Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

ROI of Financial Wellness Benefits: Will Planning Impact on Employee Productivity and Retention

· 19 min

Executive Summary

Financial stress costs UK employers an estimated GBP 10.3 billion annually in absenteeism and presenteeism, yet fewer than a third of organisations link benefits provision to productivity outcomes. The CIPD Good Work Index 2025 reports that 31% of employees acknowledge money worries negatively affect work performance, while 56% of UK adults lack a valid will -- exposing a significant gap in workplace financial wellbeing strategies. From 6 April 2027, the inclusion of unused pension funds within Inheritance Tax estates creates a regulatory catalyst: employer pension contributions now carry estate planning consequences that demand coordinated will and nomination strategies. Deloitte research establishes a return of GBP 4.70 per GBP 1 invested in workforce wellbeing, with universal interventions delivering GBP 6.30. This article provides total rewards analysts with an evidence-based ROI measurement framework connecting will planning provision to quantifiable reductions in financial-stress absence, improved retention, and pension benefit protection.

1. The Financial Stress Productivity Drain: Quantifying the Cost

1.1 Macro-Economic Context

The scale of working days lost to stress-related conditions provides the essential backdrop for any benefits ROI analysis. The Health and Safety Executive's 2024/25 statistics report that 964,000 workers in Great Britain suffered work-related stress, depression, or anxiety during that period, resulting in 22.1 million working days lost.1 Stress, depression, and anxiety accounted for 52% of all work-related ill health and 62% of all working days lost to ill health.1 These figures represent a doubling in prevalence since annual records began in 2001/02, indicating a structural trend rather than a cyclical fluctuation.

Broader sickness absence data from the Office for National Statistics confirms the magnitude: 148.9 million working days were lost to sickness or injury in 2024, with an average of 4.4 days lost per worker.2 While this represents a decrease of 14.9 million days from the 2023 peak, the figure remains 9.9 million above the pre-pandemic 2019 baseline.2 ONS productivity data reinforces the concern: output per hour worked decreased 0.5% in Q4 2025 compared with Q4 2024, remaining only 2.4% above the pre-pandemic level.3 Financial stress is one of multiple factors depressing per-worker output, but it is among the most directly addressable through benefits strategy.

1.2 The Financial Stress Component

The CIPD Good Work Index 2025, surveying approximately 5,000 UK employees in February 2025, isolates the financial dimension of workplace stress with granularity that total rewards analysts can benchmark against their own workforces. Thirty-one per cent of employees reported that money worries negatively affected their work performance.4 Among employees earning under GBP 40,000, this figure rose to 37%; notably, 22% of those earning GBP 60,000 and above also reported a negative impact, confirming that financial stress is not confined to lower income brackets.4 Nineteen per cent experienced sleep loss from financial worry, 15% reported stress-related health problems, and 13% said financial worries impaired concentration and decision-making at work.4

The Aegon and Centre for Economics and Business Research report on financial wellbeing and productivity -- the most recently published edition of this biennial research (September 2023) -- translates these individual-level effects into aggregate employer costs. The combined annual cost of financial-stress-driven absenteeism and presenteeism was quantified at GBP 10.3 billion, comprising GBP 3.7 billion in absenteeism and GBP 6.6 billion in presenteeism.5 This represented a 66% increase from the GBP 6.2 billion reported two years earlier, and the upward trajectory suggests current costs may be higher still.5 The per-employee data is equally revealing: 12% of employees reported missing work due to financial concerns, with an average of 4.7 workdays lost per year per affected employee; presenteeism from money worries rose from 14.8% of working time in 2021 to 19.3% in 2023.5

The demographic distribution of financial stress carries DEI implications. Aegon/CEBR data shows that employees aged 16-34 accounted for 33.3% of those reporting absenteeism from money worries, compared with just 5.8% for workers over 45.5 The CIPD reports that 30% of all employees cannot manage an unexpected GBP 300 bill, rising to 52% among those earning under GBP 20,000.6 For the hospitality and retail sectors -- where the proportions unable to cover this threshold reach 43% and 41% respectively -- the productivity implications of unaddressed financial stress are particularly acute.6

