View more on these topics

Lifetime allowance lifeline granted as HMRC withdraws appeal in key case

Rope-barrier-event-entry-700.jpgHM Revenue and Customs has withdrawn an appeal in a key court case, which could see savers who accidentally breached their lifetime allowance fixed protection terms spared from significant tax bills.

The tax authority had argued that in a case against one individual, Gary Hymanson, who failed to cancel a direct debit to his pension scheme, this should void his £1.8m lifetime allowance fixed protection, even though the breach was accidental.

Hymanson and others could have been left with a six-figure tax bill as a result, as his unprotected lifetime allowance would drop by some £800,000, incurring a 55 per cent tax charge above this level.

While a tribunal had initially found in favour of Hymanson, HMRC was weighing up a challenge, but has confirmed it will now not do so.

AJ Bell senior analyst Tom Selby says: “The fact HMRC appears to have admitted defeat in this case suggests those who make similar genuine errors in relation to their lifetime allowance – errors which in some cases could lead to six-figure tax bills – could be handed a tax lifeline.

“Anyone who has accidentally breached their fixed protection by contributing into a pension in error now has a strong case to go back to HMRC where a tax charge has been applied. The numbers involved could be significant – we recently found over 12,000 investors have notified HMRC they have lost one of the various forms of lifetime allowance protection introduced since ‘A-Day’ in 2006.

“Furthermore, anyone in future who accidentally breaches their protection – for example by being automatically enrolled without appreciating the consequences – could challenge the loss of the protection and any tax penalty the Revenue might try to impose as a result.”


Andrew Tully: Steps to ease your PI pain

The number of defined benefit transfers has reduced from the peak we saw a year or so ago, but demand from clients who want to consider if a transfer is suitable remains high. Advisers need to make sure their processes keep up to date with the continuing changes from the FCA. However, it is the […]

Miniature model house with energy efficiency graph.

House prices slip back in May

House prices dropped back by 0.2 per cent in May to an average of £214,946 as confidence among buyers faltered, Nationwide’s latest index has shown. The Building Society’s housing market data reveals that on a seasonally-adjusted basis there was a small dip in month-on-month prices between April and May, although prices were up by 0.6 […]


Paul Lewis: Ministers should not pass the buck on LCF mini-bonds

The government should take responsibility after helping the firm create an air of official approval When I lived in Kent, there was a ritual every spring called “beating the bounds”. The local vicar and some councillors would walk around the border of the parish to mark its extent. Some people would carry sticks and symbolically […]

Fiona Tait: Looking at intergenerational differences is a start

The FCA’s report into the wealth of baby boomers, Generation X and millennials makes a good start by entitling itself Intergenerational Differences rather than Intergenerational Fairness. There seem to be many commentators who like to pit one group against another, so millennials have been “cheated” out of their rights by “greedy” baby boomers, who don’t […]


What employers should expect over the next five years

A major feature of our articles is looking into the Jelf Employee Benefits crystal ball to predict changes and trends that may influence the short and medium term shape of UK employee benefits.  By flagging such changes early we aim to provide our followers with the tools to make sensible and informed decisions on their benefits offerings.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Martin Tilley 3rd June 2019 at 9:25 am

    Amazing that HMRC would throw in the towel in this case, where the definition of “genuine error” was pushed to the boundaries…Potentially opens the door for anyone who has lost protection to claim “genuine error”. Whether or not they have a case, this is just going to add administrative burden to HMRC in considering them..

    • I’m not so sure. The circumstances are reasonably unique and the FTT was fairly precise in laying out what HMRC had been deficient at. Going further would risk opening this up a bit more, at present this is going to apply to protection cases to be highly disproportionate. HMRC will be able to set that out in internal manuals and this is simply an exercise in limiting the extent of relaxation of genuine error.

      • Apparently an escape on a technicality then. The full FTT judgement does make for an interesting read. Advice, confusion and equitable relief all thrown into the mix!

        • Peter Hopkins 3rd June 2019 at 2:11 pm

          Not sure I’d call it a technicality, more the tribunal doing its job and defining the line more clearly; if only for a small number of cases.

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