Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Deed of Variation Tax Planning: Accountant's Technical Toolkit for Post-Death Optimization

· 22 min

Executive Summary

Deeds of variation under IHTA 1984 s 142 and TCGA 1992 s 62(6) constitute the most versatile post-death tax planning mechanism in UK practice, yet their multi-tax implications demand a systematic compliance approach that existing practitioner coverage consistently fails to provide. This article establishes a four-tax audit framework spanning IHT, CGT, SDLT, and income tax for every proposed variation. Five qualifying conditions must be verified before execution, and three critical traps -- the consideration prohibition under s 142(3), the double-redirection bar from Russell v IRC, and the income tax settlor-interested rules under ITTOIA 2005 ss 624/629 -- can render a variation ineffective or generate unintended liabilities. The April 2026 APR/BPR allowance cap, the residence-based IHT regime enacted from April 2025, and the April 2027 pension death benefits changes materially expand both the planning opportunity set and the risk surface for practitioners advising within the two-year statutory window.

1. Introduction

The deed of variation -- more precisely, the instrument of variation under IHTA 1984 s 142 -- occupies a distinctive position in UK tax law. No other provision permits retrospective rewriting of the fiscal consequences of death with equivalent breadth.1 Where the original testamentary disposition produces a suboptimal tax outcome, beneficiaries acting within two years of death may redirect property with the variation treated, for IHT and CGT purposes, as if the deceased had effected the disposition. The mechanism is deceptively straightforward. The compliance landscape surrounding it is not.

Three structural features make deeds of variation a critical area of specialist practice. First, the provision spans four distinct tax regimes -- IHT, CGT, SDLT, and income tax -- each with independent rules governing whether and how the variation is recognised.2 A variation that optimises the position under one tax head may create unexpected liabilities under another. Second, procedural errors are irremediable: omitting the statement of intent renders the variation ineffective for tax purposes with no statutory remedy, and the Russell v IRC prohibition means a disposition varied once cannot be varied again.3 Third, the legislative environment is shifting. The residence-based IHT regime enacted from 6 April 2025 under the Finance Act 2025 has replaced the domicile-based system, altering the scope of IHT liability for estates involving internationally mobile individuals.4 From 6 April 2026, the GBP 2.5 million combined APR/BPR allowance introduces a cap on 100% relief that creates new generation-skipping opportunities through deeds of variation.5 From 6 April 2027, the inclusion of unused pension funds within the IHT estate will increase the taxable values against which post-death optimisation is measured.6

This article provides a structured practitioner toolkit addressing the legislative framework, the four-tax audit methodology, the principal compliance traps and governing case law, and the planning applications arising from the current and forthcoming regulatory landscape. The analysis targets tax advisors and probate accountants who must identify, model, and execute post-death optimisation within the two-year window.

2. The Legislative Framework: s 142 IHTA 1984 and s 62(6) TCGA 1992

2.1 The Section 142 "Writing Back" Mechanism

Section 142(1) IHTA 1984 provides that where, within two years after a person's death, any of the dispositions of property comprised in the estate immediately before death are varied by an instrument in writing made by the persons who benefit or would benefit under the dispositions, the Act applies as if the variation had been effected by the deceased.1 The provision also applies to disclaimers. Crucially, s 142(6) confirms that the provision operates regardless of whether the estate has been fully administered or property distributed to beneficiaries -- a point frequently misunderstood in practice.7

The "writing back" fiction is comprehensive for IHT purposes. IHTM35151 confirms that the variation is not treated as a transfer of value by the redirecting beneficiary, and the gift with reservation provisions under FA 1986 s 102 cannot apply because the deceased is treated as the donor.8 Separately, the pre-owned assets income tax charge under FA 2004 Schedule 15 is disapplied for dispositions made under s 142(1), as confirmed by IHTM44057.9

2.2 Five Qualifying Conditions

CG31650 and IHTM35032 together establish five conditions that must be satisfied for a variation to qualify for tax reading-back.10 Failure on any condition produces a binary consequence: the variation takes effect in general law but is not recognised for tax purposes.

  1. Written instrument: The variation must be effected by an instrument in writing executed within two years of the date of death.
  2. Parties: All persons who benefit or would benefit under the original disposition and whose entitlements are reduced must be parties to the instrument. Where a beneficiary is a minor or lacks capacity, court approval is required; parental consent alone is insufficient.11
  3. No extraneous consideration: No consideration in money or money's worth may be given from outside the estate, other than the making of a variation or disclaimer in respect of another disposition within the same estate (s 142(3)).12
  4. Statement of intent: For instruments executed after 31 July 2002, the instrument itself must contain a statement that s 142(1) IHTA 1984 and/or s 62(6) TCGA 1992 is intended to apply. A separate election to HMRC is no longer accepted.13
  5. HMRC filing: The IOV2 checklist form should accompany the variation when sent to HMRC, and where additional tax results from the variation, the instrument must be sent within six months of execution.13

2.3 The Parallel CGT Provision: s 62(6) TCGA 1992

Section 62(6) TCGA 1992 provides independent CGT reading-back. Where the conditions are satisfied, the variation is not treated as a disposal by the redirecting beneficiary, and the new beneficiary acquires the asset at probate value (market value at the date of death), preserving the CGT-free uplift under s 62(1).14

A critical planning dimension is the independence of the IHT and CGT elections. A variation may elect for IHT reading-back under s 142(1) without electing for CGT under s 62(6), or vice versa. Where the CGT election is omitted, CG31660 confirms that the redirecting beneficiary is treated as making a disposal at market value -- a deemed disposal that may crystallise a chargeable gain.15 This independence creates planning flexibility: where the probate value is lower than the current market value, a practitioner may deliberately omit the CGT election so that the new beneficiary acquires at the higher current market value, establishing a higher base cost for future disposals. Conversely, where the probate value exceeds the current value, including the CGT election preserves the higher base cost.

2.4 Variations Distinguished from Disclaimers

Both variations and disclaimers fall within s 142(1), but they operate differently. A disclaimer requires no consent from personal representatives and operates as a refusal of the benefit, with the disclaimed property passing under the residuary gift or intestacy rules. The disclaiming beneficiary cannot direct the destination. A variation, by contrast, requires all affected persons as parties but permits precise redirection to any specified recipient, including trusts created by the instrument itself.16 Practitioners must select the appropriate mechanism based on whether directional control is required.

3. The Four-Tax Audit: Mapping Variation Scenarios Across Tax Heads

Every proposed variation demands simultaneous analysis across four tax regimes. The following framework maps the principal consequences under each head.

3.1 IHT Consequences

The s 142 writing-back produces the following IHT outcomes:

