View more on these topics

Planning an exit – 5% allowance vs total segment surrender


An onshore bond is simply a tax wrapper – you may have clients that are more suited to an onshore bond than an offshore bond or a collective and so on, as each client is different.

However, onshore bonds can offer significant tax advantages to the right investor and, coupled with an effective exit strategy, can prove to be ideal.

One question when a client wants to withdraw money from the bond is, Should they use the 5% allowance or take total segment surrenders? The answer is, It depends! Before we look at a few examples, let’s consider the taxation of an onshore bond fund.

An onshore bond will pay some tax within the fund. Some may consider this a disadvantage but it can be an advantage. A life fund pays corporation tax on the income it receives and any gains it makes. Rental income and interest (fixed interest stocks) are taxed at 20%, UK dividend income is exempt with any capital gains achieved by the funds also being taxed at 20%. Until 31 December 2017 companies were able to apply indexation relief to these realised gains, but changes brought about by the Finance (No 2) Act 2017 mean that indexation cannot apply beyond 1 January 2018 – meaning the full 20% will now apply.

These taxes are equivalent to the 20% basic rate of income tax and, as a result, this is treated as being paid within the fund. However, even with indexation being frozen, the actual rate paid may be lower than 20% and generally around 16%-18% (depending on the type of assets held, the investment performance and the prevailing economic conditions).

A bond can grow without any personal tax charge and without any need to disclose income or growth providing withdrawals are within the 5% allowance. This makes bonds ideal for those who want a straightforward investment and minimum paperwork.

Also, no tax charges apply for any fund switches carried out within the bond wrapper when changing the underlying investment. This can favour those seeking active management or who want to periodically re-balance their investment.

5% allowance

Each year, a policyholder can take withdrawals of up to 5% of the premium paid in that year plus 5% of any premium paid in any previous years without an immediate liability to income tax. This is known as the ‘tax-deferred withdrawal’ facility and any allowance not used can be carried forward to future years. If no income is taken in year one, then 10% is available in year two and so on.

As well as the 5% allowance there is an overall maximum limit. Once 100% of the cumulative allowance has been used then any further withdrawals, regardless of the amount, are considered a chargeable event. So, for example, withdrawals of 5% each year can be taken for twenty years, 4% each year for 25 years and so on.

For tax purposes, withdrawals within the 5% allowance are considered return of capital.

This means that a policyholder can take annual withdrawals of up to the 5% allowance without reducing any of the following:

  • Personal allowance.
  • Age related personal allowance.
  • Working tax credits.
  • Child tax credits and child benefit.

Policy segmentation

When the policyholder requires money from the bond they can use the bond’s flexibility to choose a method to best suit their circumstances. Bonds are generally written as a series of identical policies, or segments, allowing amounts to be taken from the bond by:

  • Surrendering one or more whole policies – this is always a chargeable event and a chargeable gain could exist but this could be significantly lower than the gain on an excess withdrawal.
  • Partial surrender across all policies – a chargeable event is only triggered if the amount withdrawn exceeds the available cumulative 5% allowance.

When subsequently fully surrendering a whole policy and calculating the chargeable gain, previous withdrawals are factored in and any previous chargeable gains can be deducted.

  • A combination of the above, which could minimise any immediate tax liability by tailoring a withdrawal to the policyholder’s individual circumstances.

For example, an investment bond set up with £100,000 has been in force for 4 1/2 years. A withdrawal of £35,000 would generate a chargeable gain of £10,000 (£35,000 – (£100,000 x 5%) x 5) even if the bond value was only £99,000. If, when the whole gain is added to the policyholder’s income, they remain a basic rate taxpayer, a partial surrender keeping all the policies in force and allowing them the potential to grow in the future might be the best fit for the policyholder. However, if the policyholder is close to, or is already, a higher rate taxpayer, surrendering whole policies might be the best solution.  Other considerations would be that the chargeable gain is treated as income and therefore could affect any income means tested benefits.

