View more on these topics

Hold on for a pension share

I am currently separated from my husband, and I would prefer that the divorce proceedsas soon as possible. However, my solicitor has insisted that we delay proceedings until December this year because of his pension scheme. Why is this?

In many marriages, the pension scheme can be the most valuable asset (marital home excepted). So, when a marriage breaks down, one of the main problems in resolving the financial side of the split is organising an equitable distribution of pension scheme assets.

This has always presen-ted difficulties, primarily because of the rigidity of Inl-and Revenue regulations which have prevented pension assets built up in res-pect of one party from being redistributed to another.

In cases where a clean break is being sought, the inability to tap pension assets can lead to a position where the party with a pension ends up ceding virtually all his or her liquid assets to the party without a pension to counter-balance the non-transferability of the pension assets.

Further, because in most cases the liquid assets are not sufficiently large, the clean break cannot be achieved and both parties end up with their financial affairs intertwined for many years after the divorce – a situation which is clearly unsettling for both sides.

Until now, the tools available to divorce lawyers for sharing pension assets have been limited and clumsy.

Before 1996, any arrangements involving the pension scheme depended, to a very large degree, upon the co-operation of the party with the pension scheme.

For example, if that party was aged over 50, one possible approach was to draw pension benefits early and then pass across part or all of the tax-free lump sum.

However, the court could not force this and, in any event, since this would have a potentially severe effect upon the resulting pension it was very unlikely that one party would agree to do this without coercion.

After 1996, the concept of earmarking was introduced, whereby the court could order that part of a pension is paid direct to the other party.

This was a definite improvement but with major flaws.

The earmarked pension would normally cease on the death of the member of that scheme, leaving the other party in financial difficulty if he/she survived the member.

Further, the member would have control over when to start the pension.

A particularly nasty strategy was then available to the member – delay starting the pension until as late as possible, thus denying income to his or her former spouse.

For these reasons, and also because of the complexity of structuring an earmarking arrangement, very few earmarking orders were ever made.

Before earmarking became law, a resourceful combination of professionals per- suaded a court that, in specific cases, there was scope for it to order part of one party&#39s pension assets to be transferred to another party without breaching Inland Revenue regulations.

This was the Brooks ruling, and the order was used as a template for a number of similar cases.

Unfortunately, this was only ever a realistic approach for very small company pension schemes and therefore unavailable for the vast majority of divorcing couples.

However, it did illustrate how pension assets could be dealt with in a simpler and more effective manner ina divorce.

It seems that the implications of the Brooks ruling were taken to heart by the Government as we will very soon have the concept ofpension sharing.

Briefly, this means that the court can order that part of one party&#39s pension arrangement can be reallocated to the other party. This new pension entitlement can then either be a: left within the pension arrangement, to be drawn when required (subject to the usual pension scheme restrictions) but independent of the other party&#39s benefits, or b: transferred out to another pension scheme – perhaps a personal scheme.

This is a clean break of pension assets in the truest sense in that each party&#39s pension decisions from that point onwards can be made independently. Clearly, this is a radical and most welcome development in divorce management.

The ability to share pensions in this way is limited to divorces where proceedings commence after December 1, 2000. This is why your solicitors are recommending that you wait and there are very good reasons for following their advice.


Insurance industry is not fully exploiting internet says ABI

Two thirds of UK life offices have been unable to take full advantage of e-commerce says a survey conducted by the ABI. A number of barriers exist to insurers fully exploiting the potential of the internet. The most often cited one is product complexity, followed by other factors such as regulation, the need for paper […]

IFAs are squids in with leads from net

More than 130 IFAs have been introduced to new clients through a new sales service website site refers users of thesite to IFAs in their local area free of charge.IFAs are charged £3 a lead by the service.The Squidshop says it has received more than 25,000 positive leads even before is has done any […]

Software gives compliance early warning

Financial software company Synaptic Systems has developed an early warning system which alerts networks to IFA compliance breaches before regulatory visits.The pre-compliance software enables networks to follow their IFAs&#39 tracks as they complete the sales processonline – but only if the IFA consents.The audit trail is submitted to the network&#39s compliance department where it can […]

On the zest of a wave

It would have been impossible to be an observer at PIMS 2000 without noticing that the mood was optimistic. The keynote speeches reinforced the optimism which delegates had brought with them.“Best year we&#39ve ever had” was a comment heard more than once and pointed to personal success reinforcing the message of favourable indicators. Delegates had […]


Out from the long grass? An IT and NI merger

Those with a long memory will recall that at the start of the last parliamentary term George Osborne announced his intention to merge income tax (IT) and national insurance (NI).  Headline grabbing as the initiative was, the reality of the complexities, challenges and costs of such a move resulted in this idea being kicked into the political long grass.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


    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