How a small family farm prepares for inheritance tax changes from April 2026

The scenario

Fieldside Farm is a 300-acre mixed arable and livestock operation in rural Lincolnshire. The farm has been in the Hartley family for three generations. Robert Hartley, 68, runs the farm in partnership with his daughter Sarah, 42, who returned to the farm ten years ago after working as an agricultural consultant. Robert's wife Margaret, 66, is not actively involved in farming but lives in the farmhouse.

The farm produces wheat, barley, and oilseed rape on approximately 220 acres, with the remaining 80 acres used for grass keep and grazing for a small beef suckler herd (40 breeding cows). The partnership employs one full-time farm worker and uses contractors for harvesting and other seasonal work. Annual farm income averages £45,000-£60,000 depending on commodity prices and yields.

Until the October 2024 Budget announcement, Robert and Margaret assumed they would be able to pass the farm to Sarah entirely free of inheritance tax through Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR). The family had discussed succession informally but had not taken formal legal or tax advice, believing that APR provided complete protection.

What the APR/BPR cap means for this farm

Following the October 2024 Budget, the family commissioned a professional valuation from a CAAV (Central Association of Agricultural Valuers) member to understand their position under the new rules. The valuation report, completed in January 2025, broke down the farm's assets as follows:

• Agricultural land and buildings: £2.1 million (agricultural value — farmland is valued at approximately £7,000 per acre in this part of Lincolnshire, with modern grain stores and cattle housing)
• Farmhouse: £450,000 (valued as a rural residential property; agricultural value element assessed at £350,000)
• Machinery and equipment: £180,000 (tractors, combine harvester, cultivation equipment)
• Livestock: £70,000 (40 breeding cows and followers)
• Total qualifying APR/BPR assets: £2.8 million

The impact of the £2.5 million cap:

Under the previous rules, the entire £2.8 million would have received 100% APR/BPR relief, meaning zero inheritance tax liability. Under the new rules from April 2026:

• First £2.5 million of combined APR/BPR assets: 100% relief = £0 IHT
• Remaining £300,000: 50% relief = effective 20% IHT rate = £60,000 inheritance tax liability

This £60,000 liability is before considering other assets (savings, personal possessions) and the nil-rate bands. However, Robert and Margaret have minimal savings (approximately £25,000) and no significant investments — most of their wealth is tied up in the farm.

Why this matters: The farm generates £45,000-£60,000 in annual income, which supports Robert and Margaret's living costs, Sarah's salary as a working partner, and one employee. Finding £60,000 to pay an inheritance tax bill without selling land or equipment would be extremely difficult. Even using the 10-year interest-free instalment option (£6,000 per year), this represents 10-13% of the farm's annual profit.

Spousal transfer opportunity: December 2025 rule change

In December 2025, the government announced an important concession: the £2.5 million APR/BPR allowance would become transferable between spouses, similar to the existing nil-rate band transfer. This means that if Robert dies first and leaves his share of the farm to Margaret, she would inherit both her own £2.5 million allowance and Robert's unused allowance — giving her a combined £5 million threshold.

For the Hartley family, this change is significant. The farm's total value of £2.8 million is well below the £5 million combined threshold, meaning that if succession is structured correctly, the farm could pass to Sarah entirely free of inheritance tax.

The practical implication: Robert and Margaret's existing wills, drafted in 2010, left the entire estate directly to Sarah. These wills now need to be redrafted to ensure:

• If Robert dies first, his share of the farm passes to Margaret (not Sarah), preserving the spousal exemption
• Margaret's will then leaves the combined farm assets to Sarah, using both APR/BPR allowances (£2.5m + £2.5m)
• The partnership agreement is updated to allow for Margaret to become a partner on Robert's death, or for the farm to transfer to Sarah via Margaret's estate

The family's solicitor estimates this will cost £1,800-£2,400 for dual will drafting, partnership agreement amendments, and associated advice.

Options the family is considering

Between January 2025 and February 2026, the Hartley family explored several succession planning options with their advisers. Each option involves different trade-offs between tax efficiency, practical farming arrangements, and family circumstances.

Option 1: Restructure wills to use spousal transfer (recommended)

This is the option the family is proceeding with. By ensuring Robert's share passes first to Margaret, the combined £5 million threshold protects the farm from IHT entirely. The key requirements are:

• Robert and Margaret must update their wills (cost: £2,000-£2,500)
• Partnership agreement must allow for smooth transition
• Margaret must survive Robert and be willing to hold the farm (even if not actively farming) before passing it to Sarah

Risk: If Robert and Margaret die simultaneously (e.g., in an accident), the spousal transfer does not work and the £60,000 IHT liability arises. The family's solicitor recommended they both take out £60,000 life insurance policies written in trust to cover this scenario. Combined premium cost for both policies: approximately £1,400 per year (both are in their late 60s, so premiums are relatively high).

Option 2: Lifetime gift to Sarah (7-year rule)

Robert and Margaret could gift the farm to Sarah now and hope to survive seven years, at which point the gift would become entirely exempt from IHT. This would eliminate the IHT liability entirely if they both survive the seven-year period.

Why they decided against it:

• Robert is still actively farming and not ready to retire or give up control
• Making the gift would trigger Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on the uplift in value since Robert inherited the farm from his father in 1998. The estimated CGT bill would be approximately £85,000 — more than the IHT they are trying to avoid
• If Robert or Margaret die within seven years, the gift is clawed back into their estate anyway (with tapering relief after three years)
• Robert and Margaret would lose security — they would be dependent on Sarah allowing them to remain in the farmhouse

Their accountant strongly advised against this option unless Robert and Margaret were ready to fully retire, which they are not.

Option 3: Increase Sarah's partnership share now

The partnership is currently structured 60% Robert, 40% Sarah. The family considered restructuring to 30% Robert, 70% Sarah, reducing the value in Robert's estate. Each partner's share of partnership assets is valued separately for IHT purposes.

Challenge: HMRC could argue this is a gift with reservation of benefit (because Robert continues to benefit from the farm income and farmhouse occupation). The rules around partnership restructuring for IHT purposes are complex, and the accountant advised that this would not achieve a clear IHT saving without Robert genuinely reducing his involvement and income.

The family decided this added complexity and risk without sufficient certainty of benefit.

Option 4: Sell some land now to reduce estate value

The family briefly considered selling 30-40 acres of lower-grade land (worth approximately £250,000) to bring the total estate value below the £2.5 million threshold. The sale proceeds could be spent down or gifted in smaller amounts over time.

Why they decided against it:

• The farm is already a modest commercial operation; losing 30 acres would reduce viability further
• CGT on the land sale would be approximately £50,000
• The December 2025 spousal transfer rule change means this is unnecessary if wills are structured correctly

Option 5: Do nothing and pay the IHT in instalments

If Robert and Margaret did not update their wills and Sarah inherited directly, she would face a £60,000 IHT bill. HMRC allows this to be paid in ten annual interest-free instalments of £6,000.

Sarah and the farm accountant modelled whether the farm could afford this. The conclusion: possible, but extremely tight. In a poor harvest year or if commodity prices fell, the farm could not meet the £6,000 annual payment without dipping into reserves or taking out a loan. This option provides no buffer for the inevitable bad years in farming.

Professional advice costs

Between November 2024 and February 2026, the Hartley family incurred the following professional costs to understand their position and plan their response to the IHT changes:

• CAAV agricultural valuation: £1,200 (January 2025) — full Red Book valuation for IHT planning purposes
• Solicitor consultations and will drafting: £2,400 (two wills, partnership agreement review, IHT advice) — February 2026
• Accountant advice: £1,600 (IHT modelling, CGT calculations, partnership restructuring analysis) — spread over November 2024 to January 2026
• Life insurance broker fee: £350 (February 2026) — arranging dual life policies in trust
• Annual life insurance premiums: £1,400 per year (ongoing) — covering simultaneous death scenario

Total upfront costs: £5,550

Ongoing annual cost: £1,400 (life insurance)

For a farm with £45,000-£60,000 annual income, these costs are material — approximately 10-12% of one year's farm profit. However, Robert and Sarah both viewed the costs as essential. Without professional advice, they would either have faced an unexpected £60,000 IHT bill or made expensive mistakes (such as triggering CGT through premature gifting).

Emotional and practical impact

Beyond the financial calculations, the IHT reforms have had a significant emotional impact on the Hartley family.

Robert's perspective: "We've farmed this land for three generations. I inherited it from my father in 1998, and he inherited it from his father in 1962. The assumption was always that APR meant the farm could pass intact to the next generation. Finding out in October 2024 that the rules had changed — and that we might have to sell land or equipment to pay a tax bill — felt like a betrayal. We're not wealthy. The farm is worth £2.8 million on paper, but we don't have £2.8 million in the bank. Most years we're doing well to clear £50,000 after costs."

Sarah's perspective: "I came back to the farm because I love farming and wanted to continue the family business. I knew it would never make me rich, but I thought succession would be straightforward because of APR. When Dad told me about the Budget changes, my first thought was: can we even afford to keep the farm? The December rule change on spousal transfer helped enormously — it means we can plan around this. But it required expensive advice and new wills. If the government changes the rules again in five years, we'll be back to square one."

Planning uncertainty: The family found the shifting rules particularly frustrating. The original October 2024 announcement (£1 million threshold) would have resulted in a £260,000 IHT bill on their £2.8 million farm. The December 2025 revision (£2.5 million threshold, transferable between spouses) dramatically improved their position. However, the constant rule changes made long-term planning difficult. The solicitor advised them to review their wills every two to three years in case of further legislative changes.