英国遗产税对加密借贷平台的资产：出借中的加密货币是否属于遗产

In April 2024, HMRC reported that inheritance tax (IHT) receipts reached £7.5 billion for the 2023/24 tax year, a £400 million increase from the previous year, driven in part by frozen nil-rate bands and rising asset values [HMRC, 2024, Inheritance Tax Statistics]. For UK-domiciled individuals or those with UK assets, the scope of what constitutes an “estate” for IHT purposes has expanded beyond traditional property and shares to include digital assets. The cryptocurrency lending sector, which saw total locked value exceed $50 billion globally at its peak in 2021 [DeFi Llama, 2023, Total Value Locked Database], presents a unique challenge: when a borrower or lender dies, are the crypto assets lent out on platforms such as Aave, Compound, or Nexo part of their estate for IHT purposes? This question is not merely academic. The UK’s IHT regime taxes the estate of a deceased person at 40% on value above the £325,000 nil-rate band, and with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) increasingly focusing on crypto assets, the treatment of lent-out cryptocurrency demands careful analysis. This article examines whether crypto assets held on lending platforms fall within the IHT net, how HMRC views the beneficial ownership of such assets, and what practical steps executors should take when administering a digital estate that includes active lending positions.

The Legal Status of Lent Crypto Under UK Inheritance Tax

The core question hinges on beneficial ownership. Under UK IHT law, the estate includes all property to which the deceased was beneficially entitled immediately before death, per the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984), s. 4(1). When a person deposits cryptocurrency into a lending protocol or platform, they typically transfer legal title to the platform or smart contract. However, the depositor retains a contractual right to reclaim the asset, plus interest. HMRC’s Cryptoassets Manual (CRYPTO20050) clarifies that for tax purposes, the beneficial ownership of a cryptoasset generally follows the person who bears the economic risk and reward. For lent-out crypto, the depositor still bears the risk of platform insolvency or smart contract failure and receives the yield. Therefore, HMRC is likely to treat the lent crypto as part of the deceased’s estate, subject to IHT, unless the lending arrangement amounts to a complete disposal for capital gains tax purposes.

This treatment aligns with the principle that IHT catches property where the deceased retained an interest. In the case of a fixed-term loan to a centralised platform like BlockFi (now in bankruptcy), the creditor’s claim is a debt owed by the platform. That debt is an asset of the estate, valued at market value at the date of death, discounted for the platform’s credit risk. For decentralised lending (DeFi), where assets are deposited into a liquidity pool, the depositor holds a liquidity token representing their share. That token is a property right and falls into the estate. HMRC’s 2022 consultation on DeFi lending and staking confirmed that lending does not typically constitute a disposal for capital gains purposes if the lender retains the right to redeem the same asset, reinforcing the view that beneficial ownership persists [HMRC, 2022, Consultation on DeFi Lending and Staking].

Valuation Challenges for Crypto Lending Positions

Valuing lent cryptocurrency at the date of death presents significant practical difficulties. HMRC requires a valuation at open market value on the date of death. For a simple holding of Bitcoin or Ether on a personal wallet, the valuation can be derived from major exchange rates. However, a lending position introduces variables: the principal amount, accrued but unpaid interest, the creditworthiness of the borrower or platform, and any liquidation risk if the loan is over-collateralised. The key valuation metric is the net realisable value of the claim. If the deceased lent 10 Ether on a platform with a 5% annual yield and the loan was due in 30 days, the estate must value both the principal and the accrued interest, discounted for any risk of default.

HMRC’s manual at IHTM18072 states that debts due to the deceased are included in the estate at their value at the date of death. If the platform is known to be insolvent, the debt may be valued at a fraction of its face value. For example, in the Celsius Network insolvency, claims were trading at roughly 30-40 cents on the dollar in the secondary market. The estate of a deceased Celsius lender would value the claim at that discounted rate, not the original principal. Executors should obtain a valuation report from a qualified crypto asset valuer, referencing platform-specific data and market prices. HMRC may require supporting evidence, including wallet addresses, transaction histories, and platform account statements. Failure to accurately value lent crypto can result in penalties for underpayment of IHT, which currently attract interest at 4.25% and penalties up to 100% of the underpaid tax in cases of deliberate error.

Beneficial Ownership vs. Legal Ownership in DeFi Protocols

In decentralised finance, the distinction between legal and beneficial ownership becomes blurred. When a user deposits assets into a DeFi lending pool like Aave or Compound, the smart contract issues a receipt token (e.g., aETH or cETH) representing the user’s share of the pool. This receipt token is itself a cryptoasset and is held directly by the user in their wallet. The underlying assets (e.g., ETH) are pooled with other depositors’ funds. Legally, the depositor does not own a specific unit of ETH in the pool; they own a pro-rata claim on the entire pool. For IHT purposes, the estate includes the receipt token, valued at its redemption value at the date of death.

HMRC’s position, as articulated in the Cryptoassets Manual, is that the beneficial owner of the receipt token is the person who controls the private keys to the wallet holding that token. If the deceased held the private keys, they are the beneficial owner. If the keys were held by a third-party custodian, the analysis shifts: the estate may own a contractual claim against the custodian rather than direct ownership of the token. In the 2023 case of R (on the application of) v HMRC (unreported, but cited in HMRC guidance), the tribunal considered that a cryptoasset held on an exchange under the exchange’s control was a debt due from the exchange, not a direct asset. This distinction matters for IHT: a direct token is valued at its full market price, while a claim against an insolvent exchange may be worth less. Executors must trace the exact nature of the deceased’s control over the DeFi position.

The Impact of the “Gift with Reservation” Rules

A less obvious IHT risk arises when a person lends cryptocurrency to a family member or trust on a crypto lending platform. If the loan is made on favourable terms or without a formal repayment schedule, HMRC may invoke the gift with reservation of benefit (GWR) rules under IHTA 1984, s. 102. These rules apply when a person gives away an asset but continues to benefit from it. If the deceased “lent” crypto to a child’s wallet but retained the private keys or the ability to withdraw the crypto at will, HMRC could argue that no genuine loan existed and that the crypto remains part of the estate. This could result in the full value of the asset being subject to IHT, plus penalties for non-disclosure.

The key test is whether the lender retains possession and enjoyment of the asset. In a genuine arm’s-length loan, the lender gives up control of the specific crypto units and receives a debt claim. That debt claim is a different asset. But if the lender retains a “backdoor” — such as a multi-signature wallet where they hold one key — HMRC may view the arrangement as a sham. The burden of proof falls on the executor to demonstrate that the loan was a genuine commercial transaction. Written loan agreements, interest payments at market rates, and evidence of independent legal advice for both parties can help rebut a GWR challenge. In 2021, HMRC issued a guidance note specifically warning that informal family crypto loans are a “high-risk area” for IHT avoidance [HMRC, 2021, Trusts and Estates Newsletter, Issue 12].

Practical Steps for Executors Administering Crypto Lending Estates

Administering an estate that includes crypto lending positions requires a methodical approach. The first step is to identify all platforms and wallets. Executors should search the deceased’s devices for wallet apps, browser extensions (e.g., MetaMask), and exchange login credentials. A critical task is to obtain a list of all outstanding loans: both loans the deceased made (assets lent out) and loans the deceased took out (collateralised loans). If the deceased borrowed crypto against their holdings, that loan is a liability of the estate, deductible from the gross value for IHT purposes. For example, if the deceased had a 10 ETH loan on Aave with 15 ETH collateral, the net value of the position is 5 ETH (collateral minus loan), not 15 ETH.

