This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM+cover+small+180914
Categories:Other,Pensions

Last gasp

  • Print
  • Comments (7)

One reason for getting rid of the 82 per cent death tax on funds in alternatively secured pensions is to stop that shockingly high number being used to justify expensive and questionable financial planning solutions.

A tax rate as high as 82 per cent was always going to cause problems. It may not be quite as high as the 95 per cent rate made famous by George Harrison in the song Taxman, but it is not far off. A figure of 82 per cent is certainly big enough to make it easier for advisers to persuade clients that complex tax-saving structures are in their best interests.

There are several areas where the effect of the infamous 82 per cent tax rate has been to create complexity but surely the most controversial are in the fields of accelerated pension withdrawal and transfers to qualified registered overseas pension schemes.

Transfers to Qrops have soared since the 82 per cent charge was introduced in 2007. AJ Bell says hundreds of millions of pounds have now been moved offshore and believes the increase is directly linked with people looking to avoid the tax charge. Most IFAs I talk to confirm the view that a large proportion of those wanting to offshore their pension are not people with a genuine desire to emigrate.

Pension advisers are pretty clear that Qrops are only worth doing if you are genuinely retiring abroad or there is an international dimension to your affairs. If someone is promising to bust open your pension, you are asking for trouble.

When it comes to accelerated pension withdrawal, the debate is a lot more emotional. Putting that emotion to one side, the fact is it is not against the law to make an unauthorised payment of 24.9 per cent of fund value, provided a 55 per cent tax charge is levied. Unauthorised does not mean illegal. Talbot & Muir, which I believe is the only Sipp specialist to actively market accelerated pension withdrawal, comforts its clients with a letter it has from its tax office confirming it is not breaking HMRC rules, provided it collects the 55 per cent tax.

As with transfers to Qrops, each case must be based on its merits and if somebody is so well off they will never need the money from a pension and is soon to be paying tax at 50 per cent and is likely to die in the not too distant future, then there may be a case for taking the 55 per cent hit by going for accelerated pension withdrawal.

But and this is where the FSA waded into the debate before Christmas if it is not in the client’s interests to take such a big hit, then regulatory action against the adviser could follow. I would expect the FSA will want to see that the various other solutions for dealing with the 82 per cent tax hit have been exhausted before opting for a solution which involves a 55 per cent tax hit and charges just shy of £1,000 a go.

Maximum drawdown to 75 and a 10-year guarantee will all but empty most pots while use of a scheme pension through a family Sipp can achieve effective estate planning outcomes without a 55 per cent hit.

What’s more, it is one thing to say people should be allowed to make their own decisions about what they do with their money. But if clients are paying high levels of tax and charges to get their hands on their pension because they are desperate for the cash, the regulator will rightly be asking what they are expected to live off when they retire.

The 82 per cent figure is an emotive one, which is one reason why the Conservatives are pledging to address it if, as expected, they take power later this year. No one likes the idea of waiting for politicians to do anything but individuals planning to spend money on elaborate financial planning structures to avoid the perceived problem should hold on and see if it evaporates.

John Greenwood is editor of Corporate Adviser

  • Print
  • Comments (7)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (7)

  • Although I agree generally with not ripping ones pension apart, I don't think it's any of the regulators business to poke their noses in things they don't understand such as QROPS. FSA mus stop treating clients like idiots and make them think for themselves to a point.

    Come back Caveat Emptor and get rid of the nanny state!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I know that most of my clients would be quite happy if the fund could be passed onto their heirs pension pots. Providing the pension cap remains then what would be wrong with this. The next generation are going to need all the help they can get with pension planning and this would be a way of jump starting thier plans.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Incompetent Regulators Awards Team

    Do you understand QROPS? Bet you don't!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • QROPS - The Government doesn't like it, the FSA doesn't like it and the life companies don't like it - surprise, surprise !

    I have no clients that might be in a position to use such a scheme (at the moment) but if the logic is good for a particular client then it's good that such a scheme exists.

    My guess is that the 82% tax rate will not evaporate - the Tories are a bunch of shysters just like ALL the political parties - the people in power simp[ly want your money to fund their own lavish lifestyles. More likely, HMRC (with the help of the FSA) will simply STOP such schemes - they just need a little time to close the loophole. Perhaps put up the tax on unauthorised payments to 82%.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To put it simply, the solution is to Vote Conservative and this will all go away. :-)

    No seriously. For once, that's not as daft as it strikes most people.

    Tory Policy seems to be to adopt something along the lines of the Irish model for ARFs i.e. a minimum must be left in a pension to ensure people do not then end up relying on means-tested benefits, the rest can be taken as income or extracted with no "GAD max" subject to income tax.

    Errr. Wouldn't that solve the issue?

    FSA supposedly having to intervene seems to be the classic "ratchet effect" of state intervention: one intervention by the state leads to unforeseen consequences...that lead to the "need" for further state regulation...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mr Greenwood states, ‘Most IFAs I talk to confirm the view that a large proportion of those wanting to offshore their pension are not people with a genuine desire to emigrate’. There is nothing in the FA 2004, as revised, or on the HMRC site to support the non-residence criteria. So why does Mr Greenwood and those IFAs believe it to be the case? Alec Ure wrote a Tolleys’ Guide to Understanding QROPS, I suggest those who wish to enlighten themselves read it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just a quick thought, but if income tax is at 50% from next financial year, then the ‘excess over the LTA’ will be taxed - for those lucky enough to be on £150K (or whatever) - at 62.5%?, rather than at the ‘presumed’ (and prevailing) rate of 55%. It will still be at the quoted 55% for those suffering 40% marginal tax, and will remain at 40% for those only paying basic rate tax (but surely very few of these with a pension pot in excess of the LTA?).


    ? net payment is 0.75 (fixed) * (1-0.50) (ie the marginal rate) = 0.375, so 1-0.375 = 0.625


    And possibly the ASP rate will rise from 82% to 85% (ie net is (1-0.7)*(1-0.5))? though I'm not so certain re this

    So there will presumably be a narrowing of the gap, from 27% to 'just' 22.5% tax differential, which will make QROPS possibly less attractive.

    (Of course, there may be some other quirks which this will expose)

    As they say, Not So Simplification After All

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Is Labour right to be concerned about the unintended consequences of the Budget pension reforms?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments