Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Client Communication Strategies for Estate Planning Conversations

· 19 min

Executive Summary

Estate planning communication is a regulatory obligation under the Financial Conduct Authority's Consumer Duty, not a discretionary soft skill. Research from Octopus Investments and Opinium reveals that 69% of financial advisers lack a formal strategy for intergenerational wealth transfer, while a critical perception gap persists: 68% of advisers assume beneficiaries will spend inherited assets, yet 79% of investors report they would reinvest. Behavioural science -- particularly mortality salience theory, present bias, and information avoidance -- explains why clients resist these conversations and provides evidence-based strategies for overcoming that resistance. With the residence-based inheritance tax regime now operational, pension death benefits entering the inheritance tax scope from April 2027, and frozen thresholds extending through tax year 2030-31, the commercial and regulatory case for structured estate planning communication has never been stronger. This article presents an operational framework grounded in FCA behavioural economics research and the Consumer Duty's consumer understanding outcome.

1. The Communication Deficit: Scale and Cost

The estate planning communication gap between financial advisers and their clients is not a matter of conjecture; it is quantified and consequential. Research commissioned by Octopus Investments and conducted by Opinium in June 2024 -- surveying 200 UK financial advisers and 1,000 advised investors -- found that 69% of advisers lack a formal strategy to address intergenerational wealth transfer.1 Less than half (48%) of investors reported that their adviser had engaged with their beneficiaries.1

The commercial implications are substantial. Advisers who had experienced a client death estimated losing up to GBP 5 million in assets under advice as a direct consequence.2 Kings Court Trust estimates the inheritance economy will be worth GBP 5.5 trillion over 30 years, representing one of the largest wealth transitions in UK financial history.1 Only 16% of advisers managed more than one generation of their clients' families, and only 37% had a clear proposition for clients under 30.1

A critical perception mismatch compounds the problem. The same Octopus/Opinium research found that 68% of advisers believed beneficiaries would spend their inheritance, yet 79% of investors said they would likely reinvest inherited money.1 This misconception -- that the next generation will dissipate rather than consolidate wealth -- may itself function as a disincentive for advisers to invest in intergenerational engagement. If advisers assume beneficiaries are poor retention prospects, the commercial case for engaging them appears weak. The data reveals the opposite.

Meanwhile, consumer research consistently demonstrates the scale of inaction. According to trade media reporting of a Schroders Personal Wealth survey of 1,000 individuals, 78% had no estate planning in place.3 Unbiased, surveying more than 2,000 UK adults, reported that 30% are uncomfortable seeking financial advice involving discussions about death, with nearly 50% citing fear of death as a reason for not making a will.4 The National Will Register found that 42% of UK adults have not discussed estate instructions with anyone, with 25% describing the subject as too morbid.5

These data points converge on a single conclusion: the estate planning gap is not principally a knowledge deficit but a communication deficit. Clients are aware of the need; they are not being engaged effectively. Advisers recognise the commercial opportunity; they have not built the communication infrastructure to capture it.

2. Behavioural Science and Client Avoidance: The Evidence Base

Understanding why clients avoid estate planning conversations requires engagement with the behavioural science literature -- a literature that the FCA itself has endorsed as foundational to effective financial services regulation.

2.1 Mortality Salience and Terror Management Theory

Terror Management Theory posits that reminders of death -- termed mortality salience -- trigger psychological defence mechanisms including avoidance behaviours, cognitive distortions, and reinforcement of present bias.6 When applied specifically to estate planning, academic research demonstrates that mortality salience causes individuals to delay or avoid the process despite recognising its importance.6 An economic model of mortality salience in personal financial decision-making, published in the Journal of Financial Therapy, extends this analysis across annuities, life insurance, charitable giving, and estate planning, finding a consistent pattern of avoidance behaviour triggered by death-related financial decisions.7

The practical consequence for advisory practice is that conventional conversation openers -- "What happens to your assets when you die?" or "Have you thought about what your family will inherit?" -- are precisely the framing most likely to activate avoidance. These approaches foreground mortality rather than legacy.

2.2 The FCA's Behavioural Economics Framework

The FCA's Occasional Paper No. 1 (April 2013) established the foundational framework for understanding consumer decision-making in financial services, identifying that most human decision-making uses intuitive rather than deliberative thought processes.8 This has direct implications for estate planning communication: advisers cannot assume that presenting clients with factual information about inheritance tax exposure will prompt rational engagement with planning.

FCA Occasional Paper No. 23 (November 2016) tested eight information disclosure experiments and found that many standard disclosures were ineffective at changing consumer behaviour.9 Critically, however, behaviourally-informed interventions -- those designed with salience, personalisation, and framing effects in mind -- did improve outcomes.9 The implication for estate planning is that generic communications ("You may wish to review your estate planning") are unlikely to drive engagement, whereas personalised, behaviourally-informed approaches ("Based on current thresholds, the estimated inheritance tax exposure on a portfolio of this value is GBP X") may prove more effective.

FCA Occasional Paper No. 26 (2017) developed a three-stage framework -- See, Interpret, Act -- for understanding how consumers process financial information.10 Applied to estate planning communication, this framework suggests advisers must first ensure the message is noticed (See), then that it is correctly understood (Interpret), and finally that it prompts appropriate action (Act). Failure at any stage renders the communication ineffective, regardless of its technical accuracy.

2.3 Three Biases That Impede Estate Planning Engagement

Drawing on the FCA's research and the broader behavioural economics literature, three cognitive biases are particularly relevant to estate planning communication:

Mortality salience avoidance. As outlined above, direct references to death trigger defensive avoidance. Values-based framing -- focusing on what the client wishes to achieve rather than on the event of death -- and self-affirmation techniques can reduce this effect.6

Present bias. Individuals systematically overweight immediate costs and underweight future benefits.8 Estate planning involves immediate cognitive and emotional costs (confronting mortality, making difficult decisions) for benefits that accrue only after death. Anchoring conversations to near-term, tangible triggers -- such as a specific change in inheritance tax rules affecting the client's current pension arrangements -- can counteract present bias.

Information avoidance. Research demonstrates that individuals actively avoid information they expect to be unpleasant, even when that information would be useful for decision-making.9 Estate planning sits squarely within this category. Layered disclosure -- beginning with high-level, non-threatening information and progressing to detailed planning only once engagement is established -- addresses information avoidance without overwhelming the client.

3. The Consumer Duty Communication Obligation

Estate planning communication is not merely a commercial opportunity or a behavioural challenge; it is a regulatory obligation under the FCA's Consumer Duty framework.

3.1 PRIN 2A.5: The Consumer Understanding Outcome

PRIN 2A.5 establishes the consumer understanding outcome, requiring firms to communicate information to retail customers in a way that is clear, fair, and not misleading.11 The requirements are specific and operational:

  • Communications must be made in good time for customers to make effective decisions.
  • Language must be plain and intelligible; jargon must be explained as simply as possible.
  • Firms must regularly monitor the impact of communications on customer outcomes.
  • Communications must be adapted where customers are not experiencing good outcomes, including those with vulnerability characteristics.
  • Testing and monitoring obligations (PRIN 2A.5.10R to 2A.5.14R) require firms to assess whether communications are actually supporting consumer understanding, not merely whether they have been sent.11

3.2 FG22/5 Chapter 8: Detailed Expectations

FCA Finalised Guidance FG22/5, Chapter 8, sets out detailed non-handbook guidance on the consumer understanding outcome.12 Key expectations include layered presentation of information, audience-appropriate adaptation, and the application of a parity test: firms should apply the same communication standards to supporting good outcomes as they do to generating sales and revenue.12 Where estate planning communications are absent or inadequate while product sales communications are sophisticated and effective, this imbalance itself may constitute a failure of the consumer understanding outcome.

3.3 FCA Implementation Findings

The FCA's Consumer Duty implementation review (December 2025) identified firms best supporting consumer understanding as those using plain English, timely communication, tailored messaging for target markets, channels meeting the needs of vulnerable customers, and active testing of consumer understanding with subsequent revisions.13 The FCA's Consumer Support Outcome review (December 2025) further noted that some firms had built in appropriate frictions to give customers the opportunity to understand and assess options, while others created barriers through inaccessible information and poor channel design.14

3.4 The Estate Planning Application

The regulatory implications for estate planning communication are direct. Where clients hold products for which estate planning is a foreseeable need -- pensions in drawdown, investment bonds, ISA portfolios of significant value -- the adviser's obligation under the consumer understanding outcome extends to helping the client understand the estate planning implications of those product holdings. This obligation is reinforced by COBS 9A.2, which requires firms to assess suitability across a client's full financial circumstances when making personal recommendations.15

The FCA's ongoing financial advice services multi-firm review found that ongoing advice was delivered in approximately 83% of cases, and identified concerns about firms charging ongoing advice fees without delivering ongoing advice -- including, notably, continuing to charge fees on deceased customers' estates during administration.16 This finding underscores the need for advisory practices to establish clear protocols for what happens to the advisory relationship at death, including pre-agreed contact with executors and beneficiaries.

4. Regulatory Triggers: What Must Be Communicated

Three concurrent regulatory developments create specific, time-bound triggers for estate planning conversations. These are not abstract policy changes; they are operational realities that alter client outcomes and demand proactive communication.

4.1 The Residence-Based Inheritance Tax Regime

The residence-based inheritance tax regime became operational from 6 April 2025, replacing the domicile-based system.17 An individual is now a long-term UK resident for inheritance tax purposes if resident in the UK for at least 10 out of the last 20 tax years preceding the chargeable event. Tail provisions of 3 to 10 years apply after departure from the UK.18 For advisory practices with internationally connected clients -- and the proportion of UK advisory practices with such clients is growing -- this change necessitates a specific communication: clients previously considered non-domiciled may now fall within the UK inheritance tax net. The communication need is both technical and time-sensitive.

4.2 Pension Death Benefits and Inheritance Tax

Subject to the Finance (No.2) Bill 2025-26 completing its parliamentary passage, from April 2027 unused pension funds and pension death benefits will fall within the member's estate for inheritance tax purposes.19 The Bill places reporting and payment responsibility on personal representatives rather than scheme administrators. A withholding mechanism allows personal representatives to request up to 50% of taxable death benefits for up to 15 months. Spouse, civil partner, and charity exemptions will apply.19

This represents the single most significant communication trigger for advisory practices. Every client with a pension in drawdown, and every client with significant defined contribution pension savings, requires a conversation about the inheritance tax implications of this change. The communication must address not only the tax exposure itself but also the estate planning strategies available to mitigate it -- including the sequencing of asset drawdown, the use of exemptions, and the interaction with the nil-rate band and residence nil-rate band.

4.3 Frozen Thresholds and Fiscal Drag

Inheritance tax thresholds remain frozen through tax year 2030-31: the nil-rate band at GBP 325,000, the residence nil-rate band at GBP 175,000, and the taper threshold at GBP 2 million.20 HMRC statistics show inheritance tax liabilities rose 12% (GBP 710 million) between 2021-22 and 2022-23, reaching GBP 6.70 billion.21 The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts inheritance tax receipts of GBP 9.1 billion in 2025-26, with the proportion of estates paying inheritance tax forecast to rise from approximately 4.4% to 7% by 2032.21

The communication implication is that clients who were previously below the inheritance tax threshold may now be exposed through asset price inflation alone. Annual review meetings should incorporate an updated inheritance tax position assessment, enabling advisers to initiate estate planning conversations with a specific, quantified trigger rather than a general prompt.

4.4 Combining Triggers for Maximum Effect

The convergence of these three regulatory developments creates a compounding communication opportunity. A client holding a pension in drawdown, with assets above the nil-rate band threshold, and with international family connections may simultaneously be affected by all three triggers. Advisory practices that map each client's exposure across these dimensions can prioritise communication efforts -- identifying which clients require immediate engagement and which can be addressed within a standard review cycle. The FCA's See-Interpret-Act framework applies directly: each trigger provides a concrete, quantifiable reason to engage that is more salient than a generic estate planning prompt.10 Personalised modelling -- showing the client the estimated inheritance tax liability under current rules versus the position after April 2027 -- translates abstract regulatory change into a specific financial figure that supports both comprehension and action.

5. An Operational Communication Framework

Translating behavioural science evidence and regulatory requirements into advisory practice requires a structured communication framework. The following methodology addresses the question of when, how, and what to communicate about estate planning.

5.1 Conversation Triggers

Estate planning conversations should not depend on a single annual review prompt. Effective practice integrates multiple trigger points:

  • Annual reviews: Every annual review should include an updated inheritance tax position assessment, benchmarked against current thresholds and the client's asset trajectory.
  • Life events: Retirement, property purchase, birth of grandchildren, bereavement, divorce, and receipt of inheritance each create natural conversation openings.
  • Product events: Pension drawdown activation, investment bond maturity, and ISA portfolio reviews each carry estate planning implications that merit discussion.
  • Regulatory triggers: The pension death benefit inheritance tax inclusion (April 2027) and threshold freeze extension provide time-bound, externally imposed triggers that remove the burden of initiating the conversation from the adviser alone.
  • Milestone birthdays: Significant age milestones (e.g., 55, 60, 65, 70, 75) correlate with increasing estate planning urgency and client receptiveness.

5.2 Values-Based Conversation Opening

Behavioural science evidence supports opening estate planning conversations with legacy intentions rather than mortality.6 A values-based approach asks what the client wishes to achieve -- what they want their wealth to enable -- rather than what they fear. Contrast the following approaches:

Mortality-focused (higher avoidance risk): "It is important to consider what happens to assets in the event of death, particularly given changes to pension death benefit taxation."

Values-based (lower avoidance risk): "Many clients at this stage are thinking about what they want their wealth to achieve -- whether that is supporting the next generation with housing, funding education, or ensuring a charitable legacy. Understanding those intentions helps ensure the financial plan is aligned with long-term goals."

The values-based approach achieves the same outcome -- opening the estate planning conversation -- without triggering the mortality salience defence mechanisms identified in Terror Management Theory research.6

5.3 Layered Disclosure

Consistent with FCA OP23 findings on information overload and FG22/5 requirements for layered presentation, estate planning communication should progress through defined stages:912

Stage 1 -- Awareness. Introduce the concept of inheritance tax exposure in broad terms. Provide a personalised, high-level estimate based on current asset values and thresholds. No detailed planning at this stage.

Stage 2 -- Understanding. Once engagement is established, introduce the specific regulatory changes relevant to the client's circumstances (pension death benefits, residence-based regime, threshold freeze). Explain the impact in personalised financial terms.

Stage 3 -- Planning. Move to detailed estate planning options: will review, trust structures, gift strategies, pension drawdown sequencing, insurance solutions. At this stage, referral to solicitors, accountants, or specialist estate planners may be appropriate.

Stage 4 -- Documentation and follow-up. Record the conversation for the suitability file. Provide written summaries following verbal discussions. Schedule follow-up to monitor comprehension and track implementation.

5.4 Intergenerational Engagement Protocol

The 48% engagement gap -- the proportion of investors whose adviser has not engaged with beneficiaries -- represents both a commercial risk and a communication challenge.1 Effective intergenerational engagement requires:

  • Client consent: Establish clear, documented agreement from the client to involve family members in estate planning discussions.
  • Separate engagement: Beneficiaries should be engaged in their own right, not merely included in a parent's review meeting. Their financial needs, attitudes, and knowledge levels differ.
  • Age-appropriate communication: Younger beneficiaries may require different communication formats, channels, and levels of technical detail.
  • Boundary clarity: The adviser's role in intergenerational engagement is communication and planning coordination, not legal advice. Where specialist legal input is required, the referral pathway should be established in advance.

5.5 Referral Integration

Estate planning communication within financial advisory practice operates alongside -- not in place of -- solicitors, accountants, and specialist estate planners. The collaborative planning model requires:

  • Clear scope definition: Financial advisers communicate the tax and investment implications of estate planning; solicitors draft and execute the legal instruments; accountants address the broader tax position.
  • Coordinated timing: Communications to clients should reflect a coordinated approach, avoiding conflicting advice or duplicated conversations.
  • Documented referrals: Where the adviser identifies a need beyond the advisory scope -- such as will drafting, trust establishment, or capacity assessment -- the referral should be documented in the suitability file.

FCA PS25/22 (December 2025) introduced near-final rules on targeted support -- a new form of investment guidance below the full advice threshold, effective from 6 April 2026.22 While the scope and applicability of targeted support for estate planning specifically requires ongoing monitoring as rules are finalised, this development may create a pathway for firms to provide structured estate planning guidance to clients who have not engaged full advice.

5.6 Monitoring and Measuring Communication Effectiveness

The Consumer Duty's testing and monitoring requirements (PRIN 2A.5.10R to 2A.5.14R) apply to estate planning communications as they do to all client communications.11 Advisory practices should establish measurable indicators of communication effectiveness, including the proportion of eligible clients who have received an estate planning communication within a defined period, the proportion who have progressed beyond Stage 1 (awareness) to Stage 2 (understanding) or Stage 3 (planning), and the proportion who have completed a referral to a solicitor or specialist estate planner. Tracking these metrics over time enables practices to identify communication approaches that succeed and those that require revision -- fulfilling the Consumer Duty's expectation that firms do not merely issue communications but actively assess whether those communications support consumer understanding.13

Conclusion

The convergence of regulatory obligation, commercial opportunity, and behavioural science evidence makes estate planning communication a defining competency for advisory practice in the current environment. The Consumer Duty's consumer understanding outcome requires more than the passive provision of information; it demands that communications are designed to support genuine understanding and effective decision-making. The behavioural science evidence explains why standard disclosure approaches fail and provides evidence-based alternatives. The regulatory landscape -- residence-based inheritance tax, pension death benefit inclusion, and frozen thresholds -- creates specific, time-bound triggers that make these conversations both more urgent and more quantifiable.

Advisory practices that treat estate planning communication as an operational discipline rather than an occasional add-on will retain assets across generations, deepen client relationships, and meet their regulatory obligations. Those that do not will face a progressive erosion of assets under advice at each generational transition, compounded by the expanding proportion of estates falling within the inheritance tax net.

The perception mismatch -- advisers assuming beneficiaries will spend while investors report they would reinvest -- is perhaps the most actionable insight for advisory practice. Correcting this single misconception transforms the commercial case for intergenerational engagement from speculative to evidence-based. With the April 2027 pension death benefit changes creating the most significant estate planning communication trigger in a generation, the question for advisory practices is not whether to invest in communication competence, but how quickly that investment can be operationalised.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Estate Planning, Client Communication, Consumer Duty Compliance, Intergenerational Wealth Transfer

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the key behavioural biases -- mortality salience, present bias, and information avoidance -- that impede client engagement with estate planning conversations.
  2. Explain the FCA Consumer Duty requirements for communication under PRIN 2A.5 and FG22/5 Chapter 8, and their specific application to estate planning discussions.
  3. Apply a structured, values-based communication framework to initiate estate planning conversations at appropriate client touchpoints, including annual reviews, life events, and regulatory triggers.
  4. Evaluate the commercial and regulatory case for integrating intergenerational engagement into advisory practice, using industry data on asset attrition and beneficiary reinvestment behaviour.
  5. Design a layered disclosure methodology that addresses the communication gap identified in adviser research and satisfies the Consumer Duty's consumer understanding outcome.

FCA Competency Mapping

  • TC 2.1.5: Maintaining competence in relation to the products and services offered, including communication obligations under the Consumer Duty
  • COBS 9A.2: Suitability assessment across a client's full financial circumstances, including estate planning implications of product holdings

Reflective Questions

  1. What proportion of the practice's client base has been engaged in an estate planning conversation in the last 12 months, and what triggers prompted those conversations?
  2. How does the practice currently frame estate planning discussions -- mortality-focused or values-based -- and what evidence exists on the effectiveness of each approach?
  3. With pension death benefits entering the inheritance tax scope from April 2027, what communication plan is in place to engage every drawdown client, and by what date should those conversations be completed?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-02-04. 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. Octopus Group/Opinium research (June 2024) -- 69% of advisers lack intergenerational strategy; 48% of investors say adviser has not engaged beneficiaries; 79% would reinvest inheritance; Kings Court Trust GBP 5.5 trillion estimate. https://octopusgroup.com/newsroom/latest-news/only-a-third-of-financial-advisers-have-a-plan-in-place-to-tackle-the-great-wealth-transfer/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  2. Octopus Investments -- advisers estimate losing up to GBP 5 million in assets under advice at client death. https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/opinion/what-will-happen-to-assets-under-advice-when-your-client-dies/ ↩

  3. Schroders Personal Wealth Family and Finances Report (May 2021) -- 78% of individuals without estate planning (n=1,000). https://www.spw.com/reports/family-and-finances-report/ ↩

  4. Unbiased will-making survey (2024, n=2,006) -- 30% uncomfortable discussing death with financial adviser; 50% cite fear of death as barrier to will-making. https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news/reluctance-to-discuss-death-stops-people-seeking-advice/ ↩

  5. National Will Register -- 42% of UK adults have not discussed estate instructions; 25% describe subject as too morbid. https://www.nationalwillregister.co.uk/news/two-fifths-of-uk-adults-not-discussed-instructions-after-death-new-wills-report-finds/ ↩

  6. Guerin and Hood -- "Psychological Factors in Estate Planning" (Chapter 18, SSRN), applying Terror Management Theory to estate planning avoidance. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2983095 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. Journal of Financial Therapy -- "An Economic Model of Mortality Salience in Personal Financial Decision Making." https://newprairiepress.org/jft/vol7/iss2/5/ ↩

  8. FCA Occasional Paper No. 1 -- Applying behavioural economics at the Financial Conduct Authority (April 2013). https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/occasional-papers/occasional-paper-1.pdf ↩ ↩2

  9. FCA Occasional Paper No. 23 -- Full disclosure: a round-up of FCA experimental research into giving information (November 2016). https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/occasional-papers/occasional-paper-no-23-experimental-research-giving-information ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. FCA Occasional Paper No. 26 -- From advert to action: behavioural insights into the advertising of financial products (2017). https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/occasional-papers/no-26-behavioural-insights-advertising-financial-products ↩ ↩2

  11. FCA Handbook PRIN 2A.5 -- Consumer Duty: retail customer outcome on consumer understanding. https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/2A/5.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. FCA Finalised Guidance FG22/5 -- Final non-Handbook Guidance for firms on the Consumer Duty (July 2022), Chapter 8. https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg22-5.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. FCA Consumer Duty implementation: good practice and areas for improvement (December 2025). https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/good-and-poor-practice/consumer-duty-implementation-good-practice-and-areas-improvement ↩ ↩2

  14. FCA Consumer Support Outcome: good practices and areas for improvement (December 2025). https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/good-and-poor-practice/consumer-support-outcome-good-practices-areas-improvement ↩

  15. FCA Handbook COBS 9A.2 -- Assessing suitability: the obligations. https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/COBS/9A/2.html ↩

  16. FCA -- Ongoing financial advice services multi-firm review. https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/multi-firm-reviews/ongoing-financial-advice-services ↩

  17. GOV.UK -- Inheritance Tax if you're a long-term UK resident. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inheritance-tax-if-youre-a-long-term-uk-resident ↩

  18. HMRC Internal Manual -- IHTM47020 Long-term UK residence test. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm47020 ↩

  19. GOV.UK -- Inheritance Tax: unused pension funds and death benefits. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits ↩ ↩2

  20. GOV.UK -- Inheritance Tax thresholds. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-thresholds/inheritance-tax-thresholds ↩

  21. OBR -- Inheritance Tax forecasts in depth; HMRC IHT liabilities statistics. https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/inheritance-tax/ ↩ ↩2

  22. FCA PS25/22 -- Supporting consumers' pensions and investment decisions: rules for targeted support (December 2025). https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps25-22-consumer-pensions-investment-decisions-rules-targeted-support ↩

Preview Free