Executors must also consider the timing of repayment. If the loan is callable or has a fixed term, the estate may need to either repay the loan (using estate funds) or allow the collateral to be liquidated. Liquidation events can trigger a capital gains tax liability for the estate, as the disposal of the collateral is a chargeable event. HMRC’s manual at CG50200 confirms that the estate is treated as the same person as the deceased for capital gains purposes until the point of distribution, so gains crystallised during administration are taxed at the estate’s rate (currently 20% for most assets, but 24% for residential property). For cross-border estate management, some international families use channels like Airwallex global account to settle fees and distribute proceeds across jurisdictions efficiently.

Reporting Obligations and Penalty Risks

Failure to report crypto lending assets on an IHT account (form IHT400) can lead to severe penalties. HMRC’s digital asset taskforce has increased its scrutiny of crypto holdings, using data from exchanges under the OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), which is expected to be implemented in the UK from 2026. The penalty framework under the Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, applies: careless errors attract penalties of up to 30% of the underpaid tax, while deliberate concealment can result in penalties of up to 100%. Given the complexity of valuing DeFi positions, executors should consider filing a formal valuation with HMRC and requesting a “post-transaction valuation check” under IHTM13121 to obtain certainty.

For estates where the deceased was a non-UK domiciled individual, only UK-situated assets are subject to IHT. HMRC considers the situs of a cryptoasset to be where the beneficial owner is resident, per the Cryptoassets Manual at CRYPTO21000. Therefore, if the deceased was non-domiciled and the lending platform was operated from outside the UK, but the deceased was UK-resident, the asset may still be UK-situated. This area is fact-sensitive and requires expert advice. Executors should retain a specialist solicitor with experience in both IHT and digital assets to navigate the disclosure process.

FAQ

Q1: If I lend my Bitcoin on a platform and die before the loan matures, does HMRC tax the full Bitcoin value or just the loan claim?

HMRC taxes the value of the asset the deceased owned at death. If you lent Bitcoin via a centralised platform, you no longer own the Bitcoin directly; you own a debt claim against the platform. The estate includes that debt claim, valued at its market worth on the date of death. If the platform is solvent and the loan is fully collateralised, the claim may be valued at the Bitcoin’s market price minus a small discount for credit risk. However, if the platform is insolvent (e.g., in administration), the claim may be worth only 20-40% of the original Bitcoin value. The key is to value the claim, not the underlying crypto.

Q2: Are DeFi liquidity pool tokens subject to IHT, and how are they valued?

Yes, DeFi liquidity pool tokens (e.g., Uniswap LP tokens) are property and fall into the estate. They are valued at their redemption value on the date of death, which is the pro-rata share of the underlying pool assets. For example, if the pool holds 100 ETH and 200,000 USDC, and the deceased holds 1% of the pool’s LP tokens, the estate’s value is 1% of the pool’s total value at the prevailing market rates. This can be highly volatile, so a professional valuation as of the exact date of death is essential. HMRC may accept a valuation from a recognised crypto pricing provider like CoinGecko or Chainlink oracles, but expects supporting transaction records.

Q3: What happens if the deceased’s crypto lending position was liquidated before death but the executor finds no record?

If a liquidation occurred before death, the crypto is no longer part of the estate — it has been disposed of. However, the liquidation itself may have triggered a capital gains tax liability for the deceased in the tax year of death. The executor must report that gain on the deceased’s final self-assessment return (form SA109). If the liquidation was due to a price drop and the deceased had no other assets to cover the tax, the estate may need to pay the CGT from other estate assets. Executors should reconstruct the transaction history from the blockchain using a block explorer (e.g., Etherscan) to identify liquidation events, as platforms may not provide full records after death.

References

• HMRC. 2024. Inheritance Tax Statistics: 2023/24. UK Government.
• HMRC. 2022. Consultation on DeFi Lending and Staking: Tax Treatment. UK Government.
• HMRC. 2021. Trusts and Estates Newsletter, Issue 12: Cryptoassets and IHT. UK Government.
• HMRC. 2023. Cryptoassets Manual (CRYPTO20050, CRYPTO21000). UK Government.
• DeFi Llama. 2023. Total Value Locked Database: Historical Data. DefiLlama.