If you do not understand the strategy as opposed to my summary of it it might be best not to use it.
The Will of the first to die leaves a QRI of sufficient value to, say, 2 children to mop up the deceased’s RNRB and the TRNRB.
The gift is made on joint IPDIs to the children remainder to a DT of which they and the survivor are eligible beneficiaries.
If nothing is done the children will not have a QRI on their future death because a DT follows it. The problem also is that if and while the children are not resident the trustees cannot claim CGT PPRR.
If the children’s IPDIs are terminated by a trustee power after a decent interval (query 6 months?) the children will each make a CLT because the remainder is an RPT. But if each CLT is within their NRB at the time there will be no IHT. CGT PPRR will be due except for the 6 month period if the survivor is permitted to reside as an eligible DT beneficiary:Sansom v Peay. The death risk of the children within 7 years, losing their own NRB with knock-on impact on their chargeable estate, can be insured if cost effective.
(I correct myself here : there will only be one trust with the deceased as settlor and it will have one NRB if their cumulation was nil; unfortunately there will be a positive charge to tax at 6% on any future RPT charges because the DT–designed to trap RNRB and TRNRB on the first death-- will be a related settlement even though initially the IPDI trust is not such: s.65(4)(a) and (5) (d)))
So it would be a question of balancing the impact of future RPT charges (tax cost 6% and funding issue) against the advantage of the settled house interest not being in the survivor’s estate at death:
1 The excess value over the survivor’s own RNRB or TRNRB, max.$350k, may well be taxed in due course at 40%
2 That value will enjoy a 10-15 % discount
3 The chargeable RPT interest will also enjoy the discount
4 The non-aggregation of the RPT interest by reducing the survivor’s estate may minimise or avoid RNRB taper at their death.
Contrast this with a PET by the children. While it subsists no CGT PPRR if none is resident. A PET may fail so still merit insurance cover. To be a PET only an absolute remainder works; any remainder trust is an RPT.
Where is the remainder going? If to the survivor it will form part of her own chargeable estate without discount, though it will then begin to attract CGT relief. if the QRI of the deceased is going to end up with the survivor the capture on the first death is largely negated.
If the children take the QRI absolutely on the first death, does the survivor wish to have her children as co-owners of her home? And part of the house will not attract CGT relief.
So attempting to secure 4 NRBs is not straightforward. And in trapping a NRB plus a TNRB on the first death will put £650k in the DT and saddle it with a 6% RPT rate. Fragmenting into more than one trust makes no difference as they will all be related. But 6% charges on the excess over £325k with a valuation discount is a lot cheaper than 40% on the full undiscounted value of the interest on the survivor’s eventual death unless he/she lives on for 40 years (ignoring deferral of that charge).
Jack Harper
Someone replied to a topic you are Watching.
| Lawyer Christina
26 February |
Thanks for this Jack. This is very helpful. I think an IPDI or the absolute interest probably makes the most sense but I’m not 100% I follow everything you kindly noted.
I don’t think I fully follow the CLT element of the DT you mention. In what way is it the children would make CLTs if the residue was held on DT for the children and spouse?
You mention also how IPDIs are helpful to shelter from CGT but this only occurs if the H2 is a beneficiary of the trust. If the children by way of PETs gave back the property to H2 (which I think is what you are saying), H2 can only carry 1 RNRB and 1 TRNRB – would the third RNRB from H1 then not be lost in that scenario? My apologies if I have misunderstood.