View more on these topics

Pension edge

An extremely petulant Chancellor announced that if the National Audit Office concluded that more than 5,000 people were affected by the introduction of a lifetime allowance on pension funds, he might not bother with the introduction of pension tax simplification at all. Leaving aside such a juvenile response to a perfectly reasonable debate, what might be the impact of no change?

During the consultation phase, I must confess that I felt pension tax simplification was likely to result in a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. In seeking to make pensions simpler, in fact, the opposite would happen and one set of complex rules would be replaced by another.

To some extent, this is what is proposed. A reading of the Treasury paper published on December 10 last year quickly reveals a whole new battery of jargon and terms that the average consumer will struggle to understand. What is the difference between “primary protection” and “enhanced protection”? Which is better?

Those clients who have already accumulated significant funds and who seek to register such funds will need to understand the difference and, therefore, will probably need advice. There will be alternative methods of securing retirement income and again it is likely that advice will be required to make the best choice. So simplification does not mean advice is redundant – quite the opposite, in fact.

What is noteworthy is the Government seems to be at long last recognising the need for impartial independent advice, even if it has not quite worked out yet how it should be paid for. Witness this week&#39s launch of Informed Choice from the Department for Work and Pensions, pointing out that if employers do not contribute to pension schemes, they may instead have to pay for employees to receive independent advice. Personally, I cannot wait for this to be implemented and, if the DWP insists on using my firm&#39s name in its material, who am I to complain?

It will indeed be a real pity if simplification does not happen because some of the suggested changes make real sense. The removal of whole layers of rules and regulations about contribution and benefit restrictions makes great sense. I have stated before and I make no apology for repeating the fact that the acid test of simplification will be the removal of Inland Revenue guidance notes IR12 and IR76 and all the updates and rules that go with them.

But pension simplification is not just about the tax rules. In many respects, it is the interaction between personal and occupational pensions and the state pension system that causes the greatest degree of confusion. We have at long last seen the publication of the Pensions Bill, explaining exactly how the DWP intends to make things simpler in the future although there is still clearly much more to come. High on my wish list will be the ability to take benefits from protected rights at 55 and for such pension funds to provide tax-free cash lump sums. We shall see.

Introducing a single prudent set of investment rules for all schemes is to be welcomed although we do not know how much interference will come from the DWP. Remember, it is the DWP which bizarrely does not allow protected rights funds inside self-invested personal pensions. It cannot defend this by arguing that Sipps allow riskier investments when it is possible to put protected rights funds into an insured personal pension and invest in Far East funds.

The real opportunity presented by a simplified pension tax regime will be if it encourages more people to save for retirement. If simplification is simply a device to extract more tax from pension funds, I am afraid we may well have been duped again by a Chancellor whose track record for Robert Maxwell-style raids on pension funds is well recorded.

If simplification does not happen, I will still have to remember how to define final remuneration for controlling directors and I had rather hoped I might have been able to forget that.

Nick Bamford is managing director of Informed choice

Recommended

James Hay revamps Sipp platform

Sipp administrator James Hay is relaunching its secure internet-based Sipp management service, James Hay Online. The service allows intermediaries and customers to view and manage over 32,000 Sipps online. The new look site allows transactions to be carried out faster and gives IFAs and customers access to portfolio valuations, breakdowns of asset holdings and values, […]

Tilney to bring US fund onshore in retail move

Tilney is bringing its American growth fund onshore as part of its strategy to establish itself as a mutual fund provider in the UK retail market. The fund will be available as a sub-fund of Tilney&#39s UK Oeic. It has been run since launch in 1996 by Nicholas Roe-Ely, supported by Jane Drake. Roe-Ely says […]

New Star&#39s sluggish retail sales spark fears for Isas

New Star, one of the industry&#39s most high-profile groups, is reporting sluggish retail sales for the year so far, fuelling fears that the Isa season could be another damp squib. The firm, which accounts for 8 per cent of net retail fund sales, says its overall fund flows are buoyant but admits that sales through […]

Mini Isas set for a record

Over six million consumers could take a mini Isa before the end of the tax year, according to a survey. Based on 1,000 interviews carried out for Intelligent Finance, research agency ICM believes a last-minute rush could make this a record year in terms of the number of Isas opened. IF chief executive Grenville Turner […]

The FCA’s five fixes for retirement information

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has started to change the way that people will be told about their pension options. In a recent market study paper, they lay out their final proposals on the information that should be delivered to people approaching retirement and how it should look and feel. During 2015, there will be […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment