Death and taxes: inheritance tax planning and unexpected mortality | LSE III Event

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The value of the information is high, as it provides novel empirical evidence on the extent of inheritance tax planning in the UK, a topic of policy relevance. The argumentation is solid, using a quasi-experimental design with administrative data, which strengthens causal inference. The speaker clearly explains the methodology, including the construction of the PCOVID measure and the difference-in-differences approach. The results are presented with appropriate caveats, such as the exclusion of spouse relief and age restrictions. The discussion of mechanisms (asset adjustment vs. reliefs) adds depth. However, the presentation is a seminar, so the analysis is not yet peer-reviewed, and some details are omitted for brevity.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The scientific rigor is high, as the study uses administrative tax data from HMRC and mortality data from ONS, which are reliable sources. The methodology is carefully explained, including robustness checks. The speaker cites relevant literature (Kopczuk and Slemrod 2007; Ericsson and Escobar 2020) and discusses contributions. The title accurately reflects the content. The presentation is part of an academic seminar series, indicating scholarly context. However, the study is not yet published, and the presenter notes that results are not endorsed by HMRC. The description provides limited additional sources, but the talk itself is well-referenced.

The title accurately reflects the content, focusing on inheritance tax planning and the use of unexpected mortality as a natural experiment.

8/10

The presentation is based on administrative tax and mortality data, uses a quasi-experimental design, and is part of an academic seminar series. The speaker is a research officer at LSE III. The methodology is clearly explained, and robustness checks are mentioned. However, the paper is not yet peer-reviewed, and the presenter notes that results are not endorsed by HMRC.

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

• 02:00Introduction and overview of the seminar.
• 05:00Discussion on the salience of inheritance tax in the UK.
• 10:00Explanation of the potential inheritance tax revenue gap.
• 15:00Literature review and contribution to existing research.
• 20:00Key results: IHT planning reduces revenue by 3-4.5 billion pounds.
• 25:00Overview of inheritance tax rules in the UK.
• 30:00Data description: IHT returns and mortality data.
• 35:00Methodology: identifying unexpected deaths using COVID-19.
• 40:00Construction of PCOVID and quasi-difference-in-differences.
• 45:00Placebo tests and robustness checks.

• HMRC administrative inheritance tax data — Used for estate-level information on tax returns.
• ONS mortality and excess mortality data — Used to measure unexpected deaths during COVID-19.
• Kopczuk and Slemrod (2007) — US study on terminal illness and estate size.
• Ericsson and Escobar (2020) — Swedish study on unexpected death and estate size.

• Kopczuk and Slemrod (2007) — Similar finding that unexpected death leads to larger estates in the US.
• Ericsson and Escobar (2020) — Contrasting finding in Sweden, but the UK context may differ.

• Ericsson and Escobar (2020) — They find no effect of unexpected death on estate size in Sweden, possibly due to lower use of tax planning.