Case study

As mentioned, sometimes a combination of both could be the best fit. Let’s consider Anna who has a taxable income of £38,000:

  • She invests £100,000 into an investment bond which is segmented into 100 individual policies.
  • 3 ½ years later she wants to withdraw £60,000.
  • The value of the bond is now £120,000.
  • A part surrender would generate a chargeable gain of
  • £60,000 – (£100,000 x 5%) x 4) = £40,000.
  • Even with top-slicing relief Anna would have a tax liability on the part surrender.

She could:

  • surrender 40 policies for £48,000 generating a chargeable gain of
  • £48,000 – £40,000 = £8,000.
  • There is no tax liability on the £8,000 gain as, when added to her income, Anna remains a basic rate taxpayer.


  • surrender £12,000 from the remaining 60 policies which is within the 5% allowance.
  • £60,000 x 5% x 4 = £12,000.
  • So, Anna can receive the £60,000 without paying any additional tax liability. However her future 5% allowance will be reduced to £3,000 each year based on the remaining 60 segments.


Care must be taken when deciding upon the right method of withdrawing money. The method that best suits a policyholder will depend on their personal circumstances both now and in the future, including whether they need to take regular withdrawals from the bond.

Kim Jarvis is a Technical Manager at Canada Life. She has worked in the life industry arena for over 20 years, with experience in trusts and their taxation, product development, the impact of new legislation on the industry and delivering training. She is an affiliate of the Society of Trusts and Estate Practitioners and a Chartered Insurer.

About Canada Life:

Canada Life is part of a group of companies controlled by Great-West Lifeco Inc., a diversified financial services holding company headquartered in Winnipeg, Canada. Through its subsidiary companies, Lifeco has operations in Canada, the United States, and Europe. Great-West Lifeco and its insurance subsidiaries have received strong ratings from major rating agencies.

Canada Life Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Great-West Lifeco, began operations in the United Kingdom in 1903 and looks after the retirement, investment and protection needs of individuals and companies alike. As  well as providing stability and security through its individual contracts, Canada Life Limited has grown to become the leading provider of competitively priced group insurance solutions.

Canada Life Limited is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Canada Life International Limited and CLI Institutional Limited are Isle of Man registered companies authorised and regulated by the Isle of Man Financial Services  Authority. Canada Life International Assurance Limited and Canada Life International Assurance (Ireland) DAC are authorised and regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland.


Adviser recruitment trends: who’s hiring who?

A detailed look at the firms driving job creation and the most sought-after roles Advice firms are on the hunt for recruits, with 65 per cent aiming to add to their staff within the next 12 months, according to our latest research. Our Adviser Market: Size and Structure report also found that nearly nine out […]

Highlight the tangible benefits of protection through value-added support services

Many clients aren’t aware that their protection policy can give them access to practical and emotional support for coping with bereavement or serious illness. Such additional services can really add value, and help your clients see the tangible benefits of protection. Scottish Widows Care comes with every protection policy at no extra cost and is […]

Tony Wickenden: More pressure on shielded UK business profits

HMRC is tightening the screw on tax avoidance involving profit fragmentation Tax avoidance continues to drive Treasury and HM Revenue & Customs activity. Over the summer, the Revenue published responses to its consultation on proposals to tackle schemes designed to move UK business profits outside the charge of UK tax, often using offshore trusts and […]

SJP directors increase stake in company

Two directors at St James’s Place have increased the shares they own in the company. SJP investments managing director David Lamb and partnership managing director Ian Gascoigne have both bought £8,996 worth of the company’s shares, according to a London Stock Exchange notice. Lamb and Gascoigne bought 993 ordinary shares of 15p each at a price of […]


Investment bonds and care costs

In the UK the election campaigns run by the various political parties have included statements and debates around long-term care provision, and the cost of care that could be covered by the state. The cost of care has been increasing and the problem around funding for care will continue to grow over the coming years […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


    Leave a comment