1.3 Presenteeism as the Hidden Cost

The CIPD Health and Wellbeing at Work Survey 2025 adds a further dimension: 87% of employer respondents had observed presenteeism in the preceding 12 months, and 47% reported a rise in mental health-related absences.7 Sixty-four per cent of organisations were taking steps to identify and reduce stress, but only 50% considered their efforts effective.7 Deloitte's 2024 Mental Health and Employers report provides the cost decomposition: of the GBP 51 billion annual cost of poor mental health to UK employers, presenteeism accounts for GBP 24 billion, staff turnover GBP 20 billion, and absenteeism GBP 7 billion.8 The disproportionate weight of presenteeism -- nearly half the total cost -- is significant for ROI analysis because presenteeism is less visible and less measured than absence, yet its productivity impact is substantially larger.

2. The ROI Evidence Base: From Cost to Investment

2.1 The Deloitte Return Framework

Deloitte's third-edition Mental Health and Employers report (May 2024), based on a literature review of 26 sources and a YouGov survey of 3,156 working adults, establishes an average return of GBP 4.70 for every GBP 1 invested in mental health and wellbeing support.8 The disaggregated ROI by intervention type is directly relevant to positioning will planning within a benefits framework: universal interventions (culture change, awareness, and education) deliver GBP 6.30 per GBP 1; proactive interventions (targeted support for at-risk employees) return GBP 4.20; and reactive interventions (support for those already experiencing difficulties) return GBP 4.10.8

This hierarchy matters because will planning, pension nomination education, and estate planning awareness are inherently universal interventions. They apply to all employees irrespective of current financial distress, can be delivered at scale through existing HR communication channels, and generate value through prevention rather than remediation. On the Deloitte framework, universal interventions attract the highest ROI precisely because their per-employee cost is low while their aggregate impact -- reduced absenteeism, lower turnover, improved engagement -- is broad.

2.2 The Measurement Gap

The evidence base for returns exists, but the measurement infrastructure within most organisations does not. The CIPD Reward Management Survey 2026 reveals that while 77% of employers link benefits to at least one objective -- most commonly retaining employees (44%) or supporting engagement (37%) -- fewer than a third link benefits to productivity or broader business performance.9 Approximately one in five employers provide benefits without any defined purpose.9 This measurement deficit means that even where financial wellbeing benefits are delivered, their impact on absence, retention, and productivity is not tracked, and their ROI cannot be demonstrated.

The gap between employer provision and employee perception compounds the problem. The same survey found that 60% of employers believe they offer a good benefits package, but only 40% of employees agree.9 Lowest-income workers -- those most likely to experience financial stress -- are the least likely to know what benefits are available or how to access them.9 For total rewards analysts seeking budget approval for will planning provision, this measurement gap presents both a challenge and an opportunity: if benefits can be connected to measurable outcomes, the investment case becomes quantifiable.

2.3 The Demand-Supply Gap

The WTW 2024 Global Benefits Attitudes Survey, surveying 6,000 UK employees at medium and large private-sector employers between January and March 2024, quantifies the mismatch between employee expectations and employer priorities. Fifty-nine per cent of employees ranked financial wellbeing as the area where they want most employer support over the next three years, but only 24% of employers ranked it as a top priority for their wellbeing programme.10 Employees are nearly three times more likely to prioritise financial wellbeing than their employer.10 Forty-five per cent admitted they are not on the right financial track, 28% expected their financial situation to worsen, and 59% said money concerns negatively impact overall wellbeing.10

This demand-supply gap represents a dual risk for employers. From a retention perspective, organisations that fail to address a priority identified by a majority of their workforce risk losing talent to competitors who do. From a recruitment perspective, earlier CIPD Reward Management Survey research found that 65% of employees considered it important that a future employer maintains a financial wellbeing policy, underscoring the growing role of financial wellness provision as a differentiator in the market for skilled labour.11 The REBA Financial Wellbeing Research 2025 reinforces the strategic urgency: only 11% of employers maintain a mature financial wellbeing strategy aligned with business goals, compared with 29% for mental wellbeing.12 The 217% surge in employers planning to allocate resources to financial wellbeing -- from 12% in 2023 to 38% in 2025 -- suggests the market is shifting, but the vast majority of organisations remain at an early stage of maturity.12

3. Will Planning as a Financial Wellness Benefit: The Untapped Dimension

3.1 The Will Ownership Gap

The Money and Pensions Service reports that 56% of UK adults aged 18 and over do not have a valid will.13 The age distribution is striking: 75% of people in their 30s are intestate, approximately two-thirds of those in their 40s, and 53% of adults aged 50-64.13 These demographic profiles overlap substantially with the economically active workforce, meaning that the majority of employees with dependants, pension accumulations, and beneficiary nominations have not formalised their estate planning intentions.

The absence of a will does not merely create legal and administrative complexity on death; it represents an active source of financial anxiety during life. Financial worry about dependants' futures is a documented component of workplace financial stress, and estate planning sits at the intersection of pension planning, protection, and long-term financial resilience -- three dimensions that underpin any comprehensive financial wellbeing strategy. The MaPS UK Strategy for Financial Wellbeing explicitly includes employer-facilitated financial wellbeing as a pillar of its ten-year framework, recognising that the workplace is a primary channel through which adults engage with financial planning.13

3.2 Positioning Within Holistic Financial Wellbeing

Will planning is not an isolated intervention. It connects directly to pension death benefit nominations, group life insurance beneficiary designations, lasting power of attorney provisions, and guardianship arrangements. For employees who participate in a workplace pension, the will must coordinate with the scheme's expression-of-wish form to ensure that estate planning intentions are coherent. This coordination is particularly important following the April 2027 pension Inheritance Tax changes, which introduce IHT consequences for pension accumulations that previously had none.

The REBA finding that only 11% of employers have mature financial wellbeing strategies aligned with business goals is particularly relevant here.12 A mature strategy integrates budgeting and debt management (the short-term dimension), savings and pension contributions (the medium-term dimension), and estate planning (the long-term dimension) into a single framework. Will planning addresses the long-term dimension that most employer programmes neglect. Its inclusion does not require substantial additional expenditure -- group will-writing rates are typically modest on a per-employee basis -- but its strategic value is disproportionate, particularly in the post-April 2027 regulatory environment.

3.3 DEI Dimensions of Will Planning Provision

The financial wellbeing evidence reveals disparities that bear directly on benefits inclusivity. Women's financial wellbeing scores dropped from 97.9 to 95.8 on the REBA FinWell Index 2025, while men's scores remained broadly stable, widening the gender financial wellbeing gap.14 The overall FinWell Index score declined from a 2024 baseline of 100 to 99.1, and only 29% of people felt hopeful about their financial situation -- a collapse from 60% the previous year.14

Income stratification amplifies these disparities. The CIPD data showing that 52% of employees earning under GBP 20,000 cannot cover an unexpected GBP 300 bill points to a population for whom estate planning may appear an unattainable priority.6 Yet lower-income employees with dependants have the same need for will provisions and guardianship arrangements as higher earners -- and arguably greater urgency, since their families are less likely to have the financial resources to manage the consequences of intestacy. An employer-facilitated will planning benefit that is available at no cost to the employee -- funded centrally and offered universally -- addresses this disparity directly. It represents a tangible DEI commitment rather than an aspirational statement, ensuring that estate planning access is not contingent on personal wealth.

4. The April 2027 Pension Inheritance Tax Catalyst

4.1 Scope of the Change

From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and death benefits are brought within the scope of Inheritance Tax.15 This change, introduced through the Finance (No. 2) Bill of the 2024-26 parliamentary session and subject to Royal Assent, represents the most significant alteration to the tax treatment of pension death benefits in a generation. Prior to April 2027, pension funds held in drawdown or uncrystallised defined contribution arrangements were generally outside IHT scope, making them one of the most tax-efficient vehicles for intergenerational wealth transfer. That status is removed.

Death-in-service benefits payable from registered pension schemes are explicitly excluded from the April 2027 changes, as are dependants' scheme pensions from defined benefit and collective money purchase arrangements.15 This exclusion is relevant for employer communications: group life cover and death-in-service lump sums retain their IHT-free status, but unused pension funds accumulated through the same employer's scheme will now attract IHT where they pass to non-exempt beneficiaries.

4.2 Scale of Impact

The government's consultation response, published in July 2025 following 649 written responses and nine industry workshops, estimates that of approximately 213,000 estates with inheritable pension wealth in 2027-28, roughly 10,500 will newly face IHT liability and approximately 38,500 will pay more IHT than they would have under the previous regime.16 Over 75% of the 213,000 estates with pension wealth will have no IHT liability, which means the impact concentrates on estates with larger accumulations or non-exempt beneficiary designations.16

Personal representatives -- not pension scheme administrators -- are liable for reporting and paying IHT on pension wealth, following a reversal from the original consultation proposal.16 Personal representatives may direct scheme administrators to withhold up to 50% of taxable benefits for up to 15 months from the date of death to meet the liability.16 This withholding mechanism means that beneficiaries may experience delayed access to pension death benefits while IHT is settled -- a practical consequence that employees with uncoordinated nominations and estate plans may not have anticipated.

4.3 The Employer Imperative

The April 2027 changes transform the employer's relationship with estate planning. Pension contributions constitute a major component of total remuneration, and employers who have promoted pension saving through auto-enrolment matching, salary sacrifice arrangements, and voluntary contribution campaigns have a corresponding interest in ensuring that the value of those contributions is not eroded by unplanned IHT exposure.

Will planning provision becomes the mechanism through which this protection operates. A will that coordinates with pension death benefit nominations, directs estate assets through the most tax-efficient channels, and accounts for the spousal and charity exemptions available under IHT enables employees to preserve the value of their pension accumulation for intended beneficiaries. Without this coordination, employees risk a scenario in which the pension wealth they have been encouraged to build carries a tax liability that neither they nor their beneficiaries anticipated. For total rewards professionals, this reframes will planning from a peripheral benefit to a strategic complement to pension provision.

5. Building the Business Case: An ROI Measurement Framework

5.1 Framework Design

A robust ROI framework for will planning as a financial wellness benefit must connect programme costs to measurable workforce outcomes across four dimensions: financial stress absence reduction, retention improvement, engagement uplift, and pension benefit protection. Total rewards analysts should recognise that no UK-specific research isolates the ROI of will planning as a discrete benefit; the business case must be constructed by integrating financial stress cost data, will ownership gaps, and the April 2027 regulatory change. This analogical methodology is transparent about its limitations while remaining analytically rigorous.

Dimension 1: Financial Stress Absence Reduction. The Aegon/CEBR data establishes that financial-stress-driven absence costs employers GBP 3.7 billion annually, with 12% of employees reporting missed work and an average of 4.7 days lost per affected employee.5 For a hypothetical employer with 500 staff, 12% affected equates to 60 employees losing 4.7 days each -- 282 person-days annually. At an average daily cost of GBP 200 (salary plus overhead), the financial stress absence cost is approximately GBP 56,400. If will planning provision, as one component of a broader financial wellbeing strategy, contributes to a 5% reduction in financial stress absence -- a conservative assumption given the Deloitte evidence on universal intervention effectiveness -- the annual saving is GBP 2,820.

Dimension 2: Retention Improvement. Staff turnover attributable to poor mental health costs UK employers GBP 20 billion annually.8 The WTW data showing that 59% of employees want financial wellbeing support from their employer, combined with the CIPD finding that 44% of employers link benefits to retention, establishes the connection between benefits provision and tenure.910 For an employer with 500 staff and a 15% annual turnover rate, 75 separations per year at an average replacement cost of GBP 6,000 (the CIPD's lower estimate for recruitment, onboarding, and lost productivity) totals GBP 450,000. A 2% improvement in retention -- saving 1.5 separations -- would yield GBP 9,000 annually.

