Total radiation exposure of an individual over his or her lifetime.

Agreement by the Regulator for a nuclear power station to extend its Lifetime.

The maximum aggregate amount of benefits an individual can accumulate across all registered pension schemes the individual is a member of without incurring tax penalties. Any excess gives rise to a tax charge known as the lifetime allowance charge.

The maximum amount of pension saving an individual can build up over their life that benefits from tax relief. Introduced on 6 April 2006. Pension savings worth more than the lifetime allowance will attract a tax charge on the excess. Individuals may have applied in the past for primary, enhanced, individual or fixed protection. The limit for 2020/21 to 2025/26 is £1,073,100.

A charge to income tax that arises on any chargeable amount generated at a benefit crystallisation event. The rate of charge is either 25% or 55%, depending on whether the ‘event’ giving rise to the charge was the payment of a lump sum or not. The scheme administrator and member are jointly liable to the charge, except where the chargeable amount arises following the death of the member. Here, the recipient of the payment giving rise to the charge is solely liable. (HMRC)

Pensions analysis: The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about an incorrect member communication. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

A lump sum benefit paid to a member of a registered pension scheme (who is aged under 75) because they have used up their available lifetime allowance, and which meets the conditions of paragraph 11 of Schedule 29 to the Finance Act 2004. (HMRC)

A policy issued by an insurance company that converts all or part of your pension fund into pension income that is paid to you for life. The income is taxable.

A lifetime gift is a gratuitous transfer of ownership of any property between living persons and not made in expectation of death. In contrast, gifts made in contemplation of death may qualify as deathbed gifts or donatio mortis causa. See Practice Note: Devolution of assets and the need for a grant—Deathbed gifts. In order for a lifetime gift to be valid, it is not essential for the legal ownership to be transferred to the recipient. A donor may make a perfect gift of the beneficial ownership of the asset while retaining the legal title (a trust). The distinguishing mark of a gift as compared to another type of transfer is the absence of consideration. A lifetime gift may be made by: • deed or other instrument in writing • delivery in cases where the subject of the gift is capable of delivery • declaration of trust, which is the equitable equivalent of a gift There will be no gift if the donor is not competent to give and/or the donee competent to receive. For guidance on capacity

Private client analysis: When is an inter-vivos gift to be treated as a portion of a testator’s estate? Matthew Duncan, a partner at Kingsley Napley, examines a recent High Court decision on the question.

Law360: The Society of Pension Professionals (SPP) has warned that the proposed government ‘pot for life’ reforms to tackle the spiraling number of retirement savings pots could create pension giants that are ‘too big to fail’.

Private Client analysis: This preliminary issue trial (in a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975)) concerned the extent of the deceased’s interest in two properties. Number 51 Ravensbourne Park Crescent (‘51 RPC’) was originally registered in the names of the deceased and his wife (the claimant). By a transfer dated 26 September 2016 (‘the Transfer’), 51 RPC was transferred for nil consideration to the deceased, the claimant and the claimant’s granddaughter, who was the Ninth defendant, as joint tenants in law and equity (though the joint tenancy was later severed in 2019). The defendants sought to set aside the transfer on the basis of, inter alia, undue influence. The court held that although the claimant and/or the ninth defendant did not fall into any of the categories in which a relationship of influence will automatically be presumed, on the evidence there was in fact a relationship of trust and confidence between the claimant and the deceased. The transaction was one which called for an explanation as it gave away part of the deceased’s property for no objectively justifiable reason. There was therefore a presumption of undue influence, which could not be rebutted by the claimant and/or ninth defendant on the evidence. The judgment also reiterated the distinction between the concept of ownership as a matter of property law, and the family law principles which apply in financial remedy proceedings on divorce when determining what is and is not matrimonial property. The claimant’s claim that a property owned solely by the deceased had become joint property by reason of their marriage was dismissed. Written by Holly Challenger, barrister at Parklane Plowden Chambers.