  • Spouse/civil partner redirections: Redirecting property to the surviving spouse secures the s 18 IHTA 1984 spouse exemption, reducing the taxable estate. Where the original will fails to maximise the exemption, a variation can optimise the split between exempt and chargeable transfers.1
  • Charitable redirections: Redirecting property to charity secures the s 23 IHTA 1984 charity exemption. Where the redirected amount meets or exceeds 10% of the baseline amount, the entire estate may qualify for the reduced 36% IHT rate under Schedule 1A (inserted by FA 2012) rather than the standard 40% rate.17 The baseline amount is calculated by deducting only the NRB (and any transferable NRB) from the value transferred -- the RNRB is not deducted for baseline purposes, as confirmed by IHTM45009.18 Consider a GBP 1.2 million estate with GBP 325,000 NRB and GBP 175,000 RNRB available. The baseline amount is GBP 875,000 (GBP 1,200,000 less GBP 325,000 NRB). A charitable variation of GBP 87,500 (10% of the baseline) secures the 36% rate. The taxable amount after all deductions is GBP 612,500 (GBP 1,200,000 less GBP 325,000 NRB, less GBP 175,000 RNRB, less GBP 87,500 charity exemption), producing IHT of GBP 220,500 at 36%. Without the charitable variation, IHT on GBP 700,000 (GBP 1,200,000 less GBP 325,000 NRB less GBP 175,000 RNRB) at 40% is GBP 280,000 -- an IHT reduction of GBP 59,500. The net cost to beneficiaries is GBP 28,000 (the GBP 87,500 charitable gift less the GBP 59,500 IHT saving), while GBP 87,500 passes to the chosen charity.
  • RNRB recovery: Where the original will fails to pass a qualifying residential interest to a direct descendant, a variation redirecting the home or a share to children or grandchildren can secure the RNRB (GBP 175,000, frozen to 2030-31).19 The variation is read back under s 142, so the direct descendant is treated as inheriting from the deceased. For estates near the GBP 2 million taper threshold (where the RNRB tapers by GBP 1 for every GBP 2 of estate value above GBP 2 million, disappearing at GBP 2.35 million), a variation that increases the spouse exemption may simultaneously recover the RNRB by reducing the net estate below the taper threshold.

3.2 CGT Consequences

Where the s 62(6) election is included, no CGT disposal arises and the new beneficiary acquires at probate value. Where it is omitted (whether deliberately or inadvertently), the redirecting beneficiary is deemed to dispose at market value under CG31660, and the recipient acquires at that market value.15 The CGT annual exempt amount (GBP 3,000 for 2025-26) may mitigate small gains, but variations involving high-value assets -- particularly property or business interests -- demand careful base cost analysis before the election decision is made.

3.3 SDLT Consequences

FA 2003 Schedule 3 paragraph 4 exempts from SDLT any land transaction effected by an instrument of variation within two years of death where no extraneous consideration is given.20 This exemption operates alongside the paragraph 3A exemption for acquisitions in satisfaction of testamentary entitlement. The SDLT savings can be material. Consider an estate comprising a GBP 800,000 property and GBP 450,000 in investments shared equally between two beneficiaries. If one beneficiary takes the property and the other takes the investments plus GBP 25,000 in cash (an intra-estate redistribution), the DOV exemption avoids the SDLT that would otherwise arise on the deemed acquisition of the other beneficiary's half-share of the property. At 2025-26 residential SDLT rates, SDLT on a GBP 400,000 half-share would be approximately GBP 10,000 (0% on the first GBP 125,000, 2% on GBP 125,001-250,000, and 5% on GBP 250,001-400,000).21 The exemption is lost if consideration from outside the estate is introduced, converting the transaction into a standard land transaction subject to SDLT at the applicable rates.

3.4 Income Tax Consequences: The Settlor-Interested Trap

The s 142 writing-back is effective only for IHT and CGT purposes. For income tax, the person executing the variation is treated as the settlor of any trust created by the instrument.22 Two provisions create compliance traps:

ITTOIA 2005 s 624 (settlor-retained interest): Where the settlor retains any interest in trust property -- including the possibility of benefiting from it -- all trust income is taxed on the settlor at their marginal rate rather than the trust rate. A variation redirecting assets into a discretionary trust of which the redirecting beneficiary is a potential beneficiary triggers s 624.22

ITTOIA 2005 s 629 (parental settlements): Where a parent redirects inheritance into a trust benefiting their minor unmarried child, and trust income exceeds GBP 100 gross per annum, all trust income is taxed on the parent as settlor.23 This is the most commonly overlooked dimension of trust variations. A beneficiary who redirects GBP 200,000 into a discretionary trust for their children's education creates a parental settlement for income tax purposes, notwithstanding that the IHT writing-back treats the deceased as the settlor.

Practitioners must model the income tax consequences of trust variations separately from the IHT and CGT analysis. The four-tax audit is not optional: it is the only methodology that prevents the optimisation of one tax head from generating unintended liabilities under another.

4. Compliance Traps and Governing Case Law

4.1 The Consideration Prohibition: s 142(3) and Lau v HMRC

Section 142(3) provides that a variation does not qualify for writing-back if it is made for consideration in money or money's worth other than the making of a variation or disclaimer in respect of another disposition within the same estate.12 The provision prevents beneficiaries from obtaining IHT exemptions (spouse or charity) while receiving external compensation that effectively restores their economic position.

In Lau v HMRC [2009], the deceased's estate of approximately GBP 7 million included legacies of GBP 665,000 each to his two daughters and stepson (Mr Harris), with the residue passing to his surviving spouse, Mrs Lau. All three children executed a deed of variation disclaiming their legacies, correspondingly enlarging the residue transferred to Mrs Lau. Days later, Mrs Lau transferred GBP 1 million to Mr Harris. The Special Commissioner found the taxpayers' evidence regarding the independence of the transfer "incredible and unreliable," holding that the disclaimer was made for consideration within s 142(3).24 The subsequent case of Vaughan-Jones v Vaughan-Jones [2015] EWHC 1086 (Ch), a rectification application, addressed s 142(3) only in passing. The court granted rectification of a deed of variation but expressly declined to determine the consideration question, leaving it for potential future tribunal proceedings. HMRC indicated they would not treat the rectified deed as having the desired IHT effect. The Wilberforce Chambers commentary on these cases analyses the distinction between consideration (a genuine reciprocal bargain in contract law terms) and mere causation (one event following another), concluding that temporal proximity alone should not constitute consideration under s 142(3).25

Practitioners should implement three safeguards. First, ensure no pre-agreement or understanding exists between the redirecting beneficiary and any external party regarding compensatory payments. Second, document the variation's purpose independently of any subsequent transfers. Third, advise clients that temporal proximity between a variation and subsequent gifts from the enlarged beneficiary will attract HMRC scrutiny, even where no legal consideration exists.

4.2 The Double-Redirection Bar: Russell v IRC

Russell v IRC [1988] STC 195 established that property already redirected under an earlier s 142 instrument cannot be redirected again under a second instrument.3 IHTM35081 confirms the prohibition: an instrument will not fall within s 142 if it further redirects any item already redirected under an earlier instrument. The second redirection falls outside s 142 and is treated as a potentially exempt transfer (PET) by the person executing the second variation, with a seven-year survival requirement for IHT exclusion.

This prohibition makes the first variation irrevocable in effect. Practitioners must therefore conduct exhaustive analysis -- including the full four-tax audit -- before execution. Where multiple items of estate property are involved, all proposed variations should be contained in a single instrument to avoid the Russell trap. IHTM35081 explicitly notes that variations covering multiple items should be made in one instrument.3

4.3 Minor Beneficiary Capacity

Where a variation reduces the entitlement of a minor beneficiary (under 18) or a person lacking mental capacity, court approval is required. IHTM35042 confirms that parental consent alone is insufficient.11 The court must consent on behalf of the minor, typically through an application to the Chancery Division. This introduces both cost and delay into the variation process. Practitioners should identify capacity issues at the earliest stage and factor court application timescales into the two-year window.

4.4 Dead Beneficiary Variations

IHTM35042 provides that the executor of a person who died within two years of an earlier death may execute a variation redirecting that person's entitlement from the earlier death.11 This facility is valuable in rapid-succession death scenarios. However, where the deceased beneficiary held only a life interest rather than an absolute entitlement, a variation cannot be executed after their death because the interest has already terminated. Consent from the second deceased's beneficiaries is required where their entitlements are reduced by the proposed variation.

5. Planning Applications in the Current Regime

5.1 APR/BPR Allowance Optimisation (Deaths on or After 6 April 2026)

For deaths occurring on or after 6 April 2026, the GBP 2.5 million combined APR/BPR allowance creates new planning considerations for deeds of variation.5 Three scenarios illustrate the opportunity.

Generation-skipping: Where the surviving spouse inherits qualifying business or agricultural property under the will, a variation redirecting those assets to the next generation utilises the deceased's APR/BPR allowance on the first death. Without the variation, the property accumulates in the surviving spouse's estate, potentially exceeding the GBP 2.5 million cap at the second death with only 50% relief on the excess.26

Allowance allocation: The chronological allocation mechanism means the order of transfers matters. Deeds of variation reading back to the date of death may affect allowance allocation for subsequent lifetime transfers by the surviving spouse. Practitioners must model the combined position across both estates.

Spousal transfer of unused allowance: Where the first death preceded 6 April 2026, the full GBP 2.5 million allowance is deemed available for transfer to the surviving spouse. A variation is unnecessary to preserve this benefit, but practitioners should verify the interaction where partial utilisation occurs through a variation redirecting qualifying property to non-exempt beneficiaries.26

5.2 The Section 144 Double Reading-Back Strategy

Section 144 IHTA 1984 provides that where property is settled by will on discretionary trusts and an appointment is made within two years of death (before any interest in possession subsists), the Act treats the property as passing directly from the deceased to the appointee.27 When combined with s 142, this enables a two-stage strategy: a variation redirecting property into a discretionary trust, followed by an appointment out of the trust within two years. Both stages are read back to the date of death, providing maximum flexibility where the ultimate destination of the assets is uncertain at the time of the variation.

This combination is particularly valuable where family circumstances are in flux -- for example, where beneficiaries are in the process of divorce, facing creditor claims, or where the tax consequences of alternative destinations require extended modelling. The s 144 appointment can be tailored once circumstances clarify, provided it occurs within the two-year window and before any interest in possession arises in the trust.27

5.3 RNRB Recovery Through Variation

The residence nil rate band (GBP 175,000 per person, GBP 350,000 for married couples with full transferability) represents a quantified planning opportunity that deeds of variation can unlock.19 Where the original will leaves the family home entirely to the surviving spouse with no direct descendant condition, the RNRB is not available on the first death (though it may transfer). A variation redirecting a share of the qualifying residential interest to children or grandchildren secures the RNRB immediately, reducing the IHT liability by up to GBP 70,000 (GBP 175,000 at 40%).

For estates between GBP 2 million and GBP 2.35 million, the taper interaction creates compounding value. A variation that simultaneously increases the spouse exemption (reducing the net estate below GBP 2 million) and redirects a qualifying residential interest to a direct descendant can recover the full RNRB, producing a combined saving materially exceeding the simple GBP 70,000 calculation.19

5.4 Residence-Based IHT Regime: Cross-Border Considerations

The Finance Act 2025 replaced the domicile-based IHT system with a residence-based regime from 6 April 2025. Long-term UK residence (10 out of 20 preceding tax years) now determines IHT liability scope, with a "tail period" of three to ten years maintaining liability for departed residents.4 For deed of variation planning involving international estates, practitioners must assess the long-term resident status of the deceased to determine which assets fall within the IHT net. Where a formerly non-domiciled individual's estate includes non-UK assets that were previously excluded property, the residence-based regime may bring those assets within scope, expanding the potential benefit of post-death variations that redirect property to exempt beneficiaries or into relief-qualifying structures.

5.5 Pension Death Benefits Context: April 2027

From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and death benefits will be included within the estate for IHT purposes, with personal representatives responsible for reporting and paying IHT on these amounts.6 The spousal exemption is maintained. This change increases the IHT-exposed estate value, making post-death variations to optimise nil-rate bands, charitable exemptions, and spousal exemptions more commercially significant. An estate that was below the GBP 2 million RNRB taper threshold without pension values may exceed it once pension death benefits are included, making RNRB recovery through variation both more necessary and more valuable.

