Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Pension Death Benefits: Tax Treatment and Client Communication

· 21 min

Executive Summary

The April 2027 inclusion of most pension death benefits within the inheritance tax estate creates not merely a tax planning challenge but a fundamental client communication imperative. Research indicates that one in five wealthy over-55s remain unaware of the changes, while 77% of advisers anticipate workload increases averaging 20%. The technical framework is well documented across provider platforms; the critical gap lies in how advisers structure sensitive conversations, manage beneficiary expectations regarding the 15-month withholding mechanism, and integrate FCA Consumer Duty obligations into death benefit discussions. This article addresses that gap, providing practical communication frameworks for pension death benefit conversations that balance technical accuracy with client accessibility, alongside nomination review protocols and beneficiary engagement strategies that transform compliance necessity into relationship opportunity.

1. Introduction: The Communication Challenge

The pension death benefit landscape confronts financial advisers with an unprecedented communication challenge. From 6 April 2027, most unused pension funds and death benefits will fall within the deceased's estate for IHT purposes, fundamentally altering assumptions that have underpinned retirement planning for decades.1 Technical guidance abounds: Royal London, Aberdeen TechZone, Standard Life, and numerous providers have published comprehensive analyses of the tax mechanics. Yet the critical advisory skill is not reciting tax rules but translating them into client conversations that drive informed decision-making.

The scale of the communication gap is concerning. Research reported in Professional Adviser indicates that one in five wealthy individuals over age 55 remain unaware of the IHT on pensions change.2 Simultaneously, 77% of advisers expect workload to rise ahead of April 2027, with average expected increases of 20%.3 Standard Life research found that among IFAs who expressed concerns about the proposed changes, 82% cited existing financial plans based on assumptions about current death benefit treatment as their primary reason for opposition -- highlighting the scale of advice that may require recalibration.4

The regulatory dimension adds urgency. The FCA Consumer Duty, in force since 31 July 2023 for open products and 31 July 2024 for closed products, requires firms to ensure communications "support informed decision-making."5 Pension death benefit discussions fall squarely within this requirement. The FCA's expectations extend beyond accuracy to comprehensibility: firms must demonstrate that communications enable clients to understand their options and make effective choices. For pension death benefits, where the interaction of income tax, IHT, withholding mechanisms, and nomination implications creates genuine complexity, meeting this standard requires deliberate effort and structured approaches.

This article does not replicate the technical tax analysis available elsewhere. For comprehensive treatment of income tax and IHT mechanics, double taxation calculations, and nomination strategy hierarchies, practitioners should refer to the detailed technical guidance published alongside the April 2027 changes.6 Instead, this article addresses the advisory competency gap: how to structure conversations, manage emotional responses, engage beneficiaries, document discussions, and satisfy Consumer Duty requirements throughout the process. The communication challenge is threefold: clients who do not know, advisers who must tell them, and regulators who will scrutinise how the telling occurs.

2. Communication Frameworks for Client Conversations

Initiating the Conversation: Timing and Context

The timing of pension death benefit conversations requires careful calibration. Proactive outreach during the 14-month implementation window protects both client interests and professional liability. Reactive response -- waiting for clients to raise the topic -- risks clients making uninformed decisions or, worse, advisers facing complaints for failing to alert them to material changes affecting existing advice.

The annual review cycle provides a natural entry point, but reliance on scheduled reviews alone may prove insufficient. Standard Life research highlighting that a significant majority of IFAs concerned about the changes cited existing financial plans as their primary worry implies an active book of potentially affected clients.4 Segmentation by risk exposure -- clients with unused DC pension funds exceeding GBP 100,000 and total estates above the nil-rate band threshold -- enables prioritisation of proactive outreach. Advisers should consider whether existing review schedules will reach all priority clients before April 2027, or whether dedicated outreach campaigns are necessary to ensure comprehensive coverage.

The context in which conversations occur also matters. Introducing pension death benefit changes during a general financial review risks the topic being lost among other agenda items. For clients with significant pension wealth, dedicated discussions that allow sufficient time for questions and reflection may produce better outcomes than attempting to address the changes within a crowded review meeting.

Structuring the Conversation: The PACE Framework

Effective pension death benefit conversations benefit from a structured approach that balances technical content with emotional sensitivity. The PACE framework offers a practical model:

Position the context: Begin by acknowledging the client's existing arrangements and the rationale behind previous advice. Many clients have held pensions specifically for intergenerational transfer purposes based on professional guidance. Validating this history before introducing changes demonstrates respect for the client relationship and prevents defensive reactions. Phrases such as "the advice we discussed previously was appropriate for the rules at that time" establish continuity rather than suggesting past recommendations were flawed.

Articulate the change: Present the April 2027 change factually and without alarming language. The change brings most unused pension funds within the IHT estate; personal representatives (not scheme administrators) will bear reporting and payment liability; combined effective tax rates may exceed 64% for post-age-75 deaths.7 Resist the temptation to dramatise -- the facts are significant enough without embellishment. Technical accuracy builds trust; sensationalism undermines it.

Clarify implications: Translate the general change into client-specific consequences. What does this mean for their particular pension arrangements? How does it interact with their wider estate? Which beneficiaries are affected and how? Personalisation transforms abstract policy into actionable understanding. Clients engage more meaningfully when they understand the specific impact on their own circumstances rather than general statistical projections.

Explore options: Present available strategies without prescriptive recommendation. Spousal nominations preserve IHT exemption; charitable nominations may reduce estates below RNRB taper thresholds; annuity purchase removes capital from the estate while generating income for lifetime giving.8 Document the options discussed and the client's response for both regulatory compliance and professional protection. The exploration phase should invite client questions and preferences rather than directing toward a predetermined conclusion.

Managing Emotional Responses

Pension death benefit conversations inherently engage mortality, family dynamics, and financial legacy -- topics that evoke strong emotional responses. Advisers should anticipate and prepare for common reactions.

Denial or minimisation: Some clients dismiss the relevance of changes to their circumstances, particularly where mortality feels distant or abstract. Acknowledging the natural reluctance to engage with these topics while gently reinforcing the professional obligation to raise them maintains the relationship while fulfilling duty of care. Phrases such as "I understand this may feel like a distant concern, but addressing it now ensures we have time to implement any changes carefully" can bridge the gap between client reluctance and advisory necessity.

Anxiety or overwhelm: The complexity of combined income tax and IHT calculations, withholding mechanisms, and nomination implications can overwhelm clients unfamiliar with estate administration. Breaking information into manageable segments, providing written summaries for later review, and scheduling follow-up conversations rather than attempting single-session resolution all support client comprehension. Offering to pause and return to topics later allows clients to process information at their own pace rather than rushing through material they may not fully absorb.

Family conflict: Nomination discussions may surface latent family tensions -- estranged children, second marriages, blended families, competing expectations. Advisers should resist involvement in family disputes while documenting any concerns that may affect nomination recommendations. Where family conflict is evident, referral to family mediation or legal counsel may be appropriate before finalising nomination forms. The adviser's role is to present technical options and implications, not to arbitrate family disagreements about inheritance.

Guilt or reluctance: Some clients feel uncomfortable discussing how their assets will be distributed after death, viewing such conversations as presumptuous or morbid. Framing the discussion around ensuring their wishes are respected and their intended beneficiaries are not disadvantaged by avoidable tax charges can reposition the conversation from uncomfortable mortality planning to empowering legacy management.

3. The 15-Month Withholding Mechanism: Managing Beneficiary Expectations

Understanding the Practical Impact

The withholding mechanism introduced by the July 2025 consultation response creates a communication challenge that extends beyond the client to their intended beneficiaries. Personal representatives may issue withholding notices requiring pension schemes to retain up to 50% of taxable benefits for up to 15 months from the end of the month in which the individual died.9 Payments to a spouse, civil partner, or charity are excluded from withholding, but adult children and other non-exempt beneficiaries face potential delays in accessing inherited pension wealth.

This mechanism represents a fundamental departure from current practice, where beneficiaries typically receive pension death benefits within weeks of the death, often before probate is granted for the wider estate. From April 2027, beneficiaries expecting prompt access may wait over a year for full payment. The reputational risk to advisers who fail to prepare beneficiaries for this reality is substantial. Post-death complaints from surprised and frustrated beneficiaries may reference the adviser's failure to communicate this significant administrative change.

The practical consequences of the withholding mechanism extend beyond the delay itself. Beneficiaries may have planned expenditure -- mortgage repayments, debt consolidation, business investments -- predicated on prompt inheritance access. Where these plans cannot proceed due to withheld funds, beneficiaries may face financial stress or missed opportunities. Preparing beneficiaries for this possibility allows them to make alternative arrangements rather than being caught by surprise during an already difficult period.

Beneficiary Communication Protocols

Advisers should develop protocols for beneficiary communication that address the withholding mechanism explicitly. Several considerations apply.

During lifetime: For clients with significant pension wealth and non-exempt beneficiaries, lifetime conversations may include intended beneficiaries where the client consents. Such conversations prepare beneficiaries for post-death administration complexity and reduce the likelihood of beneficiary complaints against the adviser following the client's death. The client's consent should be explicitly documented, as should the content of any beneficiary discussions.

Documentation: Where beneficiary involvement during lifetime is inappropriate or declined, advisers should document the client file with evidence that the withholding mechanism was explained to the client and that the client was invited to share this information with their intended beneficiaries. This documentation protects against later allegations that the adviser failed to communicate material information. File notes should record not only that the topic was discussed but the client's response and any stated intentions regarding beneficiary communication.

Administrative requirements: Beneficiaries should understand that the personal representative (likely a family member or professional executor) will be responsible for IHT reporting and payment, not the pension scheme administrator.10 This represents a shift in administrative burden that may surprise families accustomed to scheme-administered processes. Executors nominated in wills may not have anticipated this additional responsibility and may require professional support to fulfil it.

Income tax reclaim: The policy paper confirms that beneficiaries may reclaim income tax on the amount of IHT paid in respect of the same benefit, partially mitigating double taxation.11 However, this requires proactive steps that beneficiaries may not intuitively understand. Including income tax reclaim guidance in beneficiary communications ensures this entitlement is not lost through ignorance. The administrative process for reclaiming income tax is subject to further HMRC guidance expected before April 2027, but the principle of reclaim availability should be communicated even before the detailed process is confirmed.

Sample Language for Beneficiary Discussions

Technical accuracy must be balanced with accessibility when communicating with beneficiaries who may lack financial sophistication. Consider the following sample language for adaptation to specific circumstances:

"From April 2027, pension death benefits will be included when calculating inheritance tax on the estate. This means that when [client name] passes away, the personal representatives will need to report the pension values to HMRC and may need to pay inheritance tax before the full benefits can be released to you. The personal representatives can require the pension scheme to hold back up to half of the taxable amount for up to 15 months while they arrange payment. This is different from current practice where pension benefits are usually paid quite quickly. We wanted to make sure you understand this so there are no surprises during what will already be a difficult time."

This language avoids technical jargon while conveying the essential information. Advisers should adapt the language to the beneficiary's level of financial sophistication and the specific circumstances of the case.

4. Expression of Wish Form Review: Process and Protocols

The Shifting Rationale for Nominations

Expression of wish forms have historically served dual purposes: directing trustee discretion and -- critically -- keeping pension death benefits outside the IHT estate. HMRC's position, set out in IHTM17051, is that binding nominations bring benefits within the estate because the deceased has directed the payment to specified beneficiaries, whereas genuine trustee discretion keeps benefits outside.12

From April 2027, this IHT planning rationale becomes irrelevant. Benefits will be within the estate regardless of nomination type.13 However, nominations remain critically important for three reasons: they direct who receives benefits, they influence the form of benefit delivery (lump sum, drawdown, or annuity), and they determine whether exempt categories (spouse, civil partner, charity) receive benefits directly rather than through discretionary distribution.

The strategic significance of nominations shifts from IHT avoidance to IHT optimisation. A nomination directing benefits to a surviving spouse preserves the spousal exemption; a nomination to a discretionary trust loses that exemption. The form of benefit delivery affects income tax exposure for the beneficiary. Nominations that were appropriate under the pre-2027 framework may be suboptimal under the new rules, requiring systematic review.

Nomination Audit Framework

Advisory practices should implement systematic nomination audits. The following framework structures the review process:

Identification: Generate a list of all clients with DC pension arrangements. Cross-reference against estate planning files to identify those with potential IHT exposure (estates above nil-rate band thresholds). Create a priority ranking based on pension fund size, estate value, and complexity of beneficiary arrangements.

Retrieval: Request copies of current expression of wish forms from each relevant scheme. Many clients cannot locate copies; schemes retain nomination records and will provide duplicates upon client authorisation. Allow sufficient lead time for scheme responses, as some providers may take several weeks to provide copies.

