IHT409 confusion

poppystar

I’m getting a bit confused by IHT409.

The estate I am dealing with does have three very small pensions on top of the state pension which seems to meet the requirements for IHT409 to be completed. It also states at the top of the form that if there was more than one pension you will need to complete a separate form. So far, so good, printed off three forms.

When I come to complete it however the response to section 1 is no - so skip to question 8. The response to question 8 is no - so skip to question 17. There are no transfers of or changes to pension benefits so question 17 to 21 don’t seem applicable. Ditto questions 22 to 24 and the final two sections are inapplicable due to death being this year.

So the result of following this through is that the name or details of the pension scheme is never asked. All three forms would be identical in response and undifferentiated therefore.

Any advice or suggestions welcome. Thanks.

naedanger

poppystar said:

I’m getting a bit confused by IHT409.

The estate I am dealing with does have three very small pensions on top of the state pension which seems to meet the requirements for IHT409 to be completed. It also states at the top of the form that if there was more than one pension you will need to complete a separate form. So far, so good, printed off three forms.

When I come to complete it however the response to section 1 is no - so skip to question 8. The response to question 8 is no - so skip to question 17. There are no transfers of or changes to pension benefits so question 17 to 21 don’t seem applicable. Ditto questions 22 to 24 and the final two sections are inapplicable due to death being this year.

So the result of following this through is that the name or details of the pension scheme is never asked. All three forms would be identical in response and undifferentiated therefore.

Any advice or suggestions welcome. Thanks.

I am just doing the same form, with the same result. So I am only sending one form. (I really think the purpose of the form is to catch people pushing the limits of tax planning via complex pension arrangements, and not the average person.)

I am submitting a lot of IHT supplements but most are equally simple e.g. for possessions the whole form, from memory, involved me entering one figure.

Keep_pedalling

One form will be fine under those circumstances.  

poppystar

Keep_pedalling said:

One form will be fine under those circumstances.  

That’s good but should I give the names of each of the providers somewhere or is the form basically just assessing whether there were any continuing payments or any lump sums and answering in the negative overall is therefore sufficient? 

poppystar

I am just doing the same form, with the same result. So I am only sending one form. (I really think the purpose of the form is to catch people pushing the limits of tax planning via complex pension arrangements, and not the average person.)

I am submitting a lot of IHT supplements but most are equally simple e.g. for possessions the whole form, from memory, involved me entering one figure.

Glad it’s not just me, I thought all the forms had finally got to me.
Ditto on the possessions, just two figures - but then I got to the premium bonds and the request for bond numbers and values! One tiny box and an awful lot of bonds as many were bought when you could buy them in £1.

naedanger

poppystar said:

I am just doing the same form, with the same result. So I am only sending one form. (I really think the purpose of the form is to catch people pushing the limits of tax planning via complex pension arrangements, and not the average person.)

I am submitting a lot of IHT supplements but most are equally simple e.g. for possessions the whole form, from memory, involved me entering one figure.

Glad it’s not just me, I thought all the forms had finally got to me.
Ditto on the possessions, just two figures - but then I got to the premium bonds and the request for bond numbers and values! One tiny box and an awful lot of bonds as many were bought when you could buy them in £1.

In my case the estate is nowhere near the threshold for paying IHT, and I suspect that will be very quickly apparent to HMRC. So I would not be at all surprised if they don't even look at all the supplementary forms I will be sending them.

I can't think why they need the premium bond numbers and values. I thought they would be able to get that information easily from NS&I.

poppystar

In my case the estate is nowhere near the threshold for paying IHT, and I suspect that will be very quickly apparent to HMRC. So I would not be at all surprised if they don't even look at all the supplementary forms I will be sending.

Much the same here. As long as the RNRB schedules are ok then the remainder is well within the nil rate band. I’m sure they have bigger fish to fry.

Savvy_Sue

naedanger said:

I can't think why they need the premium bond numbers and values. I thought they would be able to get that information easily from NS&I.

GDPR prevents one govt dept from talking to another about such matters ...

naedanger

Savvy_Sue said:

naedanger said:

I can't think why they need the premium bond numbers and values. I thought they would be able to get that information easily from NS&I.

GDPR prevents one govt dept from talking to another about such matters ...

I don't think it will be GDPR specifically because information relating to a deceased person does not constitute personal data and therefore is not subject to the GDPR.

It just seems a bit strange since HMRC have the power to gather data from so many financial sources that they haven't also been given power to collect data from NS&I.