View more on these topics

John Greenwood: How can the Treasury stop Budget pension tax leakage?

John-Greenwood-MM-Peach-700x450.jpg

If a 55-year-old treats their pension pot like a current account, why should they get any tax relief at all? Having given freedom to over-55s in bucket-loads, the Chancellor has no option but to take some away if he wants to balance the books.

So what options does the Treasury have as it bids to fill the multi-billion pound black hole in its bold and popular pension reform programme?

Despite its protestations to the contrary, restricting the scope of the tax-free lump sum seems like the front-runner.

Given the groundswell of goodwill towards pensions since Osborne’s Budget, surely the public can be persuaded that restrictions on tax-free cash, phrased as anti-avoidance measures, are worth accepting.

So politically sensitive is the tax-free lump sum, “anomalous but much-loved” in the words of Nigel Lawson, that the Treasury went to great lengths to present it as untouchable.

“We are not going to get rid of the 25 per cent tax free lump sum. It is a key part of the pensions system,” said a Treasury spokesman in response to my story that it could be restricted in future.

But the Treasury’s denial is not completely cast iron. And restricting tax-free cash is probably one of the most sensible means of stopping the tax leakage that would follow if nothing is done.

We all know something will be done – there is simply too much at stake. If even a fraction of those over 55 start to sacrifice salary in a big way into pensions, billions of pounds will be lost.

It seems to me the Treasury’s options are few, and all have their negative sides.

Most of the savings from salary sacrifice are in reduced National Insurance for basic rate taxpayers. Imposing employer and employee NI on pension contributions would make the practice less attractive, but would be a massive tax on businesses and individuals.

The Chancellor could say you cannot pay any more in once you have drawn benefits – fair enough, but bad news for those looking to clear mortgages or pay education fees in their late 50s – hardly the flexibility agenda promised in the Budget and not very helpful to the concept of phased retirement.

Anti-avoidance measures could slow the tide of tax avoidance, but would be massively complex to enforce. What’s more, they would create huge uncertainty about what pension contributions are and are not permitted – hardly chiming with the simplicity agenda.

Yes, someone earning £40,000 at 54 and then suddenly reducing it to £12,000 at 55 would smack of trying to game the rules, and you could create some principles to challenge that. But how many top earners do something similar anyway already? How effectively would it be enforced? And what about the fact that people do start to pay more into their pensions as they wake up to their own personal retirement savings crisis? Do we want to stop people paying more in just when they really want to?

I am also not convinced how you can target one group who have little or no pension, yet leave other groups getting lots of pension and benefiting from no NI and the tax-free lump sum.

With DB schemes paying in up to 30 per cent of salary without NI and benefiting from tax-free cash, what is an acceptable level for those in humble 8 per cent DC schemes?

And what of those employees of schemes with really generous DC schemes. Under the new rules, an over-55 whose employer makes a 20 per cent DC contribution is effectively getting that as cash. Should that stop?

It feels like tax-free cash could be both the carrot and stick to promote good behaviour. Preventing tax-free cash on future contributions once you have drawn benefits doesn’t sound so bad after all. Still bad for those looking to pay off debts in their 50s, although some accommodation could be made for what they have saved to date. And it would garner some bad press. It might also feel like the thin end of the wedge for tax-free cash per se, and plays havoc with phased retirement. The problem is, none of the options are that palatable.

But it would stop people washing money through the system, and allow Osborne’s welcome reforms to progress. Either the Treasury are being economical with the actualité or they have thought of something the rest of us can’t conceive of.

John Greenwood is editor of Corporate Adviser

Recommended

Tech-Technology-Computer-Binary-700.jpg
2

D2C providers: Budget guidance guarantee must be delivered online

The Government’s at-retirement guidance guarantee announced in the Budget will inevitably be delivered online to cope with volumes, D2C providers argue. Last month experts told Money Marketing that the Government was concerned about creating a “robust” system to deliver on Chancellor George Osborne’s guarantee of face-to-face guidance for everyone reaching retirement by April 2015. Stockbroker […]

Health - thumbnail

Healthcare predictions for 2015 from Jelf Employee Benefits

The continuing fall-out from the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA’s) review, the rise of the private GP and digital engagement will be the primary focuses in the private healthcare industry during 2015, according to Iain Laws, managing director, healthcare and group risk, at Jelf Employee Benefits.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Swathes of the population sacrificing salary into pensions – and living off what? Not to mention employer approval needed to open up salary sacrifice arrangements to the masses. If you are talking about salary sacrifice then unlimited withdrawals of pension capital – all it needs is for this to be treated as Flexible Drawdown is currently treated and the recycling threat is immediately removed by reduction of the Annual Allowance to nil. I.e. pension flexibility = flexible drawdown without a minimum income requirement. Can’t see the issue here.

  2. David Thompson 2nd June 2014 at 4:46 pm

    The whole purpose of the Budget changes was to stimulate the funding of pension.

    I would have thought that a few, even many over 55s accelerating their fund value by a little bit of additional tax relief is small beer in the scale of the funding shortfall problem.

    In recent years we have seen annual funding rates reduce from £250k to £40k, and LTAs, drop by around 30% from their high water mark.

    Were Govt. to now back track and introduce restrictions it would be counter productive – and again scare people away from pensions. Also, it would evidence that in their planning, Govt. had not factored in this quite basic planning opportunity. That in a slightly different form has been around since the advent of phasing anyway.

    Regarding the loss of the TFC, that too, is another scary thought. Far better the Treasury look at collecting their tax take at the back end of the deal (when the fund owner – or their spouse dies) than seek to squeeze those that want to contribute or increase funding, even if there are additional tax breaks don’t you think?

    Lets face it, the truth of the matter has been that funds have been taxed a 100% whilst CPA’s were the requirement. It was just that the insurance companies and not the treasury were the beneficiaries of that windfall over the years.

    Back end tax of 30% gets my vote!

  3. The Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling 2nd June 2014 at 11:51 pm

    The primary job function of an IFA is to protect clients from the depredations of the state. Nothing could be more of a sitting duck than a pension fund.

Leave a comment