How Reeves's inheritance tax changes will affect families

The Autumn Budget might be two months away, but speculation over which taxes the Chancellor will increase has already begun. Rachel Reeves is constrained by her manifesto pledges to keep income tax, VAT and National Insurance at the same level, despite calls to 'substantially' increase taxes.

She is reportedly eyeing further changes to inheritance tax (IHT), less than a year after she announced plans to charge the tax on inherited pensions from April 2027. One of her options is to impose a lifetime gifting allowance, which would hit those who try to avoid IHT by giving away money and assets to their family before they die. Why is IHT reform on the cards again, what could Reeves' plans entail - and what does it mean for you?

IHT has historically only affected the very wealthy. At the moment, just 4 per cent of estates pay it. That is set to rise because house prices are increasing, while the threshold over which people pay inheritance tax stays the same. IHT being levied on private pensions left to descendants from 2027 will drive a further increase. Since 2009, an individual has needed to be worth £325,000 if you are single, or £650,000 if married or in a civil partnership, for beneficiaries to incur any death duties. This allowance is known as the nil-rate band.

If you are married, own a property and leave your main home to direct descendants (children or grandchildren) you each get a further £175,000 allowance, known as the residence nil rate band. Collectively, it means a couple that meet this criteria could pass on £1million tax-free. The £325,000 nil rate band has been unchanged for 16 years, which means that rising property prices have dragged more people into paying IHT. Had it risen in line with inflation, it would be £585,996, meaning fewer people would be affected.

There are some ways to minimise the amount of IHT paid, by gifting money to beneficiaries while you are still alive. You can gift £3,000 a year, and unlimited small gifts of up to £250, free from tax. However, if you die less than seven years after making the gift then you will start to pay IHT. This is levied on a sliding scale, from 8 per cent if gifts were made 6-7 years before death, to 40 per cent, if made within a year. This rule is designed to stop people making large gifts to family just before they die, in a bid to avoid IHT. Like the nil rate band, the gifting allowance has not changed since its introduction in 1986. If it had risen in line with inflation, it would be quadruple its current level at £12,297. As more people gift cash or assets to beneficiaries, they are more likely to fall foul of the rules.

Financial advisers tell This Is Money there has been a significant behaviour shift among their clients. More individuals are gifting their money to children and grandchildren to minimise their inheritance tax burden ahead of the pension changes in 2027. However, figures show that most people are not paying tax on their gifts, even if the giver has died within seven years. This is because you can actually gift far more than the £3,000 gifting allowance, so long as it doesn't breach the £325,000 nil rate band. These gifts will form part of your estate - but if it is below that threshold, you still won't pay tax. For example, if you have very few assets and you gift £10,000, and remain within the nil rate band, your estate will not pay tax on it. It means that it's very difficult to know how many people are gifting money tax-free, and likely why Reeves is eyeing changes to the rules.

A Freedom of Information request by This Is Money shows the number of families that are taxed on gifting was relatively low in the three years to 2021-22, the latest figures available. The figures have remained stable, with around 1,000 families being stung by IHT on their gifts each year, but some advisers suspect this doesn't paint the full picture. 'There will be people who gift and die within 7 years and then it's clawed back from the nil rate band, which don't appear in the figures,' says Lisa Caplan, director of advice and guidance at Charles Stanley. Shaun Moore, tax and financial planning expert at Quilter, also suspects 'people are gifting within the allowances and not suffering tax on the gifts.' For example, a gift of £250,000 wouldn't appear in the gifting table, but the estate will pay the tax because they've lost that amount from the nil rate band. Caplan predicts that the number of people who fall into the 'gfiting trap' will be higher as more people take out their tax-free cash early and start the seven-year clock. But this may not go far enough for Reeves, who needs to plug a £40billion black hole.

Reeves is reportedly looking at a lifetime gifting allowance to minimise the amount people can pass on to their beneficiaries without incurring tax. The Guardian reported that the Treasury is mulling a lifetime cap to limit the amount of money or value of assets an individual can give away. This would be an additional administrative burden and mean HM Revenue & Customs would have to hold long-term records of gifts over decades. Rachel Griffin, chartered financial planner at Quilter says a cap 'might encourage people to make large gifts earlier in life to use up their allowance, potentially moving significant assets out of their control before they are financially ready.' Gianpaolo Mantini, chartered financial planner at Saltus, thinks Reeves could introduce lifetime capital transfer charges, as is already the case with trusts. 'They might do something like the French system where you can give a certain amount within a 15 year period [but] I think it would be very difficult logistically.'

Another option for Reeves is to extend the seven-year rule to 10 years, although this would fly in the face of the reduction to five years, as first explored by the now-defunct Office for Tax Simplification. This is likely to receive significant backlash and only encourage people to gift earlier before they can afford to do so, experts say. Instead, it is more likely that the Treasury, which the Guardian reports is reviewing taper relief rules, removes the taper entirely. Taper relief is widely misunderstood and is generally only available to small numbers of the very wealthiest. Individuals only get taper relief if the value of the gift takes you above the nil rate band of £325,000. So if you gave someone £100,000 and then you died within 7 years, all that has done is reduce the available nil rate band, and the taper relief would not apply. As such, taper relief tends only to benefit the very wealthy, according to advisers. This could be a more palatable way for Reeves to change IHT rules for the wealthy, without imposing a wealth tax.

One of Reeves' other options is to hand over more powers to HMRC and the Probate Office to ensure people are properly reporting gifts. 'I suspect there's a bit of underreporting [of gifts],' says Mantini. 'The solicitor doing probate might not know of any gifts made within seven years unless they go through bank records to see large sums given out. 'Unless the family or beneficiary declares it to the executor might not have any realistic way of knowing. 'A lot of gifts are small in nature and the larger ones might not always be fully declared.' This would mean more investment in public services at a time when the public purse is stretched as is, and it would prove difficult to establish whether a large sum is a gift or payment. Finally, Reeves could change capital gains tax (CGT) rules - the tax people pay when they make a profit on selling assets such as a house or shares. Currently, when you inherit assets the CGT slate is wiped clean and the base cost of is reset at the value at the date of death. So if someone inherited their parents' house, then sold it straight away, capital gains tax would only be payable on any profit they made above the value of the property when they inherited it - likely nothing. Reeves could change this, so families may have to pay tax on the entire 'profit' made by the child. It could make some families pay the double hit of CGT - up to 24 per cent - and IHT at 40 per cent.

Any changes to the IHT rules are intended to bring more people into the tax net. A lifetime gifting cap would mark a significant departure from the way IHT has historically been imposed, and advisers say it would mark a huge change to the way families pass on wealth. 'Such a cap would bring more gifts into scope for IHT and could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members,' says Griffin. Ingrid McCleaver, partner at DMH Stallard, says a lifetime cap could spell the end of the 'bank of mum and dad', with children who receive a house deposit potentially facing an IHT bill.

'Not only are parents that work hard and save having to pay income tax on their salaries and savings, they may after the next budget suffer an additional tax on death, on amounts they have not had the benefit of for possibly years,' she says. Despite possible changes to how IHT is imposed, experts advise not to make drastic changes. Daniel Hough, wealth manager at RBC Brewin Dolphin says: 'There is a fine line between passing down wealth as efficiently as possible and enjoying a comfortable retirement. There are important discussions you need to have about the sustainability of your retirement pot and that may require scaling back ambitions – or you may find that you have to live with the consequences of your pension running out in your 80s or 90s.'