Estates—inheritance tax

Introduction to IHT

For a quick guide to the basics of the inheritance tax (IHT) regime and a broad overview of UK tax rates, exemptions, basic nil rate band (NRB), residence nil rate band (RNRB), transferable NRB and RNRB, agricultural property relief (APR), business property relief (BPR), the reduced 36% tax rate for estates which include at least 10% gifts to charity, the territorial scope of IHT domicile (general, deemed and elected), restrictions on deducting loans and debt, lifetime gifts, small gifts relief, the use of trusts and compliance procedures, see Practice Note: Introductory guide to IHT.

See also Practice Note: Case study—IHT calculation on death.

The charge on death

The IHT charge on death falls under two headings:

  1. the additional charge—which arises on the chargeable lifetime transfers and the potentially exempt transfers (PETs) made in the seven years before death, and

  2. the estate charge—which arises on the value of all the property the deceased owns (or is deemed to own) immediately before death

The calculation and apportionment of IHT due on death can be complex, especially taking account of trust interests, chargeable

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Taxpayer wins UK Privy Council CARICOM Tax Treaty case (Methanex Trinidad v Board of Inland Revenue)

Private Client analysis: In Methanex, the Privy Council considered two main issues. First, were dividends paid by Methanex Trinidad to its sole shareholder in Barbados ‘artificial or fictitious’? The tax authority argued that the dividends were artificial and fictitious because subsequent dividends were paid up the corporate chain to the ultimate parent in Canada. Overturning the lower courts, the Privy Council held that the dividends were neither artificial (abnormal) nor fictitious (a sham), as the dividends were the only legal means to distribute profits up the corporate chain, and it was commercially commonplace for national and international groups to distribute profits precisely as was done in this case. The second issue was whether the Barbados shareholder, an International Business Company (IBC), was ‘liable to tax’ in Barbados and therefore properly resident in Barbados for purposes of the CARICOM Tax Treaty. The tax authority argued that the Barbados shareholder was not ‘liable to tax’ in Barbados for various reasons revolving mainly around the company’s status as an IBC, which afforded it a lower rate of tax. The Privy Council held that the Barbados shareholder was ‘liable to tax’ because, as a resident of Barbados, it was liable to pay tax on its worldwide income in Barbados. The fact that Barbados chose to impose a preferential tax rate was irrelevant. Written by David Wilson, partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP (Montreal, Canada).

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents