View more on these topics

Tony Wickenden: Can emigrating pensioners dodge tax?

There appears to be scope for avoiding tax on pensions by emigrating, with several EU members tailoring their tax laws to attract pensioners


The lure of accessing the whole of one’s pension fund in cash will continue to prove too big an attraction for many to resist. However, the fact remains that for a UK resident “taker of benefits”, aside from 25 per cent of the fund being available as a tax-free pension commencement lump sum, the rest will be fully taxable in the tax year it is taken.

There have been plenty of warnings given as to what this can mean and some will heed these, at least ensuring no more than the basic rate is suffered by staggering the benefits taken over more than one tax year.

One of the main drivers (aside from the obvious temptation of a substantial lump sum) may well be a concern that the “window” through which pension fund benefits can be taken wholly in cash may close in the future.

Undoubtedly, those with the inclination and opportunity to retire abroad may be wondering whether it is possible to relocate to a foreign clime and take all of the benefits from their UK-registered pension scheme in cash completely free of tax. This issue will have had to have been considered even before the new pension freedoms had been introduced.

Many of the potential tax issues surrounding flexi-access are not new. In a sense, the Treasury had a dress rehearsal with the introduction of the more limited flexible drawdown four years ago. The treatment of withdrawals by non-residents, who both stay abroad and subsequently return to the UK, will have had to be considered.

I am grateful to the Technical Connection pension team (and in particular John Housden, a good friend to the business) for carrying out the all-important research into this issue and for the articulation of what the current position appears to be.

The first point to note is that, as the Registered Pension Schemes Manual 0410130 states: “There is no general exemption to income tax for individuals who are living abroad in receipt of a pension from a UK registered pension scheme.”

In practice, other than for government pensions, exemption at source will often be available under a double taxation agreement. In such circumstances a claim will need to be made to HM Revenue & Customs by the pension recipient who will then be subject to tax in their new home country.

Taxation under the new home rules can be very attractive. Indeed, several European Union members have tailored their tax laws to attract pensioners. The most appealing example at present is Portugal, whose “non-habitually resident” tax regime gives an exemption on foreign income sources (including pensions) for the first 10 years of a residency in the country.

When flexible withdrawals appeared in April 2011, the Government put a block on exploitation of such overseas rules by applying a similar set of rules to those for capital gains realised while non-resident. Broadly speaking, return within five tax years would have seen all the income withdrawn chargeable to UK tax in the year of return.

The rule was modified from 6 April 2013, with the introduction of the statutory non-residence test. The five tax years became five years or less.

With the advent of flexi-access withdrawals, there was a further change from 6 April 2015. A charge now only arises when over £100,000 of total withdrawals, excluding any PCLS element, is taken during the non-resident period.

Thus a single uncrystallised funds pension lump sum of £133,000 (£33,250 tax-free and £99,750 taxable) would escape HMRC’s grasp on early return to the UK but a one-off UFPLS of £134,000 would attract tax on £100,500 as the £100,000 threshold is exceeded.

One area of uncertainty is whether, if a UK tax charge arose, this could be offset with or eliminated by tax already paid in the former country of residence. The relevant legislation (section 573CA ITEPA 2003, as amended by paragraph 81 of Schedule 1 Taxation of Pensions Act 2014) states: “Nothing in any double taxation relief arrangements is to be read as preventing the person from being chargeable to income tax in respect of any relevant withdrawal treated by virtue of this section as accruing in the period of return (or as preventing a charge to that tax from arising as a result).”

HMRC’s Employment Income Manual guidance on the old flexible withdrawal rules (see EIM74057) gives no clue.

So there appears to be scope for avoiding UK tax on pensions by emigrating. However, anyone considering this option needs to be aware of the high price of an early ticket back to Blighty.

Tony Wickenden is joint managing director of Technical Connection



Key Retirement’s Dean Mirfin takes on technical director role

Key Retirement founding director Dean Mirfin has been given the newly-created role of technical director. Mirfin will provide technical oversight across Key’s core business areas of equity release, retirement income, secured lending and wills and lasting powers of attorney. The firm says it has created the role because of the “wider reaching options and flexibility […]

Royal London pays 90% of IP claims

Royal London paid 90 per cent of income protection claims last year, the provider’s latest claims statistics reveal. The business paid 73 new IP claims in 2014. Including ongoing claims, Royal London paid out £3.2m to 246 claimants last year. The average age of a policy claimant was 41 and the average payout was £13,000. […]

Ian McKenna: Finovate’s best in show

Two weeks ago over 1,000 entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, analysts and a wide range of other people interested in the very leading edge of financial services innovation spent two days in San Jose, US, watching 70 presentations at the Finovate Spring event. This column represents my summary of the highlights from a personal finance perspective based […]


Tilney Bestinvest appoints ex-FSA chief to board

Tilney Bestinvest has appointed former FSA chief executive John Tiner and Betfair chief executive Breon Corcoran as non-executive directors. Tiner was previously chief executive of the Resolution Group, chairman of the UK Financial Capability Steering Group and is currently a non-executive director of the Credit Suisse Group and on the advisory board of Corsair Capital. […]

IHT: What were you doing in 2009?

One of the best sources of new business is your existing clients and, if they are estate planning clients, regular reviews are needed because people’s inheritance tax (IHT) problems tend to only get worse. Now, not a lot of things remain at the same rate as in 2009. If we turn the clock back, it […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 8 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Douglas Baillie 8th June 2015 at 2:36 pm

    My understanding is that if a UK non-resident, who is tax resident in another EU country, can apply to HMRC to have his pension paid gross as long as HMRC receive a valid tax reference from the pensioner’s country of tax residence.

    The pensioner would then be liable to pay tax at the ‘appropriate rates’ in his country of tax residence.

    However, if as Tony has said, it is Portugal, then maybe the ‘appropriate rate’ is zero!

  2. Andy Robertson-Fox 8th June 2015 at 3:36 pm

    Couple of points – Douglas I am open to correction but even though there is a double Taxation Treaty someone who has retired to Thaıland is not allowed to work (paid or unpaid) and so the Labour Office would not issue a tax reference. The pension would remain taxable in the UK. Second point – worth remembering that the UK State Retirement Pension, which will remain payable from the UK, is not index linked world wide but only in EEA countries and some fourteen random ones like USA, the Philippines and Macedonia but not, for example, Canada, Australia or Thailand where it is frozen at the initial level of payment in that country.

  3. Patrick Macdonald 8th June 2015 at 4:22 pm

    A further point is that, currently, the UK government is not allowing full flexibility on non EU QROPS (EU QROPS jurisdictions tax income drawdown locally – so a dual tax treaty with residence country is needed). They suddenly realised that allowing full flexibility to an expatriate who decided to live in Panama (for example) where there is zero tax on foreign income and move his QROPS to a jurisdiction such as Gibraltar would mean said expatriate could take 100% of his pension out in a lump sum, subject only to a tiny 2.5% tax charge in non EU GIbraltar……

  4. Douglas Baillie 8th June 2015 at 4:40 pm

    I don’t think that Thailand or Panama are in the EU?

  5. Patrick Macdonald 8th June 2015 at 5:07 pm

    It is important both where the member is resident and where the QROPS is located. For example – a resident of Panama with a QROPS in Malta would be able (in theory) to drawdown 100% as per existing UK government rules as Malta is in the EU. However it would be subject to local tax of at least 30% in Malta and as no dual tax treaty exists between Panama and Malta there would be no off-setting. So it is better, currently, for the resident in Panama to have a QROPS in a jurisdiction where the QROPS tax is as low as possible (Gibraltar at 2.5% for example) but he has lost the full flexibility option as it’s a non EU QROPS. Conversely a resident of say Spain would be better with the Malta option as a DTT exists between the two – but they would possibly have tax to pay in Spain.

  6. Andy Robertson-Fox 8th June 2015 at 7:04 pm

    Douglas – you are right they are not, but then I don’t think this article is limited to emigration within the EU and 46% pensioners who currently live abroad do so ın frozen countrıes..

  7. As an ex-Forces member I find it rather ironic that HMG freezes my pension If I wish to emigrate to another Commonwealth country (with the same Queen as ours) yet I can emigrate to an EU country (of which we no doubt fought in 1945 etc) and still have an index-linked pension? It’s akin to the same mindless immigration policy that lets low-skilled migrants in from Romania yet forces highly skilled and able minded work colleagues from Australia out, again a country with the same Queen???

  8. Is there that much of a difference now between a QROPS & a SIPP? If you were planning on spending 6 months in the UK and 6 months in Thailand for example and then taking the 25% lump sum and flexible drawdown. Initial costs of a QROPS seem much higher but you will probably end up paying less tax.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm