Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Death-in-Service Benefits: Integration with Estate Planning and Employee Communication

· 21 min

Executive Summary

The UK group risk industry paid a record GBP 2.59 billion in claims during 2024, with group life assurance accounting for GBP 1.74 billion across 12,567 claims at an average of GBP 138,220 per claim.1 From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and death benefits enter the inheritance tax estate, yet the government has confirmed that death-in-service benefits from registered pension schemes are explicitly excluded from this change.2 This exclusion, combined with the distinction between registered and excepted group life schemes and expression-of-wish form completion rates falling below 10% without active employer communication, creates a challenge across three domains for benefits managers: scheme structure review, trustee governance, and employee engagement.3 This article provides an integrated framework for HR and benefits professionals to assess group life scheme design, strengthen communication strategies, and position death-in-service provision within broader financial wellbeing and estate planning education.

1. The Scale and Significance of Death-in-Service Benefits

Death-in-service benefits represent one of the most financially consequential components of the employee benefits package, yet they remain among the least understood by employers and employees alike. The scale of the UK group risk market underscores this significance: 15,662,500 people held group risk cover in 2024, a 3.7% increase year-on-year, with 11,440,262 insured specifically under group death benefit policies.4 The number of in-force group risk policies reached 94,675, up 3.2% from 91,739 in the prior year.4

The financial impact on bereaved families is substantial. Group life assurance paid out GBP 1.74 billion across 12,567 claims in 2024, with an average claim value of GBP 138,220.1 Cancer accounted for 39% of group life claims, followed by ischaemic heart disease at 15%.1 These figures represent the largest annual payout in the UK group risk industry's history, and they quantify the material difference that death-in-service provision makes to families at a point of acute financial need. The broader group risk market -- encompassing group income protection (GBP 674.5 million across 18,038 claims) and group critical illness (GBP 179.2 million across 2,290 claims) -- brings the total industry payout to GBP 2.59 billion, with 6,733 people helped to return to work through group risk support services during 2024.1

Despite this scale, employer understanding lags considerably. A 2018 GRiD survey indicated that 55% of UK employers did not accurately understand the circumstances in which their group life assurance policies pay out.5 The CIPD Reward Management Survey 2022 reported that 61% of UK employers offered death-in-service or life assurance to all employees, up from 54% in 2018, confirming the benefit's prevalence but not the depth of employer engagement with its mechanics.6 Benefits are typically paid as a multiple of annual salary, with most UK employers offering between two and four times salary.7

The April 2027 inheritance tax reform introduces a further dimension. With most unused pension funds and death benefits entering the IHT estate from 6 April 2027, but death-in-service benefits from registered pension schemes explicitly excluded, benefits managers face an operational imperative to review scheme structures, clarify the tax position for employees, and strengthen governance arrangements.2 The reform creates both a compliance obligation and a strategic opportunity to elevate death-in-service provision from an administrative function to a core element of workforce wellbeing strategy.

2. Tax Treatment of Death-in-Service Benefits: The Current Framework

2.1 Income Tax and the Lump Sum and Death Benefit Allowance

The tax treatment of death-in-service benefits depends fundamentally on scheme structure. For registered pension schemes, lump sum death benefits paid before the member's 75th birthday and within the lump sum and death benefit allowance (LSDBA) of GBP 1,073,100 are tax-free to beneficiaries.8 Benefits exceeding the LSDBA, or paid where the member died aged 75 or over, are subject to income tax at the beneficiary's marginal rate.8 The LSDBA replaced the pension lifetime allowance from 6 April 2024 and operates as a cumulative ceiling across all tax-free lump sum pension benefits received during a member's lifetime and on death. Lump sum death benefits from registered schemes must be paid within two years of the scheme administrator becoming aware of the member's death to qualify for the most favourable tax treatment under Finance Act 2004 ss 167-168 and Schedules 28-29.9

Registered group life death benefits count towards the member's LSDBA.10 For higher earners with substantial personal pension provision -- particularly those with defined benefit pension entitlements or significant defined contribution funds -- this interaction can result in death-in-service benefits exceeding the remaining LSDBA and triggering income tax charges on the excess. Individuals with valid transitional protections (fixed protection, individual protection) may hold higher personal limits, but benefits managers should be aware that the LSDBA interaction affects a growing proportion of the workforce as pension savings accumulate.8

Excepted group life policies, by contrast, operate outside the registered pension scheme framework entirely. Benefits from excepted schemes are exempt from income tax regardless of the member's age at death and regardless of the LSDBA position.10 This distinction makes excepted schemes particularly advantageous for employees whose LSDBA has been substantially utilised by personal pension contributions or other registered scheme benefits.

For both scheme types, employer premiums are generally allowable as a business expense for corporation tax purposes and are not treated as a benefit-in-kind for employees.11 For registered group life schemes, premium deductibility follows the employer pension contribution rules under Finance Act 2004 s 196, while for excepted schemes, deductibility derives from general trading expense principles where the premiums are paid wholly and exclusively for business purposes.11 This consistent employer cost treatment means that the choice between registered and excepted structures should be driven by beneficiary outcomes rather than employer tax considerations.

2.2 Inheritance Tax Position

Death-in-service benefits paid at the discretion of pension scheme trustees or providers fall outside the deceased's estate for IHT purposes.12 The non-binding nature of expression-of-wish forms preserves this exclusion: because the forms guide rather than direct trustee discretion, no binding nomination exists that would bring the benefit into the member's estate.12 This discretionary structure is fundamental to the IHT treatment and explains why expression-of-wish forms must remain advisory rather than binding -- a distinction that benefits managers should communicate clearly to employees who may expect their nominated beneficiaries to receive the benefit automatically.

Excepted group life policies are held in trust and became relevant property trusts from 6 April 2006. However, because term assurance policies have no surrender value, the trust is typically valued at nil, resulting in negligible periodic and exit charges.13 Exit charges are likely 0% within the first ten years unless the member was terminally ill at the inception of coverage. The practical effect is that both registered and excepted death-in-service benefits currently sit outside the IHT estate, albeit through different legal mechanisms.

2.3 Relevant Life Policies

Relevant life policies offer an individual alternative to group schemes. Funded by the employer, these policies provide death benefits outside the IHT estate when written in trust, with premiums qualifying as an allowable business expense under HMRC's Employment Income Manual at EIM15045 and not constituting a benefit-in-kind.14 Benefits do not count towards the LSDBA.15 Relevant life policies are particularly advantageous for company directors, small employers, and high earners whose LSDBA is already substantially committed, and they can complement group life schemes to provide enhanced cover for specific employee cohorts. The policy must be provided wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and benefits managers considering this option for senior staff should obtain specialist advice on structuring to ensure the tax advantages are preserved.15

3. April 2027 Inheritance Tax Reform: What Changes and What Does Not

3.1 The Core Change

From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and pension death benefits are brought within the value of the deceased's estate for IHT purposes.16 Personal representatives -- not pension scheme administrators -- bear liability for reporting and paying the resultant IHT.2 The government's impact assessment estimates that 10,500 estates will become newly liable for IHT and 38,500 estates will pay increased IHT as a result, with an average increase of approximately GBP 34,000 per affected estate.16 The Exchequer impact is projected at GBP 710 million in 2027-28, rising to GBP 1,665 million by 2030-31.16 The reform represents one of the most significant changes to the intersection of pensions and IHT since the pension freedoms in 2015, and its implications extend across employee benefits, personal financial planning, and estate administration.

3.2 Death-in-Service Benefits: The Confirmed Exclusion

The critical distinction for benefits managers is that all death-in-service benefits payable from registered pension schemes are explicitly excluded from the IHT scope of the April 2027 reform.2 This exclusion applies to both discretionary and non-discretionary registered schemes. The government's consultation response defines excluded benefits as lump sum death benefits payable only if the member was an active member of the scheme and in employment of a description specified in the scheme terms immediately before death.2 Dependants' scheme pensions from defined benefit or collective money purchase arrangements are also excluded.16

This exclusion has significant practical implications. Employees may conflate death-in-service benefits with other pension death benefits and incorrectly assume that all benefits are now within the IHT estate. The distinction hinges on employment status at the point of death: a death-in-service benefit is, by definition, payable only to active scheme members in relevant employment. A deferred member who has left employment and subsequently dies does not receive a death-in-service benefit -- any lump sum death benefit payable from the pension scheme in those circumstances falls within the new IHT rules. Benefits managers must communicate this distinction accurately to current employees and, where applicable, to leavers who retain deferred pension benefits.

3.3 Payment Mechanisms for In-Scope Benefits

Where pension death benefits do fall within IHT scope, the policy paper provides that pension beneficiaries may access only 50% of the deceased's pension death benefits that are potentially subject to IHT for up to 15 months after the date of death, enabling personal representatives to assess and settle the IHT liability.16 The consultation response sets out three payment routes: payment from the free estate, a beneficiary-directed scheme payment to HMRC, or direct beneficiary payment of IHT following withdrawal of pension benefits in full.2 Income tax will not apply to death benefits equal to the IHT owed, with HMRC establishing refund mechanisms where double taxation would otherwise arise.

Benefits managers should anticipate employee enquiries about these mechanisms, particularly from employees with significant accumulated pension funds alongside death-in-service cover. The ability to distinguish between the two benefit categories and direct employees toward appropriate professional advice is a core competence that the April 2027 reform demands. Providing this guidance is not financial advice -- it is factual communication about the structure and tax treatment of the employer's own benefits programme.

4. Registered Versus Excepted Group Life Schemes: A Strategic Choice

4.1 Registered Group Life Schemes

Registered group life schemes operate under pension scheme legislation, specifically Finance Act 2004 ss 167-168 and Schedules 28-29.9 Death benefits count towards the member's LSDBA, and the scheme is subject to pension scheme governance and regulatory requirements.8 From April 2027, death-in-service benefits from registered schemes are confirmed as excluded from IHT, reinforcing the ongoing viability of this structure for mainstream employee populations where the majority of members hold LSDBA headroom sufficient to absorb the death-in-service benefit without triggering income tax charges.

4.2 Excepted Group Life Policies

Excepted group life policies (EGLPs) operate outside the registered pension scheme framework under the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 ss 480-482.17 Seven conditions must be satisfied continuously for the policy to maintain excepted status, including the requirement that benefits are calculated on the same basis for all covered employees -- typically a uniform multiple of salary.18 Benefits do not count towards the LSDBA and are exempt from income tax regardless of the member's age at death or LSDBA position.10 EGLPs are not affected by the April 2027 IHT reform because they are not registered pension schemes.19

The market trajectory confirms growing employer interest in excepted structures. Swiss Re Group Watch 2025 reported that excepted group life policy membership grew 9.3% in 2024, compared with 2.1% growth for registered group life policy membership.4 This disparity suggests that employer and advisor awareness of the LSDBA interaction is driving structural decisions, a trend that the April 2027 IHT reform may accelerate as employers seek to differentiate their death-in-service provision from pension death benefits that will now fall within IHT scope.

No formal HMRC approval process exists for excepted group life policies; employers and their advisors must self-assess compliance with the seven conditions under ITTOIA 2005 ss 481-482.17 This self-assessment requirement places a governance obligation on benefits managers to ensure that their group life provider and employee benefits consultant have confirmed the policy's excepted status and that the conditions continue to be satisfied as the workforce composition and benefit structure evolve.

4.3 Dual Scheme Structures and Decision Framework

Employers may operate registered and excepted schemes simultaneously, with combined underwriting and premium calculation possible across both.10 Dual structures allow differentiated benefit levels: a registered scheme providing the base benefit for all employees, with an excepted scheme layering additional cover for higher earners whose LSDBA may be substantially utilised by personal pension contributions.10

Benefits managers evaluating scheme structure should consider four variables: workforce salary distribution and the proportion of employees likely to exceed or approach the LSDBA; existing pension contribution levels and projected LSDBA consumption across the workforce; administrative capacity to operate dual structures with separate governance requirements and compliance monitoring; and the cost-benefit analysis of excepted scheme implementation against the income tax savings for affected beneficiaries. Where the workforce includes a significant cohort of employees with salaries exceeding GBP 100,000 -- for whom four times salary death-in-service cover alone approaches or exceeds the LSDBA when combined with pension savings -- a dual structure merits serious consideration.

5. Trustee Governance and the Duty of Care

5.1 Trustee Obligations

Employer-appointed trustees carry fiduciary obligations when distributing death-in-service benefits. Trustees must conduct thorough due diligence before making any distribution, considering the expression of wish, will provisions, intestacy rules, personal circumstances, and financial dependency of potential beneficiaries.20 Expression-of-wish forms are non-binding and represent one factor among several that trustees must weigh; trustees face personal liability for breach of trust where due diligence is inadequate or where distributions are made following insufficient investigation.20

Bankruptcy searches on potential beneficiaries are required before distribution, as directing benefits to a bankrupt individual could result in the funds being claimed by the trustee in bankruptcy rather than supporting the intended dependants.20 All decisions must be fully recorded including the reasoning and factors considered.21 The governance burden is not merely procedural: it reflects a substantive duty of care to all potential beneficiaries, including individuals who may not have been nominated on any expression-of-wish form.

