If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which rules will apply if
the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it the so called
retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that pertained prior to A Day?
By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking the actual
benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which refers to the
act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so I'm not sure
what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have received
payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan yet, and the
pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the lifetime limit,
etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the changes
until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25% of the fund
value should be automatically protected.
All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think you may mean
by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect pre A-Day
benefits from the changes if they will be adversely affected. However,
this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' - all it is
doing is giving transitional protection to existing benefits.
Neil.
Stickems. wrote:
> If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which rules will apply if
> the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it the so called
> retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that pertained prior to A Day?
No benefits have been taken. I want the post A-Day rules to apply, because
they ignore the calculations, that limit the pension and the tax free cash
to a percentage of final remuneration, which are in the pre A-Day rules.
You say all pensions operate under the new rules. If a normal retirement
date was in 2003 and the pension is backdated to 2003 can it be assumed that
the pension will be calculated under the new rules and that it won't limit
the tax free cash and the pension to percentages of final remuneration?
<> wrote in message
news:
| By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking the actual
| benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
|
| The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which refers to the
| act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so I'm not sure
| what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have received
| payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
|
| If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan yet, and the
| pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the lifetime limit,
| etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the changes
| until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25% of the fund
| value should be automatically protected.
|
| All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think you may mean
| by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect pre A-Day
| benefits from the changes if they will be adversely affected. However,
| this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' - all it is
| doing is giving transitional protection to existing benefits.
|
| Neil.
|
| Stickems. wrote:
| > If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which rules will
apply if
| > the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it the so called
| > retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that pertained prior to A
Day?
|
I think I follow what you are saying....
However, are you talking about a Final Salary scheme, or an
Occupational Money Purchase scheme (such as an EPP) ?
What is important here is that you are taking the benefits now. The
fact that your normal retirement date was in 2003 is irrelevant.
In a nutshell, if the post A-Day rules mean that you will enhance your
benefits, then the new rules will apply. If you would be disadvantaged
by the new rules, you can apply for protection.
Under an EPP, if your lump sum entitlement was, say, equivalent to 20%
of the fund value, then you do nothing and get a lump sum of 25%.
However, if you are talking about a Final Salary scheme, things may not
be any different, because the Trustees may not have changed the rules
of the scheme.
The formula for calculating lump sums under Final Salary schemes that
operate on an accrual rate of 1/60th per annum or lower has changed
(this now often gives a higher lump sum entitlement). For more details,
see
However, just because this has changed, it does not mean that the old
scheme will enhance your benefits.
Remember, the new rules have changed the MAXIMUM benefits that can be
taken. However, your scheme may pay out benefits based on their scheme
rules that are less than the maximum, because that is what the scheme
rules state.
I think you may need to provide a little more info about the exact type
of pension scheme you were a member of, and how what the rules of the
scheme permit.
Neil.
Stickems. wrote:
> No benefits have been taken. I want the post A-Day rules to apply, because
> they ignore the calculations, that limit the pension and the tax free cash
> to a percentage of final remuneration, which are in the pre A-Day rules.
> You say all pensions operate under the new rules. If a normal retirement
> date was in 2003 and the pension is backdated to 2003 can it be assumed that
> the pension will be calculated under the new rules and that it won't limit
> the tax free cash and the pension to percentages of final remuneration?
>
>
> <> wrote in message
> news:
> | By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking the actual
> | benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
> |
> | The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which refers to the
> | act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so I'm not sure
> | what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have received
> | payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
> |
> | If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan yet, and the
> | pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the lifetime limit,
> | etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the changes
> | until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25% of the fund
> | value should be automatically protected.
> |
> | All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think you may mean
> | by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect pre A-Day
> | benefits from the changes if they will be adversely affected. However,
> | this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' - all it is
> | doing is giving transitional protection to existing benefits.
> |
> | Neil.
> |
> | Stickems. wrote:
> | > If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which rules will
> apply if
> | > the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it the so called
> | > retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that pertained prior to A
> Day?
> |
The scheme is an EPP. So from your answer I gather that if a pension is
backdated to before A-Day then the new rules will apply. O.K. that's what I
wanted to hear, BUT, and it is a big but, where can I see an authoritative
and clear written confirmation of this.
