IHT in Pinner: why the biggest HA5 IHT mistake is made at first death — and how to fix it within the two-year window

Pinner's IHT position is the opposite of Northwood's. Where HA6 estates routinely cross the £2 million taper threshold and lose RNRB entirely, HA5 family homes — typically worth £700,000 to £1,100,000 — sit well below that line. With both spouses' full nil-rate bands available (£325,000 each for NRB, £175,000 each for RNRB), a married couple has up to £1 million of combined IHT-free threshold. Most Pinner estates should, on paper, fall comfortably within that allowance. The actual IHT bills that HA5 families face on second death are rarely about estate size exceeding allowances — they are about allowances having been partially lost at first death, years before anyone noticed.

The classic HA5 error is a Will drafted thirty years ago, updated loosely in the 2010s, that leaves a portion of the first-dying spouse's estate directly to the children. This is almost always well-intentioned: a £100,000 legacy to each of two children, for example, in recognition of grandchildren or a specific family need. On the first death this legacy uses £200,000 of the first spouse's £325,000 NRB — roughly 62% of it. Under the transferable nil-rate band rules, only the unused 38% transfers to the survivor. When the survivor dies, their executors can claim £325,000 of their own NRB plus £123,500 of transferred NRB (38% × £325,000) — combined £448,500, not £650,000. The £201,500 of NRB lost at first death translates directly into £80,600 of IHT on second death that could have been avoided. On a £950,000 Pinner estate this may be the difference between zero IHT and £80,000 of IHT.

The RNRB position is similar but more mechanical and can be salvaged. The RNRB is lost entirely at first death if the family home is left to a discretionary trust rather than directly to the surviving spouse or direct descendants. This drafting pattern was common in Pinner Wills prepared in the 1990s and early 2000s, often included for asset-protection reasons that have since become less relevant. When the first death occurs and the home goes into a discretionary trust, the survivor cannot inherit it outright and the first spouse's £175,000 RNRB is used against a trust transfer rather than a direct-descendant transfer — effectively wasted. On the survivor's own eventual death, only their own £175,000 RNRB remains, not the full £350,000. The loss is £70,000 of IHT on the second estate. The salvage route exists: IHTA 1984 s144 allows personal representatives to unwind a discretionary trust and redirect assets to direct descendants within two years of the first death, and the redirected transfer is treated as if it had been made in the deceased's Will. Many HA5 families discover they qualify for s144 relief — but only if a specialist reviews the first-death position while the two-year window is still open.

The third HA5 IHT pattern is straightforward underutilisation of lifetime planning in the years between the two deaths. A surviving spouse in their seventies with a £900,000 estate has a decade or more to shift value out of the estate via lifetime gifts that start the 7-year PET clock — cash, investments, help-with-house-deposit gifts to adult children. Every £50,000 gifted and surviving seven years removes £20,000 of eventual IHT (at 40% on value above the nil-rate band). Pinner surviving spouses, who tend to be less financially aggressive than Northwood or HotH counterparts, often do not take this route at all — either because no-one has raised it, or because the estate 'already looks covered' by the nil-rate bands without realising those bands have been partially eroded at first death. Both problems are addressable. The first-death review is the missing piece of the puzzle in most HA5 cases.