Review triggers: Prioritise nominations for immediate review where any of the following applies:

  • Spousal bypass trust arrangements (spousal exemption unavailable from April 2027 for trust payments)14
  • Divorce or separation since last nomination (divorce does not revoke pension nominations unlike wills)15
  • Death of previously nominated beneficiary
  • Birth of grandchildren or change in family circumstances
  • Approach of age 75 (income tax implications differ materially)
  • Estate value approaching GBP 2 million RNRB taper threshold
  • Nomination form more than three years old
  • Complex beneficiary arrangements (multiple contingent beneficiaries, trustees named)

Documentation: Record the review outcome and any recommendations made. Where clients decline to update nominations, document the discussion and the client's reasons. Include an assessment of whether the current nomination remains appropriate under post-2027 rules.

Managing Nomination Changes Sensitively

Nomination changes require sensitivity where family dynamics are involved. Several considerations apply.

Spousal conversations: Recommending spousal nomination for IHT efficiency is technically straightforward but may surface questions about trust and control. Some clients prefer trust arrangements specifically to maintain control over ultimate distribution; explaining that this control comes at a significant tax cost enables informed choice. Where clients prioritise control over tax efficiency, document this preference and the adviser's explanation of the tax consequences.

Multi-beneficiary situations: Where clients wish to benefit multiple children or other family members, discussing the income tax implications of different distribution methods (lump sum versus drawdown) for each beneficiary category supports informed decision-making about nomination structure. Beneficiaries in different income tax bands may be affected differently by lump sum versus drawdown payments, and nomination structure can accommodate these differences where multiple beneficiaries are named.

Charitable considerations: Clients with estates near the GBP 2 million RNRB taper threshold may preserve significant tax savings through charitable nominations that reduce the estate below the threshold. Presenting this option without appearing to promote charitable giving over family benefit requires careful framing. The adviser's role is to quantify the tax implications of different nomination structures, not to advocate for particular charitable beneficiaries.

Binding versus discretionary: The previous advice to avoid binding nominations for IHT purposes no longer applies. For clients who prioritise speed of payment to beneficiaries, binding nominations may now be appropriate since they remove the need for trustee deliberation. Conversely, clients who value trustee discretion (for example, to respond to beneficiary circumstances at the time of death) may prefer to retain discretionary nominations despite the administrative delays this may introduce.

5. FCA Consumer Duty Compliance in Death Benefit Communications

The Communications Outcome

The FCA Consumer Duty, codified in PRIN 2A of the FCA Handbook, requires firms to ensure communications "enable consumers to make informed decisions."5 For pension death benefit discussions, this outcome applies to communications with clients about their arrangements, with beneficiaries where appropriate, and in written materials such as nomination forms and client summaries.

The Consumer Duty does not prescribe communication formats but establishes principles that guide compliant practice. Communications must be clear, fair, and not misleading. Technical accuracy alone is insufficient; information must be presented in ways that enable the recipient to understand and act upon it. For pension death benefits, where the interaction of income tax, IHT, withholding mechanisms, and nomination implications creates genuine complexity, achieving this standard requires deliberate effort.

The "consumer understanding" outcome requires firms to test whether their communications are effective. For pension death benefit discussions, this might include checking client comprehension during conversations, providing written summaries for review, and following up to confirm understanding before implementing changes. Firms should not assume that because information was provided, it was understood.

Avoiding Sludge Practices

The FCA's multi-firm review of life insurers' bereavement claim processes, published in November 2024, identified "sludge practices" that complicate customer journeys during difficult times.16 While directed at product providers, the principles apply equally to adviser communications. Sludge practices in pension death benefit communications might include:

  • Technical jargon that obscures rather than clarifies
  • Excessive documentation requirements that delay decision-making
  • Failure to provide written summaries of verbal discussions
  • Complex nomination processes that discourage engagement
  • Omitting material information about delays or tax consequences
  • Requiring multiple contacts or repeated provision of information
  • Processes that require clients to navigate complexity without guidance

Advisers should audit their own communication materials and processes against these sludge indicators. Streamlined processes that minimise friction while maintaining accuracy demonstrate Consumer Duty compliance.

Documentation and Audit Trail Requirements

Consumer Duty compliance requires evidence that communications met the necessary standards. For pension death benefit discussions, the following documentation supports compliance:

Meeting notes: Record the date, attendees, topics covered, questions raised, and recommendations made. Include client responses and any decisions deferred for later consideration. Notes should be contemporaneous and sufficiently detailed to reconstruct the conversation if later required.

Written summaries: Provide clients with written summaries of pension death benefit discussions, including the April 2027 changes, their personal implications, and any recommendations made. Written summaries support client comprehension and provide evidence of communication content. Summaries should be in plain language rather than technical terminology.