<> wrote in message
news:
|I think I follow what you are saying....
|
| However, are you talking about a Final Salary scheme, or an
| Occupational Money Purchase scheme (such as an EPP) ?
|
| What is important here is that you are taking the benefits now. The
| fact that your normal retirement date was in 2003 is irrelevant.
|
| In a nutshell, if the post A-Day rules mean that you will enhance your
| benefits, then the new rules will apply. If you would be disadvantaged
| by the new rules, you can apply for protection.
|
| Under an EPP, if your lump sum entitlement was, say, equivalent to 20%
| of the fund value, then you do nothing and get a lump sum of 25%.
|
| However, if you are talking about a Final Salary scheme, things may not
| be any different, because the Trustees may not have changed the rules
| of the scheme.
|
| The formula for calculating lump sums under Final Salary schemes that
| operate on an accrual rate of 1/60th per annum or lower has changed
| (this now often gives a higher lump sum entitlement). For more details,
| see
|
|
|
| However, just because this has changed, it does not mean that the old
| scheme will enhance your benefits.
|
| Remember, the new rules have changed the MAXIMUM benefits that can be
| taken. However, your scheme may pay out benefits based on their scheme
| rules that are less than the maximum, because that is what the scheme
| rules state.
|
| I think you may need to provide a little more info about the exact type
| of pension scheme you were a member of, and how what the rules of the
| scheme permit.
|
| Neil.
|
| Stickems. wrote:
| > No benefits have been taken. I want the post A-Day rules to apply,
because
| > they ignore the calculations, that limit the pension and the tax free
cash
| > to a percentage of final remuneration, which are in the pre A-Day rules.
| > You say all pensions operate under the new rules. If a normal retirement
| > date was in 2003 and the pension is backdated to 2003 can it be assumed
that
| > the pension will be calculated under the new rules and that it won't
limit
| > the tax free cash and the pension to percentages of final remuneration?
| >
| >
| > <> wrote in message
| > news:
| > | By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking the actual
| > | benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
| > |
| > | The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which refers to the
| > | act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so I'm not sure
| > | what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have received
| > | payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
| > |
| > | If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan yet, and
the
| > | pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the lifetime limit,
| > | etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the changes
| > | until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25% of the
fund
| > | value should be automatically protected.
| > |
| > | All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think you may
mean
| > | by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect pre A-Day
| > | benefits from the changes if they will be adversely affected. However,
| > | this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' - all it is
| > | doing is giving transitional protection to existing benefits.
| > |
| > | Neil.
| > |
| > | Stickems. wrote:
| > | > If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which rules will
| > apply if
| > | > the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it the so
called
| > | > retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that pertained prior to
A
| > Day?
| > |
|
You'll find the definitive rules on the Revenue website at:
or call the HRMC Pension Schemes office in Nottingham, and they should
be able to tell you.
The rules about 'years of service' are now effectivley redundant for
EPP's. They are treated like any other money purchase scheme (such as
personal pensions). The only thing you need to watch out for is the
lifetime allowance - but taking 25% of the fund value of an EPP should
pose absolutely no problem if you do it now.
Neil.
Stickems. wrote:
> The scheme is an EPP. So from your answer I gather that if a pension is
> backdated to before A-Day then the new rules will apply. O.K. that's what I
> wanted to hear, BUT, and it is a big but, where can I see an authoritative
> and clear written confirmation of this.
>
> <> wrote in message
> news:
> |I think I follow what you are saying....
> |
> | However, are you talking about a Final Salary scheme, or an
> | Occupational Money Purchase scheme (such as an EPP) ?
> |
> | What is important here is that you are taking the benefits now. The
> | fact that your normal retirement date was in 2003 is irrelevant.
> |
> | In a nutshell, if the post A-Day rules mean that you will enhance your
> | benefits, then the new rules will apply. If you would be disadvantaged
> | by the new rules, you can apply for protection.
> |
> | Under an EPP, if your lump sum entitlement was, say, equivalent to 20%
> | of the fund value, then you do nothing and get a lump sum of 25%.
> |
> | However, if you are talking about a Final Salary scheme, things may not
> | be any different, because the Trustees may not have changed the rules
> | of the scheme.
