View more on these topics

Fixing drawdown mess is an easy win for Webb

HM Revenue & Customs’ volte-face over the transfer of income drawdown funds where the investor is under 55 does not exactly fill the industry with confidence.

Last week, following legal advice, HMRC appeared to toughen its stance suggesting any transfer of funds to a different provider would be classed as an unauthorised transfer and as such the entire fund would be hit with a 55 per cent charge.

Following an article in last week’s Money Marketing the HMRC received further legal advice stating that such transfers would, in fact, be classed as a recognised transfer and would not face the huge charge.

However, income taken from the new drawdown or annuity provider before the individual’s 55th birthday will be classed as an unathorised payment and is subject to the 55 per cent charge. This was HMRC’s original position after Sipp trade body the Association of Member-directed Pension Schemes wrote asking for clarification in April.

Although HMRC has displayed some common sense with its decision not to tax the individual’s entire fund, its stance on income appears unnecessarily draconian. Removing this restriction on income, caused by the minimum pension age increasing to 55, would only affect a limited number of people and is unlikely to cost the Government money.

It is very hard to see the purpose being served by this rule, no-one has deliberately looked to evade taxation, there should be no worries about tax leakage. This rule could in fact lead to less revenue being received by the Treasury, if individuals moving providers hold off on taking their taxable income.

Despite this, industry experts who have been in discussions with HMRC over the matter believe the Government department is steadfast in its interpretation of the legislation.

This means the only way to solve the problem would be a change in legislation. Step forward pensions minister Steve Webb who in his limited time in the post, and for a much longer time in opposition, has called for the removal of unnecessary pension complexities.

Addressing this quirk in the rules should be relatively straightforward- an amendment could be made to the upcoming Finance Bill or a change in secondary legislation could lead to the payments being reclassified as authorised.

I’m sure there are many bigger issues occupying the time of Webb and his colleagues over in the Treasury but sorting out this mess would send out a clear signal that this administration has its heart set on cutting through the complexities of the pension system. This is yet another example of our current system working against the consumer to the benefit of no-one.

An unfair rule which only affects a limited number of people is still an unfair rule.

On anther note, the flip-flopping from HMRC also undermines the FSA’s recent suggestion in Money Marketing that advisers are to blame for any clients in this situation, for not having the foresight to see this problem occurring. If HMRC itself was not certain of the rules what chance did advisers have?


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I cannot see why there is a problem. If funds were crystallised before 6th April 2010 surely they reamin crystallised after 6th Arpil 2010 and should be able to be moved freely from USP to USP or from USP to Annuity.

    The current hiatus is yet again demonstration of highly paid ministers and civil servants dealing with issues they do not fully understand. Nordo they take the time to try to understand the ramifications of legislation they are introducing.

    Is it too much to hope that under this coalition government we will get some joined up thinking and ministers who consult, listen to the advice they are given and take that advice into account. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling failed to consult or listen to the results of consultation.

  2. Julian Stevens 17th June 2010 at 3:56 pm

    The Pension Income Bond would solve all this mess. In fact, it wouldn’t even be necessary for the Pension Income Bond to be a separate product (except to receive OMO’s from older style pension plans). Existing plans could just morph into a Pension income Bond at the time of vesting ~ no cost and minimal paperwork, just what clients like.

    On this subject I have written to Steve Webb, though as yet all I’ve received is a letter from one of his minions informing me that my letter is to be passed to the Treasury.

    I duly wrote back pointing out that the Treasury does not make policy, ministers do, so any response from the Treasury is unlikely to be nothing more than stock restatement of the existing rules, in effect a non-answer.

    I have, incidentally, run this idea past a number of my clients and every one so far has not only easily understood the structure proposed but has also expressed considerable enthusiasm for it in preference to anything governed by annuity rates.

    So we’ll see what happens once I hear back from the Treasury.

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