Nomination form records: Retain copies of completed nomination forms and correspondence with schemes confirming receipt. Track nomination review dates and flag cases due for periodic review. Maintain records of previous nominations to demonstrate the evolution of client instructions over time.

Beneficiary communications: Where beneficiaries are included in discussions, document their attendance and the information provided. Where beneficiaries are not included, document the reasons and any alternative communication methods used (such as providing the client with materials to share with beneficiaries).

Deceased Client Ongoing Service Fees

A related Consumer Duty consideration: the FCA's multi-firm review of ongoing financial advice services, published in February 2025, identified firms continuing to charge ongoing advice fees for deceased customers while estates were administered.17 The FCA stopped these practices as inconsistent with Consumer Duty requirements. Advisers should ensure that fee arrangements include clear provisions for fee cessation upon client death and that administration processes implement this promptly. Systems should flag deceased clients and suspend fee collection until estate administration requires active adviser involvement that justifies charges.

6. Implementation Timeline: Aligning Communication with April 2027

Immediate Actions (February-April 2026)

Client segmentation: Identify clients with DC pension assets exceeding GBP 100,000 and estates above nil-rate band thresholds. Prioritise these clients for proactive communication during the next review cycle or through dedicated outreach. Segmentation should distinguish between clients requiring urgent attention (bypass trusts, post-divorce nominations) and those for standard review.

Communication materials: Develop standardised materials for pension death benefit discussions, including client summaries, FAQ documents, and nomination review checklists. Review materials for Consumer Duty compliance before deployment. Materials should be tested with sample clients or colleagues to confirm clarity and comprehensibility.

Training: Ensure all client-facing staff understand the April 2027 changes, the communication frameworks discussed in this article, and the documentation requirements. Technical knowledge without communication competency leaves the advisory gap unaddressed. Training should include practice conversations and case studies.

Medium-Term Actions (May-October 2026)

Systematic outreach: Complete initial conversations with prioritised clients. Document discussions and schedule follow-up where decisions are pending. Track outreach progress to ensure coverage of all priority clients before implementation.

Nomination audit: Complete nomination retrieval and review for all clients with identified IHT exposure. Action priority cases (bypass trusts, post-divorce nominations, deceased beneficiaries) first. Maintain a register of nomination review status for each client.

Beneficiary engagement: For clients with significant pension wealth and non-exempt beneficiaries, discuss beneficiary communication with the client. Where consent is given, initiate beneficiary conversations or provide materials for client-led communication. Document client decisions regarding beneficiary engagement.

Pre-Implementation (November 2026-March 2027)

Monitor guidance: HMRC implementation guidance, including details of the income tax reclaim mechanism, is expected before April 2027.11 Monitor publications and update client materials as necessary. Subscribe to HMRC and FCA updates to ensure prompt awareness of new guidance.

Second-round communications: Contact clients who deferred decisions or who did not respond to initial outreach. Document attempts to communicate even where clients remain unresponsive. Multiple documented attempts demonstrate reasonable efforts to inform clients.

Process readiness: Ensure administrative processes are ready for post-April-2027 death benefit cases, including protocols for withholding notices, IHT reporting support, and income tax reclaim assistance. Test processes with hypothetical scenarios to identify gaps before real cases arise.

Conclusion

The April 2027 pension death benefit changes present advisory practices with a communication challenge as much as a technical planning challenge. Technical knowledge is necessary but insufficient; the distinguishing competency lies in translating tax rules into client conversations that drive understanding and enable informed decisions.

The one-in-five awareness gap among wealthy over-55s represents both a professional obligation and a relationship opportunity.2 Advisers who proactively communicate, structure conversations thoughtfully, prepare beneficiaries for administrative realities, and document their efforts will satisfy Consumer Duty requirements while deepening client relationships. Those who wait for clients to raise the topic risk complaints, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational damage.

The 14-month implementation window provides sufficient time for systematic client outreach, nomination audits, and beneficiary engagement. The frameworks presented in this article -- PACE for client conversations, structured protocols for beneficiary communication, systematic nomination review, and Consumer Duty documentation -- offer practical implementation tools. The challenge now is execution: transforming knowledge into communication, and communication into client outcomes that serve both professional obligations and client interests.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 21 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Pension Planning, Client Communication, Consumer Duty Compliance, Estate Administration

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Apply the PACE framework to structure pension death benefit conversations that balance technical accuracy with client accessibility and emotional sensitivity.
  2. Evaluate the communication implications of the 15-month withholding mechanism for beneficiary engagement strategies and client expectation management.
  3. Design a systematic nomination audit process incorporating priority triggers for spousal bypass trusts, post-divorce nominations, and RNRB taper considerations.
  4. Assess pension death benefit communication practices against FCA Consumer Duty requirements, including evidence and documentation standards.

FCA/CII Competency Mapping

  • Consumer Duty outcomes and communications requirements (PRIN 2A)
  • Pension death benefit taxation and nomination procedures (J05/R04)
  • Client communication and relationship management (RO1/AF1)

Reflective Questions

  1. How would you adapt the PACE conversation framework to address clients who minimise or deny the relevance of the April 2027 changes to their circumstances?
  2. What additional steps would you implement to ensure beneficiaries understand the 15-month withholding mechanism and the income tax reclaim process, particularly for non-financially-sophisticated family members?
  3. How might you restructure your firm's nomination review process to identify and prioritise cases requiring urgent attention before April 2027?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 6 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. GOV.UK, "Inheritance Tax on unused pension funds and death benefits" -- Policy Paper (30 October 2024, updated 21 July 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits ↩

  2. Professional Adviser, "One in five wealthy over-55s unaware of IHT on pensions change" (2025). https://www.professionaladviser.com/news/4520949/wealthy-individuals-unaware-iht-pensions-change ↩ ↩2

  3. Professional Adviser, "Adviser workload set to rocket ahead of IHT on pensions changes" (2025). https://www.professionaladviser.com/news/4523226/adviser-workload-set-rocket-ahead-iht-pensions-changes ↩

  4. Standard Life Adviser, "From exempt to exposed: April 2027 pension and IHT changes - Your questions answered" (2025). https://www.standardlife.co.uk/adviser/business-support/insight-opinion/article-page/pensions-and-inheritance-tax-from-april-2027 ↩ ↩2

  5. FCA, "Consumer Duty focus areas" (2023). https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/corporate-documents/consumer-duty-focus-areas ↩ ↩2

  6. GOV.UK, "Inheritance Tax on pensions: liability, reporting and payment -- Summary of responses" (21 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 ↩

  7. Aberdeen TechZone, "Pensions and IHT -- what it means for advice" (2025). https://techzone.aberdeenadviser.com/public/pensions/pensions-iht-means-for-advice ↩

  8. Legal & General Adviser Academy, "Pensions and IHT: planning opportunities" (2025). https://www.legalandgeneral.com/landg-assets/adviser/retirement/literature-and-forms/reference-tools/pensions-and-iht-planning.pdf ↩

  9. GOV.UK, "Inheritance Tax on pensions: liability, reporting and payment -- Summary of responses", Withholding Mechanism (21 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 ↩

  10. Professional Adviser, "Nasty shock? Personal representative duties post-6 April 2027 explained" (2025). https://www.professionaladviser.com/opinion/4522011/nasty-shock-personal-representative-duties-post-april-2027-explained ↩

  11. GOV.UK, "Inheritance Tax on unused pension funds and death benefits" -- Policy Paper, Income Tax Reclaim (30 October 2024, updated 21 July 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits ↩ ↩2

  12. HMRC Inheritance Tax Manual, IHTM17051 -- Pensions: IHT charges: death benefits introduction. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm17051 ↩

  13. GOV.UK, "Inheritance Tax on unused pension funds and death benefits" -- Policy Paper, Scope (30 October 2024, updated 21 July 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits/inheritance-tax-unused-pension-funds-and-death-benefits ↩

  14. Royal London for Advisers, "What is a spousal bypass trust?" (2025). https://adviser.royallondon.com/technical-central/pensions/death-benefits/what-is-a-spousal-bypass-trust/ ↩

  15. Aberdeen TechZone, "Death benefit nominations" (2025). https://techzone.aberdeenadviser.com/public/pensions/death-benefit-nominations ↩

  16. FCA Multi-Firm Review, "Findings of our multi-firm review of life insurers' bereavement claim process" (November 2024). https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/multi-firm-reviews/findings-our-multi-firm-review-life-insurers-bereavement-claim-process ↩

  17. FCA Multi-Firm Review, "Ongoing financial advice services" (February 2025). https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/multi-firm-reviews/ongoing-financial-advice-services ↩

Preview Free