> |
> | The formula for calculating lump sums under Final Salary schemes that
> | operate on an accrual rate of 1/60th per annum or lower has changed
> | (this now often gives a higher lump sum entitlement). For more details,
> | see
> |
> |
> |
> | However, just because this has changed, it does not mean that the old
> | scheme will enhance your benefits.
> |
> | Remember, the new rules have changed the MAXIMUM benefits that can be
> | taken. However, your scheme may pay out benefits based on their scheme
> | rules that are less than the maximum, because that is what the scheme
> | rules state.
> |
> | I think you may need to provide a little more info about the exact type
> | of pension scheme you were a member of, and how what the rules of the
> | scheme permit.
> |
> | Neil.
> |
> | Stickems. wrote:
> | > No benefits have been taken. I want the post A-Day rules to apply,
> because
> | > they ignore the calculations, that limit the pension and the tax free
> cash
> | > to a percentage of final remuneration, which are in the pre A-Day rules.
> | > You say all pensions operate under the new rules. If a normal retirement
> | > date was in 2003 and the pension is backdated to 2003 can it be assumed
> that
> | > the pension will be calculated under the new rules and that it won't
> limit
> | > the tax free cash and the pension to percentages of final remuneration?
> | >
> | >
> | > <> wrote in message
> | > news:
> | > | By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking the actual
> | > | benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
> | > |
> | > | The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which refers to the
> | > | act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so I'm not sure
> | > | what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have received
> | > | payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
> | > |
> | > | If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan yet, and
> the
> | > | pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the lifetime limit,
> | > | etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the changes
> | > | until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25% of the
> fund
> | > | value should be automatically protected.
> | > |
> | > | All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think you may
> mean
> | > | by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect pre A-Day
> | > | benefits from the changes if they will be adversely affected. However,
> | > | this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' - all it is
> | > | doing is giving transitional protection to existing benefits.
> | > |
> | > | Neil.
> | > |
> | > | Stickems. wrote:
> | > | > If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which rules will
> | > apply if
> | > | > the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it the so
> called
> | > | > retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that pertained prior to
> A
> | > Day?
> | > |
> |
I should have added a note to the above to the effect that you should
check whether the rules of your scheme / the Trust Deed allows you to
do this.
If not, you may have to ammend the scheme rules to be able to take a
higher lump sum.
Also, if this is a one-man EPP, this may a good time to wind the scheme
up.
The new rules that came in have meant that most insurance companies are
no longer acting as scheme administrators, and have effectively dumped
this responsibility back onto the scheme trustees.
This means that EPP Trustees will now be directly responsible for
Pension Scheme reporting requirements, and will have to register their
schemes with the Revenue directly. Failure do this could result in loss
of tax approval for the scheme in question.
This will make running an EPP a real pain for most people in the
future....
wrote:
> You'll find the definitive rules on the Revenue website at:
>
>
>
> or call the HRMC Pension Schemes office in Nottingham, and they should
> be able to tell you.
>
> The rules about 'years of service' are now effectivley redundant for
> EPP's. They are treated like any other money purchase scheme (such as
> personal pensions). The only thing you need to watch out for is the
> lifetime allowance - but taking 25% of the fund value of an EPP should
> pose absolutely no problem if you do it now.
>
> Neil.
>
> Stickems. wrote:
> > The scheme is an EPP. So from your answer I gather that if a pension is
> > backdated to before A-Day then the new rules will apply. O.K. that's what I
> > wanted to hear, BUT, and it is a big but, where can I see an authoritative
> > and clear written confirmation of this.
> >
> > <> wrote in message
> > news:
> > |I think I follow what you are saying....
> > |
> > | However, are you talking about a Final Salary scheme, or an
> > | Occupational Money Purchase scheme (such as an EPP) ?
> > |
> > | What is important here is that you are taking the benefits now. The
> > | fact that your normal retirement date was in 2003 is irrelevant.
> > |
> > | In a nutshell, if the post A-Day rules mean that you will enhance your
> > | benefits, then the new rules will apply. If you would be disadvantaged
> > | by the new rules, you can apply for protection.
> > |
> > | Under an EPP, if your lump sum entitlement was, say, equivalent to 20%
> > | of the fund value, then you do nothing and get a lump sum of 25%.
> > |
> > | However, if you are talking about a Final Salary scheme, things may not
> > | be any different, because the Trustees may not have changed the rules
> > | of the scheme.
> > |
> > | The formula for calculating lump sums under Final Salary schemes that
> > | operate on an accrual rate of 1/60th per annum or lower has changed
> > | (this now often gives a higher lump sum entitlement). For more details,
> > | see
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > | However, just because this has changed, it does not mean that the old
> > | scheme will enhance your benefits.
> > |
> > | Remember, the new rules have changed the MAXIMUM benefits that can be
> > | taken. However, your scheme may pay out benefits based on their scheme
> > | rules that are less than the maximum, because that is what the scheme
> > | rules state.
> > |
> > | I think you may need to provide a little more info about the exact type
> > | of pension scheme you were a member of, and how what the rules of the
> > | scheme permit.
> > |
> > | Neil.
> > |
> > | Stickems. wrote:
> > | > No benefits have been taken. I want the post A-Day rules to apply,
> > because
> > | > they ignore the calculations, that limit the pension and the tax free
> > cash
> > | > to a percentage of final remuneration, which are in the pre A-Day rules.
> > | > You say all pensions operate under the new rules. If a normal retirement
> > | > date was in 2003 and the pension is backdated to 2003 can it be assumed
> > that
> > | > the pension will be calculated under the new rules and that it won't
> > limit
> > | > the tax free cash and the pension to percentages of final remuneration?
> > | >
> > | >
> > | > <> wrote in message
> > | > news:
> > | > | By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking the actual
> > | > | benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
> > | > |
> > | > | The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which refers to the
> > | > | act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so I'm not sure
> > | > | what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have received
> > | > | payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
> > | > |
> > | > | If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan yet, and
> > the
> > | > | pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the lifetime limit,
> > | > | etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the changes
> > | > | until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25% of the
> > fund
> > | > | value should be automatically protected.
> > | > |
> > | > | All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think you may
> > mean
> > | > | by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect pre A-Day
> > | > | benefits from the changes if they will be adversely affected. However,
> > | > | this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' - all it is
> > | > | doing is giving transitional protection to existing benefits.
> > | > |
> > | > | Neil.
> > | > |
> > | > | Stickems. wrote:
> > | > | > If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which rules will
> > | > apply if
> > | > | > the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it the so
> > called
> > | > | > retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that pertained prior to
> > A
> > | > Day?
> > | > |
> > |
Shouldn't I wait till after all benefits have been taken before winding up?
I spoke to the pensions office in Northampton and they agree with you but
couldn't point to any printed reference in the rules. I had a look on the
website but it is a dogs dinner, the nearest I could get to something
pertinent was item 1. on http:www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/pts.htm which
is probably not pertinent enough.
<> wrote in message
news:
|I should have added a note to the above to the effect that you should
| check whether the rules of your scheme / the Trust Deed allows you to
| do this.
|
| If not, you may have to ammend the scheme rules to be able to take a
| higher lump sum.
|
| Also, if this is a one-man EPP, this may a good time to wind the scheme
| up.
|
| The new rules that came in have meant that most insurance companies are
| no longer acting as scheme administrators, and have effectively dumped
| this responsibility back onto the scheme trustees.
|
| This means that EPP Trustees will now be directly responsible for
| Pension Scheme reporting requirements, and will have to register their
| schemes with the Revenue directly. Failure do this could result in loss
| of tax approval for the scheme in question.
|
| This will make running an EPP a real pain for most people in the
| future....
|
|
| wrote:
| > You'll find the definitive rules on the Revenue website at:
| >
| >
| >
| > or call the HRMC Pension Schemes office in Nottingham, and they should
| > be able to tell you.
| >
| > The rules about 'years of service' are now effectivley redundant for
| > EPP's. They are treated like any other money purchase scheme (such as
| > personal pensions). The only thing you need to watch out for is the
| > lifetime allowance - but taking 25% of the fund value of an EPP should
| > pose absolutely no problem if you do it now.
| >
| > Neil.
| >
| > Stickems. wrote:
| > > The scheme is an EPP. So from your answer I gather that if a pension
is
| > > backdated to before A-Day then the new rules will apply. O.K. that's
what I
| > > wanted to hear, BUT, and it is a big but, where can I see an
authoritative
| > > and clear written confirmation of this.
| > >
| > > <> wrote in message
| > > news:
| > > |I think I follow what you are saying....
| > > |
| > > | However, are you talking about a Final Salary scheme, or an
| > > | Occupational Money Purchase scheme (such as an EPP) ?
| > > |
| > > | What is important here is that you are taking the benefits now. The
| > > | fact that your normal retirement date was in 2003 is irrelevant.
| > > |
| > > | In a nutshell, if the post A-Day rules mean that you will enhance
your
| > > | benefits, then the new rules will apply. If you would be
disadvantaged
| > > | by the new rules, you can apply for protection.
| > > |
| > > | Under an EPP, if your lump sum entitlement was, say, equivalent to
20%
| > > | of the fund value, then you do nothing and get a lump sum of 25%.
| > > |
| > > | However, if you are talking about a Final Salary scheme, things may
not
| > > | be any different, because the Trustees may not have changed the
rules
| > > | of the scheme.
| > > |
| > > | The formula for calculating lump sums under Final Salary schemes
that
| > > | operate on an accrual rate of 1/60th per annum or lower has changed
| > > | (this now often gives a higher lump sum entitlement). For more
details,
| > > | see
| > > |
| > > |
| > > |
| > > | However, just because this has changed, it does not mean that the
old
| > > | scheme will enhance your benefits.
| > > |
| > > | Remember, the new rules have changed the MAXIMUM benefits that can
be
| > > | taken. However, your scheme may pay out benefits based on their
scheme
| > > | rules that are less than the maximum, because that is what the
scheme
| > > | rules state.
| > > |
| > > | I think you may need to provide a little more info about the exact
type
| > > | of pension scheme you were a member of, and how what the rules of
the
| > > | scheme permit.
| > > |
| > > | Neil.
| > > |
| > > | Stickems. wrote:
| > > | > No benefits have been taken. I want the post A-Day rules to apply,
| > > because
| > > | > they ignore the calculations, that limit the pension and the tax
free
| > > cash
| > > | > to a percentage of final remuneration, which are in the pre A-Day
rules.
| > > | > You say all pensions operate under the new rules. If a normal
retirement
| > > | > date was in 2003 and the pension is backdated to 2003 can it be
assumed
| > > that
| > > | > the pension will be calculated under the new rules and that it
won't
| > > limit
| > > | > the tax free cash and the pension to percentages of final
remuneration?
| > > | >
| > > | >
| > > | > <> wrote in message
| > > | > news:
| > > | > | By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking the
actual
| > > | > | benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
| > > | > |
| > > | > | The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which refers
to the
| > > | > | act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so I'm not
sure
| > > | > | what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have
received
| > > | > | payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
| > > | > |
| > > | > | If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan yet,
and
| > > the
| > > | > | pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the lifetime
limit,
| > > | > | etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the
changes
| > > | > | until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25% of
the
| > > fund
| > > | > | value should be automatically protected.
| > > | > |
| > > | > | All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think you
may
| > > mean
| > > | > | by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect pre
A-Day
| > > | > | benefits from the changes if they will be adversely affected.
However,
| > > | > | this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' - all it
is
| > > | > | doing is giving transitional protection to existing benefits.
| > > | > |
| > > | > | Neil.
| > > | > |
| > > | > | Stickems. wrote:
| > > | > | > If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which rules
will
| > > | > apply if
| > > | > | > the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it the
so
| > > called
| > > | > | > retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that pertained
prior to
| > > A
| > > | > Day?
| > > | > |
| > > |
|
That link should be
"Stickems." <> wrote in message
news:EwChg.13871$
| Shouldn't I wait till after all benefits have been taken before winding
up?
| I spoke to the pensions office in Northampton and they agree with you but
| couldn't point to any printed reference in the rules. I had a look on the
| website but it is a dogs dinner, the nearest I could get to something
| pertinent was item 1. on http:www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/pts.htm which
| is probably not pertinent enough.
|
| <> wrote in message
| news:
||I should have added a note to the above to the effect that you should
|| check whether the rules of your scheme / the Trust Deed allows you to
|| do this.
||
|| If not, you may have to ammend the scheme rules to be able to take a
|| higher lump sum.
||
|| Also, if this is a one-man EPP, this may a good time to wind the scheme
|| up.