Dimension 3: Engagement and Presenteeism. The Aegon/CEBR presenteeism cost of GBP 6.6 billion annually, with 19.3% of employees affected, provides the baseline.5 For 500 employees, 97 workers experiencing presenteeism from financial worry, each losing approximately 2 hours per week of productive capacity, represents a substantial but difficult-to-quantify cost. Benefits strategies that measurably improve financial wellbeing survey scores can be connected to engagement metrics already tracked through annual surveys, providing a proxy for presenteeism reduction.

Dimension 4: Pension Benefit Protection. From April 2027, the IHT exposure on pension wealth passing to non-exempt beneficiaries can be modelled. For an employee with a GBP 300,000 pension fund directing benefits to adult children (non-exempt), the potential IHT exposure -- depending on the total estate value and nil-rate band utilisation -- could be substantial. Employer-facilitated will planning that ensures spousal exemptions are maximised, charity legacies are structured tax-efficiently, and nomination forms are coordinated with estate intentions directly mitigates this exposure for the employee's intended beneficiaries.

5.2 A Worked ROI Calculation

For a 500-employee organisation, a group will-writing benefit at GBP 50 per employee represents a total annual cost of GBP 25,000. Assuming 40% take-up (200 employees), the effective cost per participating employee is GBP 125.

Against this investment, the modelled returns are:

  • Financial stress absence reduction (5% of attributable absence): GBP 2,820
  • Retention improvement (2% reduction in turnover): GBP 9,000
  • Presenteeism reduction (conservatively unquantified, tracked via engagement surveys)
  • Pension benefit IHT mitigation (value varies by individual estate; not aggregated)

The directly quantifiable annual return of GBP 11,820 against a GBP 25,000 investment yields a first-year ROI of 0.47:1. However, this calculation captures only two of four dimensions and uses conservative assumptions. When presenteeism reduction and pension benefit protection are included -- even at modest estimates -- and the Deloitte framework for universal interventions (GBP 6.30 per GBP 1) is applied as a reference benchmark, the ROI trajectory improves materially over a multi-year period as take-up increases and financial wellbeing scores improve.

The analytical honesty required is this: will planning alone does not generate a standalone ROI that competes with established benefits. Its value lies in its integration within a comprehensive financial wellbeing strategy, where it addresses the long-term planning dimension that most programmes neglect, protects the tax efficiency of employer pension contributions from April 2027, and signals an inclusive benefits commitment that strengthens the employer value proposition.

5.3 Measurement Metrics for Total Rewards Analysts

Total rewards analysts implementing will planning within a financial wellbeing strategy should track the following metrics to demonstrate ROI over a 12-to-24-month cycle:

  • Financial wellbeing survey scores (pre- and post-intervention), isolating questions on long-term planning confidence, dependant provision anxiety, and estate planning awareness
  • Benefit take-up rates for will planning services, segmented by age, income band, and employment tenure to identify participation patterns and DEI gaps
  • Financial-stress-related absence days, correlated with will planning participation where data linkage is possible (subject to privacy considerations)
  • Employee engagement survey scores on employer support, benefits satisfaction, and financial security perceptions
  • Pension death benefit nomination currency, measuring the proportion of employees with up-to-date expression-of-wish forms aligned with their will provisions
  • Retention rates among will planning participants versus non-participants, controlling for tenure and role characteristics

Conclusion

The evidence base connecting financial stress to measurable productivity loss, absence, and turnover is comprehensive and growing. The CIPD, Deloitte, Aegon/CEBR, HSE, and WTW data converge on a consistent conclusion: financial wellbeing is not a soft benefit but a quantifiable productivity lever, and the gap between employee demand and employer provision represents both a workforce risk and a competitive opportunity. Will planning occupies the long-term dimension of financial wellbeing that most employer strategies neglect -- and the April 2027 inclusion of unused pension funds within IHT estates converts this neglect from a strategic oversight into a tangible cost. For total rewards analysts, the challenge is not whether to integrate will planning into financial wellness benefits, but how to measure and communicate its contribution within a framework that connects investment to outcomes. The measurement framework and metrics outlined in this article provide the analytical architecture for that business case.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 19 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Total Rewards Strategy, Financial Wellbeing, Employee Benefits ROI, Pension Death Benefit Planning