5.2 Recent Pension Ombudsman Determinations

Recent Pension Ombudsman determinations have reinforced the consequences of governance failures with significant financial awards. In one case, a scheme was ordered to pay over GBP 50,000 for failure to distribute lump sum death benefits within the two-year window required to preserve income tax exemption under the registered pension scheme rules.21 The delay caused the benefits to become taxable at the beneficiary's marginal rate, creating a direct financial loss attributable to the scheme's administrative failure.

In a separate determination, the Ombudsman remitted a trustee's distribution decision for reconsideration after finding that the trustee had failed to contact two potential beneficiaries directly before exercising discretion.21 The Ombudsman concluded that the trustee had insufficient grounds for its distribution decision because it had not gathered information from all relevant parties, directing a fresh exercise of discretion with proper due diligence.

These awards signal an increasing burden on trustees to explain their decision-making process and to consider all relevant information rather than automatically following the expression of wish.21 For HR professionals who appoint employer-nominated trustees -- or who serve as trustees themselves -- these determinations underscore the need for documented procedures, regular trustee training, and access to professional legal support when processing claims. The cost of an external legal review on a contested claim is modest compared with the potential GBP 50,000-plus awards now being made by the Ombudsman.

5.3 Practical Governance Framework

A robust governance framework for death-in-service claim administration encompasses several elements: a documented claims procedure that trustees can follow step by step from notification of death through to final distribution; training for employer-nominated trustees at appointment and at regular intervals thereafter, covering due diligence requirements, the non-binding status of expression-of-wish forms, and record-keeping obligations; a requirement for independent legal advice on claims where the expression of wish is contested, outdated (more than two years old without review), or absent; clear escalation procedures for complex cases involving multiple potential beneficiaries, estranged family members, or cohabiting partners; and a records retention policy that preserves decision documentation for the statutory limitation period.

6. Employee Communication Strategy and Estate Planning Integration

6.1 The Communication Deficit

The disparity between expression-of-wish form completion rates with and without active employer communication illustrates the scale of the engagement challenge. Completion rates fall below 10% where employers do not actively communicate the benefit, yet rise to 80-90% where employers incorporate structured engagement through onboarding sessions and ongoing prompts.3 This gap is not merely an engagement metric; it represents a governance risk. Absent a completed expression of wish, trustees face protracted investigations to identify appropriate beneficiaries, generating delays that can extend to months or years and exposing the scheme to Pension Ombudsman complaints. The link between communication investment and governance outcomes is direct and quantifiable.

6.2 Structured Communication Framework

Effective communication operates across three touchpoints. At onboarding, new employees should receive a clear explanation of their death-in-service cover level, the tax treatment relevant to their scheme structure, the importance of the expression-of-wish form, and the interaction with any personal life insurance or pension death benefit nominations. Benefits platforms can facilitate immediate digital completion of expression-of-wish forms during the onboarding process, capturing nominations while the information is fresh and the employee is engaged with benefits enrolment.

Annual reminders serve to prompt employees who have experienced life events -- marriage, civil partnership, divorce, the birth of children, property purchase -- to review and update their nominations.22 These reminders should be integrated with broader benefits communication cycles rather than delivered as isolated administrative notices. A reminder linked to the annual benefits statement or total reward communication is more likely to generate action than a standalone email requesting form completion.

Life event triggers provide the third touchpoint. Benefits platforms that prompt employees to review their nominations following recorded life events achieve materially higher ongoing accuracy than annual reminder programmes alone.22 The communication should extend beyond the nomination form itself to explain how the death-in-service benefit interacts with any will provisions, personal life insurance, and pension death benefit nominations the employee may hold. Where the employer provides access to will-writing services or financial wellbeing platforms, the life event trigger should connect the employee to these resources alongside the nomination review prompt.

6.3 Integration with Financial Wellbeing and Estate Planning Education

Death-in-service benefits are most effectively communicated within the umbrella of a broader financial wellbeing programme. Employer-provided financial wellbeing programmes increasingly include estate planning components: will-writing services, pension nomination review, personal insurance gap analysis, and signposting to qualified financial advisors for employees who require individual guidance.22

Benefits managers should position the death-in-service conversation within this broader framework. The April 2027 IHT reform creates a natural catalyst for communication: employees with accumulated pension funds alongside death-in-service cover need to understand which benefits remain outside IHT scope and which may now attract IHT on their estates. This distinction is typically not communicated to employees despite its material impact on beneficiaries.19

Tax implications -- including the LSDBA interaction for registered scheme members, the income tax exemption for excepted scheme members, and the IHT exclusion from April 2027 -- warrant clear, accessible communication. Benefits managers should collaborate with their group life providers and employee benefits consultants to develop communication materials that explain these points without crossing into individual financial advice. The boundary is clear: explaining the structure and tax treatment of employer-provided benefits is factual communication; recommending specific actions based on individual circumstances is regulated financial advice.

6.4 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Benefits Communication

Effective communication must reach all segments of the workforce, including part-time employees, remote workers, and those in distributed or non-desk-based roles. Expression-of-wish form guidance should address non-traditional family structures, including cohabiting partners, blended families, and dependants who may not fall within intestacy categories. Trustees retain discretion to distribute benefits to any individual or class of individuals, and the expression-of-wish form should make clear that nominees are not limited to legal spouses or civil partners.

Communication materials should be reviewed for accessibility across languages, digital literacy levels, and cultural contexts. Benefits managers designing engagement programmes should audit completion rates by employee demographic -- role type, location, employment status, working pattern -- to identify and address participation gaps. Where completion rates among part-time or non-desk-based employees fall materially below the workforce average, targeted interventions such as manager-facilitated sessions or simplified paper-based processes may be necessary to ensure equitable access to the nomination process.

Conclusion

The April 2027 IHT reform provides a structural catalyst for benefits managers to conduct a comprehensive review of death-in-service provision. The confirmed exclusion of death-in-service benefits from registered pension schemes from the new IHT rules preserves the core value proposition of group life cover, but the broader change to pension death benefit taxation demands a coherent communication strategy that distinguishes between benefit categories and directs employees toward appropriate professional advice.

A comprehensive review framework encompasses four domains. First, scheme structure assessment: evaluating whether the current registered, excepted, or dual structure optimally serves the workforce given salary distribution, LSDBA consumption patterns, and the April 2027 IHT landscape. Second, trustee governance audit: ensuring that claim administration procedures, trustee training, and documentation practices align with the standards expected by the Pension Ombudsman, informed by recent awards exceeding GBP 50,000. Third, communication programme development: designing a structured approach to expression-of-wish form completion that targets the 80-90% rates demonstrated through active onboarding engagement and life event triggers, rather than the sub-10% rates observed in the absence of employer communication. Fourth, estate planning integration: positioning death-in-service benefits within a broader financial wellbeing programme that encompasses will-writing services, pension nomination review, and signposting to qualified advisors.

Cross-functional collaboration between HR, pensions, legal, and finance teams is essential. The technical complexity of the registered-versus-excepted distinction, the IHT reform interaction, and trustee governance obligations demands specialist input that no single function can provide in isolation. Benefits managers who lead this cross-functional effort position themselves and their organisations to deliver materially better outcomes for bereaved families while strengthening the employer value proposition and mitigating governance risk.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Employee Benefits Management, Group Risk, Pension Death Benefits, Financial Wellbeing Strategy

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Distinguish between registered and excepted group life scheme structures and evaluate their respective tax implications for employee beneficiaries in light of the lump sum and death benefit allowance
  2. Assess the impact of the April 2027 IHT reform on death-in-service benefits and identify which benefit categories are excluded from the new inheritance tax rules
  3. Design an employee communication strategy that targets expression-of-wish form completion rates above 80% through structured onboarding, annual reminders, and life event engagement touchpoints
  4. Evaluate trustee governance obligations when distributing death-in-service benefits, applying the standards established by recent Pension Ombudsman determinations

CIPD Competency Mapping

  • People practices: Benefits strategy design and group risk scheme governance (CIPD Profession Map)
  • Culture and behaviour: Employee communication, financial wellbeing, and inclusive benefits design (CIPD Profession Map)

Reflective Questions

  1. How would a review of the current group life scheme structure -- registered, excepted, or dual -- affect the tax position of beneficiaries across different employee cohorts within the organisation?
  2. What governance procedures are currently in place for employer-appointed trustees processing death-in-service claims, and how do these align with the expectations established by recent Pension Ombudsman determinations?
  3. How could death-in-service benefits communication be integrated into the broader financial wellbeing programme to improve employee engagement and estate planning awareness?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-02-25. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. GRiD Claims Survey 2024: UK group risk industry claims data. https://grouprisk.org.uk/group-life-assurance/ and https://corporate-adviser.com/group-risk-claims-reach-record-2-59bn-in-2024/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. GOV.UK: Inheritance Tax on pensions -- liability, reporting and payment -- summary of responses (July 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/inheritance-tax-on-pensions-liability-reporting-and-payment/outcome/inheritance-tax-on-pensions-liability-reporting-and-payment-summary-of-responses ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  3. Chase de Vere: Encouraging those beneficiary nominations (October 2023). https://chasedevere.co.uk/2023/10/02/encouraging-thoes-beneifiary-nominations/ ↩ ↩2

  4. Swiss Re Group Watch 2025: UK group risk market statistics. https://healthcareandprotection.com/group-risk-market-covers-500000-more-lives-but-growth-slowing-swiss-re/ and https://employeebenefits.co.uk/group-risk/number-of-in-force-group-risk-policies-increases-year-on-year/280654.article ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Employee Benefits: More than half of UK employers do not understand life assurance payout policies (2018). https://employeebenefits.co.uk/group-risk/more-than-half-of-uk-employers-do-not-understand-life-assurance-payout-policies/193050.article ↩

  6. CIPD Reward Management Survey 2022: Focus on employee benefits. https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/reward-management-survey-2022_tcm18-108776.pdf ↩

  7. Legal & General: Death in service benefit vs life insurance. https://www.legalandgeneral.com/insurance/life-insurance/definitions/death-in-service-v-life-insurance/ ↩

  8. HMRC Pensions Tax Manual PTM172000: Lump sum and death benefit allowance. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/pensions-tax-manual/ptm172000 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. HMRC Pensions Tax Manual PTM071000: Death benefits -- essential principles -- overview. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/pensions-tax-manual/ptm071000 ↩ ↩2

  10. KPMG: Inheritance Tax changes -- is your employee group life plan affected? https://kpmg.com/uk/en/insights/tax/tmd-inheritance-tax-changes-is-your-employee-group-life-plan-affected.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  11. HMRC Business Income Manual BIM46001: Specific deductions -- pension schemes (employer contribution deductibility for registered schemes) and BIM45525: Specific deductions -- insurance -- employees and other key persons (general premium deductibility). https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim46001 and https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim45525 ↩ ↩2

  12. HMRC Inheritance Tax Manual IHTM17051: Pensions -- IHT charges -- death benefits introduction. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm17051 ↩ ↩2

  13. HMRC Inheritance Tax Manual IHTM17092: Pensions -- excepted group life policies -- Inheritance Tax treatment. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm17092 ↩

  14. HMRC Employment Income Manual EIM15045: Employer-financed retirement benefits schemes -- relevant life policies. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim15045 ↩

  15. Royal London: Relevant life plans -- frequently asked questions. https://adviser.royallondon.com/technical-central/protection-guidance/relevant-life-plan/rlp-frequently-asked-questions/ ↩ ↩2

  16. GOV.UK: Inheritance Tax -- unused pension funds and death benefits (policy paper, updated December 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  17. HMRC Insurance Policyholder Taxation Manual IPTM7020: Scope -- group life policies -- tax legislation -- ITTOIA05/S480 to S482. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/insurance-policyholder-taxation-manual/iptm7020 ↩ ↩2

  18. HMRC Insurance Policyholder Taxation Manual IPTM7025: Exceptions -- group life policies -- conditions about when benefits may be paid and how they are calculated. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/insurance-policyholder-taxation-manual/iptm7025 ↩

  19. Blake Morgan: Group life schemes -- some "taxing" issues for employers but help is out there! https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/group-life-schemes-some-taxing-issues-for-employers-but-help-is-out-there/ ↩ ↩2

  20. Foot Anstey: Death in Service Benefits -- What are your duties as a trustee when a claim is made? https://www.footanstey.com/our-insights/articles-news/death-in-service-benefits-what-are-your-duties-as-a-trustee-when-a-claim-is-made/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  21. A&O Shearman: UK Pensions in Dispute -- July 2025. https://www.aoshearman.com/en/insights/pensions-in-dispute-july-2025 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  22. CIPD: Health and Wellbeing at Work 2025 -- benefits communication, financial wellbeing integration, and life event engagement strategies. https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/reports/health-well-being-work/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

Preview Free