The behavioural impact of tax on both advisers and taxpayers continues to fascinate me. Let’s say you have the certainty of being taxed at 40% – what percentage risk would you take to reduce that to nil?
An article in the FT (subscription required) suggests that those with inheritance tax (“IHT”) exposure as low as £15,000 are being sold business property relief (“BPR”) investments to reduce tax. As a tax adviser, the tax issues are relatively simple: invest in alternative investment market (“AIM”) shares that qualify* for BPR and survive for for two years. (*not all AIM shares qualify)
But, what about risk? It’s not too much of a tax risk but surely a significant investment risk. That’s outside my area of expertise but there is a general point here: driven by tax, why introduce the danger of overweight exposure in high risk investments to the elderly? I hear alarm bells.
Questions for the investment adviser:
- How high risk are AIM shares?
- Without the tax break, what proportion should an elderly person hold in such investments?
- What is the percentage chance of the investments falling by more than the hoped for 40% tax saving?
- Is there an AIM market bubble, caused in part by tax driven investments?
- How active do the share/portfolio changes need to be to reduce risk (and perhaps rely on the replacement property BPR provisions)?
- If the AIM market collapses, how many will suffer and will liquidity be an issue?
- Is there a less risky way to save IHT?
I recall that insurance against AIM market falls used to be available with such investments. This option seems to have disappeared. If an insurer won’t take the risk, should an elderly client?
I have seen such BPR portfolios work, eg for those who were very wealthy, appreciated the risk, where BPR formed only a small part of their estate, they lived the two years and died soon afterwards and before any major fall in the investments – were their beneficiaries fortunate?
One to look back on in a few years’ time?