The Lemon Fool

To be honest, I just spent a lot of time fixating over the copious IH206 notes pertaining to Question 8 on IHT205, convinced that I ought, reluctantly, to answer 'Yes' (and therefore have to rip it up an print off an IHT400).

Then I actually re-read the whole question on the form itself and realised that I may be fretting unnecessarily. So my question is simpler than I first thought (initially, at least).

Question 8 asks: "Did the deceased change or dispose of their pension in the 2 years before they died? Ignore any pensions paid to a surviving spouse or civil partner"

Does this mean that, provided the pension only exists after the death as a widow's pension, paying to the deceased's spouse, I can just answer 'No' irrespective of whether the deceased did make any such change or disposal?

Grateful for any advice, thanks.

They are trying to catch people who knew they were terminally ill and altered their pension arrangements so as to leave more in their pot/fund scheme than would normally have occurred. Such as reducing the amount of drawdown from a SIPP so as to leave a greater pot behind, that would be tax-privileged for people who inherit the pension. Or suddenly paying in extra contributions that would be tax free to inheritors.
Answer "No" to Question 8 if none of these sort of shenanigans went on.

DrBunsenHoneydew wrote:They are trying to catch people who knew they were terminally ill and altered their pension arrangements so as to leave more in their pot/fund scheme than would normally have occurred. Such as reducing the amount of drawdown from a SIPP so as to leave a greater pot behind, that would be tax-privileged for people who inherit the pension. Or suddenly paying in extra contributions that would be tax free to inheritors.
Answer "No" to Question 8 if none of these sort of shenanigans went on.

Thanks for replying. The deceased was uninsurably/terminally ill for just a few weeks, and the only particular 'shenanigan' which might conceivably apply in this case is this one (quoted from the IHT206 Notes):
failing to request ill-health retirement where the deceased met the requirements for that form of retirement

However, given the wording of the question on the form (please refer back to OP), and the fact that the benefits of this pension fell exclusively to the surviving spouse after the death, am I right to think that I can answer 'No' in any case?

If the question on the form was worded better I'm sure I wouldn't need to ask.

HerbertViola wrote:

DrBunsenHoneydew wrote:They are trying to catch people who knew they were terminally ill and altered their pension arrangements so as to leave more in their pot/fund scheme than would normally have occurred. Such as reducing the amount of drawdown from a SIPP so as to leave a greater pot behind, that would be tax-privileged for people who inherit the pension. Or suddenly paying in extra contributions that would be tax free to inheritors.
Answer "No" to Question 8 if none of these sort of shenanigans went on.

Thanks for replying. The deceased was uninsurably/terminally ill for just a few weeks, and the only particular 'shenanigan' which might conceivably apply in this case is this one (quoted from the IHT206 Notes):
failing to request ill-health retirement where the deceased met the requirements for that form of retirement

However, given the wording of the question on the form (please refer back to OP), and the fact that the benefits of this pension fell exclusively to the surviving spouse after the death, am I right to think that I can answer 'No' in any case?

If the question on the form was worded better I'm sure I wouldn't need to ask.

If I got diagnosed with rapidly progressing terminal illness, sorting out my pensions would be the last thing on my mind.

Sometimes you need to look at the intention of the legislation, IMHO, the lack of inaction was due to lack of time, rather than a desire to enhance the pension pot left behind.

It would be a brave set of civil servants who would allow HMRC to be hauled into a tax tribunal in those circumstances...