||
|| The new rules that came in have meant that most insurance companies are
|| no longer acting as scheme administrators, and have effectively dumped
|| this responsibility back onto the scheme trustees.
||
|| This means that EPP Trustees will now be directly responsible for
|| Pension Scheme reporting requirements, and will have to register their
|| schemes with the Revenue directly. Failure do this could result in loss
|| of tax approval for the scheme in question.
||
|| This will make running an EPP a real pain for most people in the
|| future....
||
||
|| wrote:
|| > You'll find the definitive rules on the Revenue website at:
|| >
|| >
|| >
|| > or call the HRMC Pension Schemes office in Nottingham, and they should
|| > be able to tell you.
|| >
|| > The rules about 'years of service' are now effectivley redundant for
|| > EPP's. They are treated like any other money purchase scheme (such as
|| > personal pensions). The only thing you need to watch out for is the
|| > lifetime allowance - but taking 25% of the fund value of an EPP should
|| > pose absolutely no problem if you do it now.
|| >
|| > Neil.
|| >
|| > Stickems. wrote:
|| > > The scheme is an EPP. So from your answer I gather that if a pension
| is
|| > > backdated to before A-Day then the new rules will apply. O.K. that's
| what I
|| > > wanted to hear, BUT, and it is a big but, where can I see an
| authoritative
|| > > and clear written confirmation of this.
|| > >
|| > > <> wrote in message
|| > > news:
|| > > |I think I follow what you are saying....
|| > > |
|| > > | However, are you talking about a Final Salary scheme, or an
|| > > | Occupational Money Purchase scheme (such as an EPP) ?
|| > > |
|| > > | What is important here is that you are taking the benefits now. The
|| > > | fact that your normal retirement date was in 2003 is irrelevant.
|| > > |
|| > > | In a nutshell, if the post A-Day rules mean that you will enhance
| your
|| > > | benefits, then the new rules will apply. If you would be
| disadvantaged
|| > > | by the new rules, you can apply for protection.
|| > > |
|| > > | Under an EPP, if your lump sum entitlement was, say, equivalent to
| 20%
|| > > | of the fund value, then you do nothing and get a lump sum of 25%.
|| > > |
|| > > | However, if you are talking about a Final Salary scheme, things may
| not
|| > > | be any different, because the Trustees may not have changed the
| rules
|| > > | of the scheme.
|| > > |
|| > > | The formula for calculating lump sums under Final Salary schemes
| that
|| > > | operate on an accrual rate of 1/60th per annum or lower has changed
|| > > | (this now often gives a higher lump sum entitlement). For more
| details,
|| > > | see
|| > > |
|
|| > > |
|| > > |
|| > > | However, just because this has changed, it does not mean that the
| old
|| > > | scheme will enhance your benefits.
|| > > |
|| > > | Remember, the new rules have changed the MAXIMUM benefits that can
| be
|| > > | taken. However, your scheme may pay out benefits based on their
| scheme
|| > > | rules that are less than the maximum, because that is what the
| scheme
|| > > | rules state.
|| > > |
|| > > | I think you may need to provide a little more info about the exact
| type
|| > > | of pension scheme you were a member of, and how what the rules of
| the
|| > > | scheme permit.
|| > > |
|| > > | Neil.
|| > > |
|| > > | Stickems. wrote:
|| > > | > No benefits have been taken. I want the post A-Day rules to
apply,
|| > > because
|| > > | > they ignore the calculations, that limit the pension and the tax
| free
|| > > cash
|| > > | > to a percentage of final remuneration, which are in the pre A-Day
| rules.
|| > > | > You say all pensions operate under the new rules. If a normal
| retirement
|| > > | > date was in 2003 and the pension is backdated to 2003 can it be
| assumed
|| > > that
|| > > | > the pension will be calculated under the new rules and that it
| won't
|| > > limit
|| > > | > the tax free cash and the pension to percentages of final
| remuneration?
|| > > | >
|| > > | >
|| > > | > <> wrote in message
|| > > | > news:
|| > > | > | By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking the
| actual
|| > > | > | benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
|| > > | > |
|| > > | > | The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which refers
| to the
|| > > | > | act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so I'm
not
| sure
|| > > | > | what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have
| received
|| > > | > | payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
|| > > | > |
|| > > | > | If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan yet,
| and
|| > > the
|| > > | > | pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the lifetime
| limit,
|| > > | > | etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the
| changes
|| > > | > | until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25% of
| the
|| > > fund
|| > > | > | value should be automatically protected.
