MSE News: Pension inheritance tax to be axed

mark55man

I would submit a Subject Access Request (under the Data Protection act) and find out exactly what was written down. I can't see that any other way is going to give you the information you need - and the moment you start calling them to ask the questions you are going to ask - alarm bells would ring and legitimately they would be looking to minimise their exposure / tidy up the files. Such action being illegal (IANAL) after a SAR is received.

You would then have (potentially) more information upon which to base your case - which as above should be on the misinformation given, and not that they didn't offer advice. I think aiming at the potential benefit you might have had from future changes will be less useful than aiming at what seems to be an own goal (wrong facts) under the current system

The posters on this thread are amongst the most active and most helpful on MSE so I would take what they say with huge respect ... yet they speak from within the system or from a huge personal interest where the fine distinctions you have been caught out by are clear as light, whereas to lay people (and I include myself in that) they seem shadowy and counter intuitive

I suspect you will not succeed, as in the clear light of law and due process you have had your options and you have not had advice, and therefore no one else can be accountable. The fact is you chose to enter the fray unadvised (even though you were not aware of the distinctions) will be a regret to you - but don't let it become a sore.


My advice - have a go - see what you can do, but don't expect miracles

noh

zagfles wrote: »

They said if she continued drawdown and she died the pot would be lost. That's incorrect and does seem to have swung the decision. Well worth complaining.

For future reference, and for other readers, the HL website is pretty good at explaining the rules around such things in plain English, and they do tend to mention forthcoming changes.

No.
It is alleged they said that by someone who was not a party to the conversation.

zagfles

noh wrote: »

No.
It is alleged they said that by someone who was not a party to the conversation.

Yes. My PP had the implicit assumption that neither MartinW6 nor his Mum were lying.

noh

zagfles wrote: »

Yes. My PP had the implicit assumption that neither MartinW6 nor his Mum were lying.

There is no suggestion that they were lying. It is more likely that what his mum thought was said was not what was actually said.

zagfles

noh wrote: »

There is no suggestion that they were lying. It is more likely that what his mum thought was said was not what was actually said.

So a SAR, as suggested above, would likely be the best way to find out.

Pincher

The rules are changing all the time, you can't expect to be told what might happen. An election could happen, and the table is turned.

We can combine the £325k IHT allowance from both parents now, yielding a total of £650k tax free that can be passed down. Not so in the year 2000, when my father passed away. We were advised by the accountant that we would lose the ~£325k (might have been a bit lower in 2000) allowance if we do not use it at that point, which would happen if we allowed all the assets to pass to my mother, tax free. We had to do a Deed of Variation on my father's Will, and a new Will for my mother, and used my father's £325k allowance to good effect. The accountant and lawyer somehow managed to charge £10k for their efforts (grumble, grumble), but the tax saved was more. A few years later, HMRC announced that you can now COMBINE the two allowances, so the £10k fees were totally unnecessary (Shoot me! Arrrrgggghhh!), IN RETROSPECT.

I don't blame them for the advice, which I totally agreed with.
I do find the fees horrendous. It's just legal robbery.

What's the lesson? SPEND IT ALL before you can't enjoy it any more, instead of chasing tail and wasting money on accountants: could have spent £10k on a world cruise, 14 years ago. My mother was still going up on mountains with tour groups in those days.

robin61

So if I have understood these new rules correctly if you die aged over 75 you can leave the pension pot to any beneficiary and they can take as a lump and pay 45% tax or as income and pay tax at their marginal rate ? So does this mean even if the person who inherits is young they can still draw as income so they are effectively getting a pension at whatever age they are. Or if they could leave it invested and draw on it later. ?

Your_Hero

robin61 wrote: »

So if I have understood these new rules correctly if you die aged over 75 you can leave the pension pot to any beneficiary and they can take as a lump and pay 45% tax or as income and pay tax at their marginal rate ?

Your spouse/dependants can already do this and it's 55% tax for lump sum. The new rules are proposing to scrap this tax but the exact details are unknown.

So does this mean even if the person who inherits is young they can still draw as income so they are effectively getting a pension at whatever age they are. Or if they could leave it invested and draw on it later. ?

Yes this is already possible.

greenglide

Yes this is already possible.

I thought that the current option was to "empty" the pot subject to the tax hit or for the fund to be transferred in its pension wrapper to the beneficiary tax free if a spouse?

Your_Hero

greenglide wrote: »

I thought that the current option was to "empty" the pot subject to the tax hit or for the fund to be transferred in its pension wrapper to the beneficiary tax free if a spouse?

Can also take a dependent's pension.