She said: “We do not support unused pension and death benefits being shoehorned into the Inheritance Tax regime, as this is unworkable and riddled with issues. IHT is already complex, and including pensions within the regime makes it even more so.

“We are asking HMRC to explore a simpler and more effective alternative that would keep any tax charges payable on death within the pensions regime, such as levying a tax on pensions in scope where above a certain level. For example, the first £100,000 of unused pensions on death would be inherited free of the new pension tax charge. This also has the added benefit of avoiding encouraging individuals to run-down their pension too quickly to avoid an IHT charge.

“If HMRC does proceed with its proposals and tries to retrofit pensions into the IHT regime we believe a number of fundamental changes are needed. First, Pension Scheme Administrators and Personal Representatives need to be given much longer than the standard 6 months IHT deadline to gather all the necessary information and calculate any tax liability for what can often be multiple pension arrangements.

“Second, we strongly believe all ‘death in service’ benefits should be outside of scope. These are designed to provide a lump sum or income for beneficiaries, commonly financial dependants, on the untimely death of the individual, often before the minimum normal pension age. There’s no suggestion these can be used to avoid Inheritance Tax.

“As a whole, IHT is designed around a number of exemptions and thresholds, specifically the nil-rate band of £325,000 and the spouse exemption for legal spouses and registered civil partners. This enables these individuals to inherit significantly more, after IHT, than other potential beneficiaries, such as common-law partners or children who may be financial dependants.

“Given the steady decline in opposite-sex marriage, the increase in co-habitation, and the number of children born to unmarried parents now exceeding the number born within a marriage, we believe this is out-of-step with today’s societal norms. In the longer term, we urge the Government to carry out a review of IHT so that it reflects modern day realities.”

The $TRUMP token rose from around $7 on 18 January to a high of nearly $75 a day later before falling back quite sharply.

Following the sudden increase in value of the tokens, there are concerns it could provide a springboard for other celebrities to launch their own cryptocurrencies. As we have highlighted previously, investors would be right to be wary, with plenty of examples of such investments going into the red soon after an initial boom in price.

It is not just the risk of a fast fall in value that UK investors should be mindful of. The temptation to jump into crypto transactions, in particular newly launched coins, can make the tracking and reporting of such investments difficult. However, any taxpayers seeking sympathy from HMRC are likely to be given short shrift should they claim difficulty in assessing their tax position.

HMRC’s view is likely to be that if a taxpayer chooses to invest in cryptocurrencies, then they are doing so in the knowledge that this can be a complex area, and they should be taking reasonable steps to make sure any associated tax liability is declared and paid.

Taking its cue from the government, we could see HMRC take an even firmer stance with taxpayers as they seek to recover more funds for the Treasury. The current 2024/25 tax year will be the first in which taxpayers have to declare crypto disposals separately on their tax returns and many more taxpayers will be required to report their crypto transactions to HMRC for the current tax year.

Most cryptocurrency transactions undertaken by UK taxpayers are subject to capital gains tax (CGT), rather than income tax. In the past, the majority of UK individuals investing into cryptocurrencies will not have had to declare their transactions to HMRC provided any capital gains were lower than the CGT annual exemption.

The CGT annual exemption has fallen dramatically following changes announced in 2022, from £12,300 per year for individuals to just £3,000. With the Financial Conduct Authority estimating that 12% of the UK’s adult population now own some form of cryptocurrency, we could see a surge in individuals having to report and pay CGT.

That could mean more individuals registering for self-assessment, placing a heavier burden on HMRC resources for relatively low levels of tax. There is however a different route that some may choose to explore, using HMRC’s ‘real time’ CGT service, but advisers cannot use this service. Gains made in the current tax year will need to be reported by 31 December 2025 and the associated tax must be paid by 31 January 2026.

The days of crypto investors relying on the safety net of the CGT annual exemption are largely over and many will be met with a hard landing if they do not keep detailed records as they go along.

The property is valued at around £1.5m and is owned by Claire Schools, the ex-wife of the convicted solicitor Timothy Schools, who was sentenced to 14 years in prison in 2022.

The order was successfully secured at the High Court on 17 January today to freeze the property to ensure that, if sold, the proceeds are secured. Ms Schools has also been ordered to produce information about how the property was obtained within 28 days. The SFO may use this information to bring a case to seize the house at a later date.

This order follows the confiscation of a further £1m from Schools in a hearing at Southwark Crown Court earlier this month.

A UWO is an investigative tool used to determine the source of funding for an asset, where there is reasonable suspicion that it was acquired with the proceeds of crime. If the recipient fails to prove that the asset was acquired legitimately, the SFO may apply to seize it at the High Court.

This is the first UWO used by the SFO since they were introduced by parliament in 2017. The SFO is the second law enforcement authority to ever use the tool.

Nick Ephgrave QPM, Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), said: “This is a milestone case for the SFO and follows on from last week’s successful £1 million recovery to go back to the victims in this case.

“Wherever criminal assets have been hidden or dispersed, we will progress our investigations with determination and explore new methods to recover funds for victims and the public purse.”

In a separate response in reaction to the case, Andrew Smith, partner at Corker Binning, said: “Unexplained wealth orders have been available since January 2018. The real questions are therefore why it has taken seven years for the SFO to secure one, and whether this is the beginning of a regular pattern.”

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 gives relief from IHT on “relevant business property”. Relevant business property is stated as including “property consisting of a business or interest in a business”.

The legislation states; “A business or interest in a business, …, [is] not relevant business property if the business … consists wholly or mainly of … making or holding investments.”

Mrs Pearce owned a fishery at Fulling Mill on the River Itchen described as “one of the ‘classic’ chalk rivers of southern England”. The Itchen supports a variety of fish including brown trout, grayling and the occasional salmon.

Following her death, her executors claimed IHT business relief on part of her residence including an office from which she managed the business, a reception room, and a rod room where customers could store fishing equipment and kit. Additionally, relief was claimed on the value of an outbuilding and garage where mowers, strimmers and hand tools used for maintaining the land around the river were kept.

IHT business relief was also claimed on the river and the streams which fed it and the banks of the river and streams.

Mrs Pearce worked full time running the wild fishery, even though it was increasingly unprofitable. The riverbank had to be kept clear of vegetation so the fishermen had access to the river. Trees and other plants along the riverbank had to be managed to provide the right amount of shade and the right conditions to encourage the flies on which the fish fed. The river itself had to be kept clear and the banks protected from erosion.

It was common ground that Mrs Pearce was carrying on a business. The issue for determination by the Tax Tribunal was whether the business, at the date of Mrs Pearce’s death, consisted wholly or mainly of holding investments.

HMRC’s position was that the deceased’s business was the exploitation of land to produce income – which is an investment activity. The land was exploited by the granting of licences to people who wanted to fish in the river. The only income was from ‘rod fees’ – there were no sales of equipment or fees for tuition. HMRC accepted that Mrs Pearce took active steps in running the business and carried out a great deal of maintenance.

The Executors contended that the deceased’s wild fishery business could not be regarded as a property letting business. The income was derived, not from the exploitation of land but from the running of a fishery business. Looked at in the round, the deceased’s business was not one of the holding of investments but the provision of services and incidental facilities so as to take it out of the investment category.

The Tribunal adopted the following approach;

(1) The starting point is that the owning and holding of land in order to obtain an income from it is generally to be characterised as an investment activity.

(2) It is the nature of the activities, not the level of activity, which matters. Very active management of an investment does not prevent the business being an investment business.

(3) There is a spectrum of businesses involving the exploitation of land in order to generate income. At one end are property letting businesses which are clearly investments. At the other end are hotels, shops and farms which are clearly not investment businesses.

(4) Where on that spectrum a business falls can be determined by looking at the investment and non-investment activities as a whole, standing back, and looking at the business in the round.

(5) Where there are investment and non-investment activities, consider whether, looking at the business in the round, the non-investment activities are of sufficient importance that the business is not mainly an investment business.

The Tribunal concluded;

“Having considered matters in the round we have concluded that the business carried on by Mrs Pearce at the time of her death was mainly a business of holding investments. Although there were non-investment elements, they are not sufficient to outweigh the investment elements. Accordingly, the business is not eligible for Inheritance Tax Business Relief.”

The tool provides a clear methodology for addressing key questions, such as ‘How much guaranteed income should be purchased?’ and ‘What level of risk should be taken with the remaining pot of invested assets?’

Head of behavioural finance at Oxford Risk, Dr Greg B Davies said: “A common strategy for advised clients entering retirement is to allocate part of their pension pot to provide a guaranteed income for life, while keeping the remaining portion invested to allow flexible withdrawals. This approach not only reduces sequencing risk but can also enhance the investor’s capacity for risk-taking with their remaining investible assets.

“However, financial advisers face a significant challenge: how to demonstrate and evidence that their recommendations on these two components – guaranteed income and the remaining portfolio – are both suitable independently and optimally aligned together.”

Just Group, who specialise in UK retirement products and services, is feeding live data into the new tool developed by Oxford Risk, providing accurate and up to date intelligence on health, mortality and product pricing – enabling advisers to get accurate insight from the Oxford Risk solution on the level of Secure Lifetime Income (SLI) to provide for their clients, taking into account the client’s personal circumstances.

Stuart Slegg, head of retail investment solutions at Just Group said: “We’re very pleased to continue our work with Oxford Risk to support advisers achieve better outcomes for their clients in-retirement. The challenges faced by clients in-retirement are different to those accumulating wealth, so it’s important advisers can evidence how the solution they recommend meets their clients’ individual objectives.

“There’s a growing body of evidence that shows how including a proportion of Secure Lifetime Income within a drawdown portfolio can enhance client outcomes. How much Secure Lifetime Income to purchase for a client and how to adjust the remaining investments in the portfolio is a question that Oxford Risk have been working hard to solve. Its unique methodology provides advisers with a solution to this important question.”

The tool is being introduced against the backdrop of Increasing regulatory scrutiny of retirement advice in the wake of last year’s thematic review (TR 24/1) whoich has thrown down a challenge to advisers grappling with how best to demonstrate and evidence suitability.

Oxford Risk had observed that many firms in the financial advice industry are struggling to meet the FCA’s stricter requirements, particularly in areas like information collection, suitability assessments, and disclosures.

The behavioural finance specialists cite the growing popularity of guaranteed income products as just one example of how retirement income planning is changing and consequently how advisers must adapt.

Annuity sales rose 39% to 82,000 individual contracts sold in 2023/24, the highest since before ‘pension freedom and choice’ reforms in 2015. The £6 billion invested in annuities was more than 49% higher than the previous year.