The CII AF1 February 2026 Exam in Review

The CII has released their papers from the exam sittings that happened in February.  In this article, we look at what was tested this time round in AF1: the Personal Tax and Trust Planning paper. 

This article is correct as at 28 April 2026.

You can find the exam guide here*. 

Question 1  

Section A carries 80 marks and can test a number of different syllabus areas; the question introduced us to Jasper and Matilda, a married couple with two young children. Jasper was a higher-rate taxpayer and Matilda was a basic-rate taxpayer. They had various savings and investments and a holiday home. Matilda’s mother, Celia, was the life tenant of a trust created in her late husband’s Will and finally we met Nancy, Matilda’s sister, who was a trustee of the trust who had recently been declared bankrupt.

The exam started with a 14-mark question testing Jasper’s Income Tax liability. Within the case study, we were told information regarding a bonus, a pension contribution, corporate bond interest, a joint current account and dividends from a GIA. Candidates would have needed to ensure that each of these were included in order to appreciate that Jasper would not have been entitled to a full personal allowance. We also had details of a joint mortgage on their holiday cottage which would also need to have been included as a deduction at the basic rate of Income Tax. Hopefully, candidates scored well in this first calculation which tested some common tax elements.

The exam continued with 10 marks for his, and his employer’s, liability to NICs. Again candidates should have scored well, with so many of the marks available in the tax table provided.

Next however, came a tough question; firstly six marks for explaining how Income Tax and NICs are collected from an employee (not too bad if PAYE had been studied) but then for a further five marks the penalties for late payment were tested. This would have been a challenge for many candidates but for five marks should not have meant a fail overall.

A nicer question followed which was working out the maximum pension contribution Jasper could make to his SIPP for maximum tax relief. This was then followed by a seven-mark question on the benefits of Jasper sacrificing his bonus for a pension contribution. Both of these cover standard knowledge that an AF1 student should know.

Next, the exam focused on the Will set up on Derek’s death. This was an immediate post death interest trust (IPDI) which has been tested before and is commonly used. For five marks candidates had to describe the IHT position on Derek’s death, followed by the IHT and CGT consequences for Celia and the Will trust when she dies. This was for a chunky 10 marks and, unless candidates had studied IPDIs well, may not all have been easily achievable. Candidates then had to outline the factors the trustees of the Will trust should consider when reviewing the trust after Celia’s death. This was for 6 marks.

Finally, it was time to test the impact of Nancy being made bankrupt. This was for 8 marks and may have proved difficult for some who didn’t appreciate that bankruptcy in itself does not prevent anyone being a trustee; whether they should be is a different matter!

Question 2

In the middle section of the exam, we met Andrea and Stefanie, an unmarried couple with a 20-year-old son. Andrea had died in November 2025. As well as the son with Stefanie, she also had a daughter from a previous relationship. Both children were at university and Andrea had been supporting them both financially.

Another table of assets revealed various savings and investments and a life policy that paid out to Stefanie as the executor with no mention of a trust.

We were then informed that Stefanie was born in Sweden, but had lived in the UK for 21 years. When she moved to the UK, she had set up an excluded property trust with both Andrea and herself as beneficiaries.

The questions started with a calculation of the IHT liability on Andrea’s estate. This was for 12 marks and involved tapering the RNRB and remembering to include the life policy which had not been set up under a trust.

Next, candidates had to explain the impact if she had made a lifetime gift in the tax year she died and the effect this would have had on her IHT liability. This was for six marks and has been tested before. Many candidates would have appreciated that the gift would have been a failed PET, but the technical point being tested was that the gift would have reduced the value of the estate below £2m which would have meant the full RNRB would have been available.

Next, candidates were tested on the fact that in her Will, Andrea had left half of the main residence to their son, with the remainder of the estate being left to Stefanie, with no provision for the daughter. The question was, how and on what grounds, could Jasmine (the daughter) make a claim for reasonable financial provision under Andrea’s Will. This was for six marks and many marks could have been achieved simply by appreciating that as a child of Andrea and having been financially dependent due to the university support, Jasmine could have challenged the Will.

The penultimate question tested a common subject within AF1; a description of the role and responsibilities of an executor. This was for 10 marks and any student using past exam guides to help with exam preparation would have come across a model answer for this.

Finally for six marks, candidates had to explain the IHT treatment of Stefanie’s EPT since the changes to domicile/long term residence. This was a technical question and some of the detail may have been difficult to recall in exam conditions but it is a reminder that students should consider any legislative changes that might be tested in the future within this exam.

Question 3

The last question introduced us to Julianna, a single person with two adult children. Julianna ran two businesses; one set up six years ago and one just 18 months ago. She had received an offer for the purchase of both businesses but she was concerned about the CGT implications and what she could do to mitigate the tax. We were then informed that she had always considered herself to have a high ATR but more recently she was concerned about memory loss.

Firstly, candidates had to explain the conditions for business asset disposal relief (BADR) – this was for just four marks. The exam then led into an expected calculation on the sale of both businesses. This was for 10 marks and candidates did need to demonstrate understanding of the gains that would qualify for BADR and those that wouldn’t.

Next, candidates had to explain the implications of reinvesting the gain from one company into a Seed EIS (SEIS). This was for just three marks.

Next, followed another factors question, this time those that would need to be considered when advising Julianna on whether a SEIS would be appropriate for her. This was for six marks and to gain maximum marks candidates should have referred to the information given in the case study regarding Julianna’s concerns around whether her memory loss had affected her ATR.

For another four marks, candidates had to identify the conditions for reinvestment relief if Julianna had used an EIS instead of a SEIS.

Then the expected question on powers of attorney; this exam tested the benefits of Julianna creating a LPA whilst she still has capacity to do so and the last question tested the differences between appointing attorneys jointly or jointly and severally. Both these questions are standard tests of the syllabus and should not have caused too many difficulties for a well-prepared candidate.

Overall, this paper seemed a fair reflection of the syllabus; there were plenty of achievable marks with tried and tested areas such as duties of executors, the benefits of an LPA and a couple of factors questions which appear in most exams.

Comparison with the September 2025 Exam Paper 

Let’s look at what was tested in September 2025’s paper. This exam guide can be found here.  

The topics covered were:

• Question 1
  • IHT on PETs and CLTs
  • IHT consequences of a gift with reservation vs paying rent to live in a gifted house
  • Personal representatives responsibilities for Income Tax and CGT
  • Duties of trustees
  • Continuing ISA rules and the APS
  • Residence status
  • CGT implications of transferring assets on separation and divorce
• Question 2
  • Income Tax calculation
  • Chargeable gain on an offshore bond (surrendered by trustees)
  • Factors to consider when reviewing trust investments
  • Appointing an attorney whilst overseas
  • IHT and the home
• Question 3
  • Bonus and rights issues
  • SDLT calculations
  • How rental income is taxed
  • IHT implications of various gifts
  • Protection strategy for potential IHT on gifts

You can see that the same topics are not tested in sessions that are this close together; however overall we can see a pattern in that the three main taxes are tested at each session, powers of attorney and some test of residence and more recently the long-term residence situation.

In order to secure a pass in AF1, students should be prepared to study the syllabus in full, paying particular attention to where legislation has recently changed. Using exam guides to note the senior manager’s comments will help to see where past candidates made errors or could have done better.

Grab the resources you need!

Preparing for the CII AF1 exam? Build your confidence with our free calculation workbook taster and experience the quality of Brand Financial Training’s resources for yourself. Download it now to start practising effectively.

* The CII has updated their retention policy and now only provides the last two exam papers. Older papers referenced in this article may no longer be available on the CII website.