was unclear on Tuesday whether CKI, the Hong Kong-based company which controls swathes of UK infrastructure assets, might seek to revive its interest in a deal with Thames Water.

Sir Adrian Montague, the company’s current chairman, said: “Whilst today’s news is disappointing, we continue to believe that a sustainable recapitalisation of the company is in the best interests of all stakeholders and continue to work with our creditors and stakeholders to achieve that goal.”

In recent weeks, Thames Water has been fined a record £123m by Ofwat for separate transgressions relating to dividend payments and environmental pollution, and found itself embroiled in a bitter political row over whether retention payments it had lined up for executives were classified as bonuses.

The company has also been at the centre of a legal battle which culminated in the Class A group of lenders providing a £3bn emergency loan in March following a court challenge launched by a smaller creditor group.

The government described Thames Water as “stable” on Tuesday, but said it was ready to step in and take control of the company if required to.

The company effectively faces a deadline of late July to finalise a rescue deal because of a referral of its five-year regulatory settlement to the Competition and Markets Authority.

A spokesperson for the Class A creditors declined to comment on Tuesday evening.

Continue Reading

Business

Rachel Reeves threatens to sue Roman Abramovich over Chelsea FC sale proceeds

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves threatens to sue Roman Abramovich over Chelsea FC sale proceeds

The chancellor and foreign secretary are threatening to take Roman Abramovich to court to seize the proceeds of his Chelsea FC sale.

The Russian oligarch, who is sanctioned by the UK government over his alleged links to Vladimir Putin, sold Chelsea for £2.5bn to an American consortium in 2022, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Those funds remain in a frozen UK bank account but are meant to be used for humanitarian causes linked to the Ukraine war.

Roman Abramovich was seen by Ukraine as a potential go-between with Vladimir Putin
Image:
Abramovich has denied close ties to Vladimir Putin. File pic: Reuters

Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary David Lammy have now said they are “deeply frustrated” an agreement cannot be reached with the oligarch and will take him to court if it cannot be dealt with soon.

In a joint statement, they said: “The government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion.

“We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr Abramovich so far.

“While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required, to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible.”

Read more:
Russians react to Ukraine’s drone attack
Putin humiliated by ‘Russia’s Pearl Harbor’ – analysis
Zelenskyy: Strikes will go ‘in history books’

"We can all see over the last months how much the world is changing, but the British government isn't just going to stand by and watch that change.
"We ought to shape it in our national interest.
Image:
Rachel Reeves said she was ‘deeply frustrated’ an agreement had not been reached by Roman Abramovich

Abramovich was forced to sell Chelsea – which he bought for a reported £140m – after 19 years of ownership, after being sanctioned by the government over his alleged close ties to the Russian president – something he denies.

The sale was made under the supervision of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, under the proviso the proceeds go to humanitarian aid in Ukraine.

They cannot be moved or used without a licence from the office.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Ukraine targets Russian military aircraft

In March, the Foreign Office said officials were in talks with Abramovich’s representatives, but multiple sources told the BBC there had been no meetings between any Labour ministers and members of the foundation set up to oversee the funds since last July’s general election.

They said there was a deadlock and a political decision by a minister is needed to negotiate and sign off an agreement.

It is not known if there have been meetings in the three months since then.

The £2.5bn – and interest accrued – would make up for some of the reduction in the aid budget, announced in February.

Continue Reading

Business

Water industry: Commission finds five areas where ‘fundamental change’ is needed

Published

on

By

Water industry: Commission finds five areas where 'fundamental change' is needed

“Interlocking failures” in the water sector across England and Wales can be fixed through fundamental reform in five key areas, according to a major interim report.

The Independent Water Commission, established last year and led by a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, was scathing of government and regulatory oversight of the industry – long blighted by criticism over performance, particularly over sewage spills, shareholder payouts and bonuses for bosses.

Money latest: Change to mortgage rules could drive up house prices

Sir Jon Cunliffe said: “There is no simple, single change, no matter how radical, that will deliver the fundamental reset that is needed for the water sector.

“We have heard of deep-rooted, systemic and interlocking failures over the years – failure in government’s strategy and planning for the future, failure in regulation to protect both the billpayer and the environment and failure by some water companies and their owners to act in the public, as well as their private, interest.

“My view is that all of these issues need to be tackled to rebuild public trust and make the system fit for the future. We anticipate that this will require new legislation.”

The commission, which is due to make its final recommendations later in the summer, failed to rule out the creation of a super regulator to bring oversight into alignment.

More from Money

Currently, regulation is muddied by a multi-body approach that includes Ofwat and the Environment Agency.

The five areas under scrutiny:
• Long term direction from government, including through the planning process.
• The creation of a simplified legislative framework, which could include new objectives around public health.
• Regulation but “a fundamental strengthening and rebalancing of Ofwat’s regulation is needed”, it is argued.
• Transparency and accountability within private water firms.
• The management of water industry assets, including pipework.

Read more:
Thames Water hit with record fine by regulator
Government and Ofwat broke law on sewage spills, watchdog rules

Sir Jon added: “I have heard a strong and powerful consensus that the current system is not working for anyone, and that change is needed. I believe that ambitious reforms across these complex and connected set of issues are sorely needed.

“I have been encouraged to see, on all sides of the debate, that people have been prepared to engage constructively with our work; I look forward to that continuing as we enter the final stages.”

Continue Reading

Trending