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Quantify the annual cost of financial-stress-driven absenteeism and presenteeism using CIPD, Deloitte, and Aegon/CEBR benchmarks
  2. Apply the Deloitte ROI framework to evaluate will planning as a universal financial wellbeing intervention
  3. Analyse the April 2027 pension death benefit IHT changes and their implications for employer benefits strategy
  4. Design an ROI measurement framework connecting will planning provision to financial stress absence, retention, engagement, and pension benefit protection metrics

Competency Mapping

  • CIPD People Profession Map: Evidence-based practice, commercial drive, and analytics
  • REBA Financial Wellbeing Framework: Strategy maturity assessment and benefit integration

Reflective Questions

  1. How does your organisation currently measure the productivity impact of financial wellbeing benefits, and what additional metrics from this article could strengthen that measurement?
  2. What proportion of your workforce has up-to-date pension death benefit nominations coordinated with valid wills, and how might the April 2027 IHT changes affect the value of employer pension contributions?
  3. How would you position will planning within your benefits communication strategy to maximise take-up across income bands and demographic groups?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 25 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. HSE -- Work-related stress, depression or anxiety statistics in Great Britain 2024/25 (November 2025). https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/assets/docs/stress.pdf ↩ ↩2

  2. ONS -- Sickness absence in the UK labour market: 2023 and 2024 (June 2025). https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/articles/sicknessabsenceinthelabourmarket/2023and2024 ↩ ↩2

  3. ONS -- Productivity flash estimate and overview, UK: Q4 2025 (February 2026). https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/articles/ukproductivityintroduction/octobertodecember2025andjulytoseptember2025 ↩

  4. CIPD Good Work Index 2025 (June 2025). https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2025-pdfs/8868-good-work-index-2025-report-web1.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Aegon/CEBR -- Financial wellbeing and productivity in the workplace (September 2023). https://cebr.com/reports/financial-wellbeing-and-productivity-in-the-workplace-2/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  6. CIPD -- Why should employers take action on employee financial wellbeing? (February 2025). https://www.cipd.org/uk/views-and-insights/thought-leadership/insight/action-employee-financial-wellbeing/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. CIPD and Simplyhealth -- Health and wellbeing at work 2025 (September 2025). https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2025-pdfs/8920-Health-and-wellbeing-report-2025-/ ↩ ↩2

  8. Deloitte -- Mental health and employers: refreshing the case for investment (May 2024). https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/consultancy/deloitte-uk-mental-health-report-2024-final.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. CIPD Reward Management Survey 2026: Focus on Employee Benefits (January 2026). https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/reports/reward-surveys/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  10. WTW -- 2024 Global Benefits Attitudes Survey (September 2024). https://www.wtwco.com/en-ug/insights/2024/09/understanding-the-employee-voice-the-2024-global-benefits-attitude-survey ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  11. CIPD Reward Management Survey -- Financial wellbeing and organisational support (April 2022). https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2023-pdfs/financial-wellbeing-organisational-support_tcm18-108774.pdf ↩

  12. REBA -- Financial Wellbeing Research 2025 (2025). https://reba.global/resource-report/financial-wellbeing-research-2025.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. Money and Pensions Service -- Over half of UK adults don't have a will (2025). https://maps.org.uk/en/media-centre/press-releases/2025/over-half-of-uk-adults-dont-have-a-will ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. REBA -- The state of financial wellbeing 2025 (2025). https://reba.global/resource/stream-report-the-state-of-financial-wellbeing-2025.html ↩ ↩2

  15. GOV.UK -- Reforming Inheritance Tax: unused pension funds and death benefits (October 2024). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reforming-inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits ↩ ↩2

  16. GOV.UK -- IHT on pensions consultation: 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

Preview Free