View more on these topics

Malcolm McLean: Why this could be the year of the pension tax relief raid

Rumours suggest the Budget will see Philip Hammond finally get his hands on the billions tied up in it

It is never easy to predict with any degree of certainty what the chancellor may or may not do in his Budget when it comes to pensions.

The last two years have been surprisingly quiet on that front, but history suggests this is unlikely to continue for a third year.

We also have the massive uncertainties this time round arising from Brexit. At this point in time, it is anybody’s guess how that is going to end up or the impact it will have on the economy more widely.

There has already been a good deal of speculation as to what may be coming for pensions in the Autumn Budget. Some of this may be just that – speculation, without any foundation in fact. Other suggestions may have come from inspired leaks from the Treasury or similar official sources to test the water before proceeding. We will never know for sure.

Advisers back MP pension tax relief proposals

What does seem likely, however, is that, for a cash-strapped chancellor looking to bolster his finances, pension tax relief will be a tempting target. Currently costing the Exchequer over £38bn a year, it may be the only place for him to go to raise the sort of money he needs.

The government has committed itself to provide extra funding for the NHS to the tune of some £20.5bn by 2023/24. This is hardly chicken feed; the money has to come from somewhere.

One very strong rumour doing the rounds is that the government will cut the annual allowance in half to help drum up the cash needed.

Currently, the limit is set at £40,000 a year. If reduced to £20,000, this would mean a high earner with a 40 per cent tax rate only receiving £8,000 of tax relief, instead of £16,000 as now.

But the saving for the chancellor would be much less marked when it comes to lower earners. Most of the people that contribute to a pension plan put in fairly small amounts and might not be affected by even a £20,000 limit.

So this idea on its own may not provide the sort of money saving Philip Hammond is looking for.

Govt to examine pensions tax relief fairness

His next target, then, could well be the rate of tax relief on pension contributions. A curtailment or abolition of the higher rate could be more difficult politically for a Conservative chancellor to bring in, but he might be able to get around this by introducing a flat rate for all of 25 per cent, as one anonymous source has already indicated.

This would still be a reduction in tax relief for higher (40 per cent) and additional (45 per cent) rate taxpayers but could be promoted as a real-time increase for standard (20 per cent) rate and non-taxpayers.

As by far the bulk of the tax relief given currently goes to the higher rate taxpayer, it could also be justified as a more equitable share-out of the tax relief pot available between the different levels of taxpayers involved. On the operational side, the introduction of a flat rate of tax relief could possibly require some significant changes in current practices, particularly for payroll operatives.

It would mean the net pay system of providing tax relief used mainly by occupational schemes might have to be abandoned and replaced with the relief-at-source arrangements now commonly in use in defined contribution workplace pension schemes.

Continuing to use net pay as now would result in higher rate taxpayers receiving too much relief and standard rate taxpayers not enough.

Moving to relief-at-source would be more difficult for schemes administratively but would at least ensure all non-taxpayers entitled to relief actually got it.

But all of that will depend on exactly what Hammond decides to do.

We must wait for details to be announced in his Autumn Budget, which is due to be delivered on 29 October, to get the full picture.

Malcolm McLean is senior consultant at Barnett Waddingham

Recommended

MM-AutumnBudgetBanner
3

Lifetime allowance 2018/19 increase confirmed but pensions absent

The Government has confirmed that the lifetime allowance 2018/19 will rise in line with inflation, but savers have been offered little else in the Autumn Budget. The lifetime allowance will increase from £1m to £1,030,000 to match CPI from 2018/19.  Though the maximum amount the can be saved each year into a Junior Isa or […]

Appeal-Court-High-Court-Building--700x450.jpg
7

Sipp providers gear up for landmark court action

The responsibilities of Sipp providers in relation to unregulated investments are set to be clarified in two court cases that could have wide implications for the industry later this month. The FCA has submitted evidence to both cases about how Sipp providers breached its conduct rules by accepting esoteric investments without due diligence. The first […]

Capital-Stock-Bonds-Shares-Certificate-Portfolio-700x450.jpg

Standard Life Aberdeen moves ahead on share buyback plan

Standard Life Aberdeen is moving ahead with its share buyback programme, as it continues to spend millions on returning funds to shareholders in the company. In a stock exchange notice published this morning, Standard Life says it has purchased another 1,400,267 shares at an average of 300p. Recods show last week, it purchased another 1.5 […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

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

  1. There is no longer any justification for higher rate relief. A pension fund of £1m will produce a pension on an RPI basis that is below the higher rate threshold. On a level basis most of the pension will be taxed at basic rate. As pension is deferred income with tax paid at the point of consumption why would you relieve contributions at 40% and then tax the pension at 20%?

  2. There’s plenty of justification Bob, mostly about weaning people off dependance on the state. Before we even consider that a “flat rate” then massively advantages those who are director/owners of companies as they will still get full effective relief as the contributions are made by the company.

    But mostly if you want people to save for the future, then the first thing you need to do is give them confidence in the system, constantly mucking about with pensions and ISA’s virtually every year has been consistently and constantly undermining that confidence for about a decade now.

    As for the government needing the money, the only reason they do, is because they are financially incompetent. Why not fund this NHS spending from the funds saved by us not paying contributions to the EU? How about using the money that goes on “foreign aid” etc?

    No instead the likes of Phil, potentially chose to undermine the pension system yet again.

Leave a comment

Close

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

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com