|
The length of time between the deprivation and the claim does not always mean that the deprivation was not done with intent to secure benefits, although it is, of course, a significant factor. A relevant question would be, at the time of the deprivation, did the client know that she would be eligible to claim SPC in 2.5 years time?
The clear fact in the client's favour is that the deprivation was not done with the 'significant operative purpose' of claiming pension credit; it was done with the intention of avoiding inheritance tax.
The key question now is, does the avoidance of tax in this way have any negative implications with HMRC? I don't know, I think I would recommend the client seek advice from a specialist tax adviser before the possibility of having to answer a deprivation allegation emerges - for either the pension service or HMRC.
Also, there is another potential problems that your client should consider; £100,000 is a lot of money to 'give away'. Playing devil's advocate, how would she respond to an actual capital decision...? That is, the money (at least soome of it) is still hers, just not in her name.
This may not be an issue immediately because, as the previous contributor says, the evidence of the fact may not be immediately obvious to Pension Service as it was so long ago. However, these are the kinds of things that will come back to haunt client's later - especially if they are on HB/CTB as, in my experience, LA investigators tend to be more proactive in looking for work.
I know my response seems very negative, but it's client's like these that we see a few years later asking for advice about interviews under caution...
Tony
|