6. Practitioner Compliance Checklist

The following eight-step framework integrates the legislative requirements, qualifying conditions, and compliance traps into an actionable process for every deed of variation engagement.

  1. Identify the window: Confirm the date of death and verify that the two-year statutory period has not expired. Note the six-month HMRC filing deadline from execution where additional tax arises.13
  2. Map the disposition: Establish what property is comprised in the estate, how it is currently distributed under the will or intestacy, and which dispositions are candidates for variation. Confirm whether any prior variation has been executed (Russell prohibition).3
  3. Verify parties: Identify all persons whose entitlements are affected. Assess whether minors or persons lacking capacity are involved (court approval required). Determine whether personal representatives must be parties (required where additional tax results).11
  4. Model the four-tax outcome: For each proposed variation, analyse the IHT, CGT, SDLT, and income tax consequences. Determine whether the IHT and CGT elections should both be included, and model the income tax position for any trust variation against ss 624/629 ITTOIA 2005.2223
  5. Check consideration risk: Verify that no consideration in money or money's worth from outside the estate is involved. Document the independence of the variation from any subsequent transfers between beneficiaries.12
  6. Draft with statement of intent: Ensure the instrument contains the required statement that s 142(1) IHTA 1984 and/or s 62(6) TCGA 1992 is intended to apply. Specify which elections are made -- omission of either is deliberate only where the four-tax analysis supports it.13
  7. Execute and file: Ensure all required parties sign. Complete the IOV2 checklist. File with HMRC within six months where additional tax arises. Where property is redirected to charity, comply with the s 142(3A)-(3B) notification requirements.28
  8. Record and monitor: Maintain a file note recording the four-tax analysis, the rationale for each election decision, and the parties' positions on consideration. Where a s 144 appointment is anticipated, diarise the two-year deadline.27

Conclusion

The deed of variation under IHTA 1984 s 142 remains the profession's most versatile post-death planning instrument, but its effectiveness depends entirely on systematic multi-tax analysis and procedural rigour. The four-tax audit framework established in this article -- mapping every proposed variation across IHT, CGT, SDLT, and income tax -- is not a discretionary enhancement to existing practice: it is the minimum standard required to avoid the consideration trap, the double-redirection bar, and the income tax settlor-interested rules that can transform an optimisation exercise into a liability-generating event.

The legislative landscape amplifies both the opportunity and the risk. The April 2026 APR/BPR allowance cap creates generation-skipping opportunities that did not previously exist. The April 2027 pension death benefits inclusion will increase IHT-exposed estate values, making nil-rate band and exemption optimisation through variations more commercially significant. The residence-based IHT regime enacted from April 2025 expands the scope of assets within the IHT net for internationally connected estates. Each reform widens the two-year window's planning potential -- and each demands incorporation into the practitioner's analytical framework from the point of first instruction.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Estate Administration, Post-Death Tax Planning

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Apply the five qualifying conditions under CG31650 and IHTM35032 to determine whether a proposed deed of variation qualifies for IHT and CGT reading-back
  2. Analyse the four-tax consequences (IHT, CGT, SDLT, income tax) of a proposed variation using the structured audit framework
  3. Distinguish between the consideration prohibition under s 142(3) and mere causation, applying the principles from Lau v HMRC and the Wilberforce Chambers analysis to assess compliance risk
  4. Evaluate when the s 62(6) CGT election should be included or omitted based on base cost analysis and the new beneficiary's anticipated disposal timeline
  5. Calculate the IHT savings achievable through charitable redirections qualifying for the 36% reduced rate under Schedule 1A IHTA 1984

ICAEW/CIOT Competency Mapping

  • Tax compliance: Application of IHTA 1984 ss 142-146 and TCGA 1992 s 62(6) to post-death estate planning
  • Technical analysis: Multi-tax modelling across IHT, CGT, SDLT, and income tax for variation scenarios
  • Risk management: Identification and mitigation of compliance traps including consideration prohibition and double-redirection bar

Reflective Questions

  1. How would the four-tax audit framework change the approach to deed of variation advice within current practice, and which tax head has historically received insufficient attention?
  2. What procedural safeguards should be implemented to mitigate the consideration trap identified in Lau v HMRC, particularly where beneficiaries intend to make subsequent gifts to the redirecting party?
  3. How do the April 2026 APR/BPR allowance cap and the April 2027 pension death benefits inclusion alter the commercial significance of deeds of variation for estates containing qualifying business property or substantial pension funds?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 24 February 2026. 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. Inheritance Tax Act 1984, section 142. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/section/142 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. IHTM35011 -- Alterations to the devolution of an estate: Introduction (updated 9 January 2026). https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35011 ↩

  3. IHTM35081 -- Multiple variations; Russell v IRC [1988] STC 195. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35081 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. Finance Act 2025 (c. 8) -- Residence-based IHT provisions (enacted 6 April 2025). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/8/contents/enacted ↩ ↩2

  5. GOV.UK -- Agricultural property relief and business property relief changes (updated 15 January 2026). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief/agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief-changes ↩ ↩2

  6. Royal London -- Inheritance tax on pension death benefits from April 2027. https://adviser.royallondon.com/technical-central/pensions/death-benefits/inheritance-tax-on-pension-death-benefits-from-april-2027/ ↩ ↩2

  7. IHTM35032 -- When a variation can be made. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35032 ↩

  8. IHTM35151 -- IHT implications when s 142 is satisfied. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35151 ↩

  9. IHTM44057 -- Pre-owned assets: exemptions: changes in distribution of deceased's estate. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm44057 ↩

  10. CG31650 -- Conditions for retrospective CGT treatment. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg31650 ↩

  11. IHTM35042 -- Dead beneficiaries and variations on behalf of deceased persons. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35042 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  12. IHTA 1984 s 142(3); IHTM35100 -- Consideration from outside the estate. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35100 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. IHTM35013 -- Time limits and statement of intent requirements. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35013 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  14. Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, section 62(6). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/12/section/62 ↩

  15. CG31660 -- CGT effects if conditions not satisfied. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg31660 ↩ ↩2

  16. CG30270 -- Varying devolution of estate voluntarily. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg30270 ↩

  17. IHTA 1984 Schedule 1A (inserted by Finance Act 2012). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/schedule/1A ↩

  18. IHTM45009 -- Reduced rate for gifts to charity: calculating the baseline amount. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm45009 ↩

  19. GOV.UK -- Work out and apply the residence nil rate band. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inheritance-tax-residence-nil-rate-band ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  20. Finance Act 2003, Schedule 3, paragraph 4. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/14/schedule/3 ↩

  21. IHTM35060 -- Has Stamp Duty exemption been claimed? https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm35060 ↩

  22. ITTOIA 2005, section 624. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/5/section/624 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  23. ITTOIA 2005, section 629. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/5/section/629 ↩ ↩2

  24. Lau v HMRC [2009]; Wilberforce Chambers -- Consideration v Causation in s 142 IHTA 1984. https://www.wilberforce.co.uk/article/consideration-v-causation-in-the-context-of-s142-of-the-inheritance-tax-act-1984-2/ ↩

  25. Vaughan-Jones v Vaughan-Jones [2015] EWHC 1086 (Ch); Wilberforce Chambers analysis of consideration vs causation. https://www.wilberforce.co.uk/article/consideration-v-causation-in-the-context-of-s142-of-the-inheritance-tax-act-1984-2/ ↩

  26. GOV.UK -- APR/BPR changes: spousal transfer and allowance allocation provisions. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief/agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief-changes ↩ ↩2

  27. IHTA 1984, section 144; IHTM42227. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/section/144 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  28. IHTA 1984 s 142(3A)-(3B) -- charitable variation notification requirements. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/section/142 ↩

Preview Free