|| > > | > |
|| > > | > | All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think you
| may
|| > > mean
|| > > | > | by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect pre
| A-Day
|| > > | > | benefits from the changes if they will be adversely affected.
| However,
|| > > | > | this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' - all it
| is
|| > > | > | doing is giving transitional protection to existing benefits.
|| > > | > |
|| > > | > | Neil.
|| > > | > |
|| > > | > | Stickems. wrote:
|| > > | > | > If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which
rules
| will
|| > > | > apply if
|| > > | > | > the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it the
| so
|| > > called
|| > > | > | > retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that pertained
| prior to
|| > > A
|| > > | > Day?
|| > > | > |
|| > > |
||
|
|
OK, I could have phrased the last reply better, but yes, you should
commence winding up the scheme after you have taken the benefits - what
was going through my mind is the longer the leave it, the more chance
you have of getting entangled in the new requirements.
The HMRC website is not the easiest site to navigate, but it does state
on http:www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/pts.htm in point 7:
"If your scheme rules allow, you can take up to 25% of your pension
fund as a tax free lump sum."
All the other points seem quite straightforward. If you ask anybody who
knows anything about pensions, they will confirm these points.
Therefore, why do you need this inscribed in stone ?
If you go to the EPP provider and ask for 25% of the fund as a lump
sum, they will arrange it (scheme rules permitting). If this was not
allowed, they would not give it to you.
So what is the big issue here ?
Neil.
Stickems. wrote:
> That link should be
>
>
> "Stickems." <> wrote in message
> news:EwChg.13871$
> | Shouldn't I wait till after all benefits have been taken before winding
> up?
> | I spoke to the pensions office in Northampton and they agree with you but
> | couldn't point to any printed reference in the rules. I had a look on the
> | website but it is a dogs dinner, the nearest I could get to something
> | pertinent was item 1. on http:www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/pts.htm which
> | is probably not pertinent enough.
> |
> | <> wrote in message
> | news:
> ||I should have added a note to the above to the effect that you should
> || check whether the rules of your scheme / the Trust Deed allows you to
> || do this.
> ||
> || If not, you may have to ammend the scheme rules to be able to take a
> || higher lump sum.
> ||
> || Also, if this is a one-man EPP, this may a good time to wind the scheme
> || up.
> ||
> || The new rules that came in have meant that most insurance companies are
> || no longer acting as scheme administrators, and have effectively dumped
> || this responsibility back onto the scheme trustees.
> ||
> || This means that EPP Trustees will now be directly responsible for
> || Pension Scheme reporting requirements, and will have to register their
> || schemes with the Revenue directly. Failure do this could result in loss
> || of tax approval for the scheme in question.
> ||
> || This will make running an EPP a real pain for most people in the
> || future....
> ||
> ||
> || wrote:
> || > You'll find the definitive rules on the Revenue website at:
> || >
> || >
> || >
> || > or call the HRMC Pension Schemes office in Nottingham, and they should
> || > be able to tell you.
> || >
> || > The rules about 'years of service' are now effectivley redundant for
> || > EPP's. They are treated like any other money purchase scheme (such as
> || > personal pensions). The only thing you need to watch out for is the
> || > lifetime allowance - but taking 25% of the fund value of an EPP should
> || > pose absolutely no problem if you do it now.
> || >
> || > Neil.
> || >
> || > Stickems. wrote:
> || > > The scheme is an EPP. So from your answer I gather that if a pension
> | is
> || > > backdated to before A-Day then the new rules will apply. O.K. that's
> | what I
> || > > wanted to hear, BUT, and it is a big but, where can I see an
> | authoritative
> || > > and clear written confirmation of this.
> || > >
> || > > <> wrote in message
> || > > news:
> || > > |I think I follow what you are saying....
> || > > |
> || > > | However, are you talking about a Final Salary scheme, or an
> || > > | Occupational Money Purchase scheme (such as an EPP) ?
> || > > |
> || > > | What is important here is that you are taking the benefits now. The
> || > > | fact that your normal retirement date was in 2003 is irrelevant.
> || > > |
> || > > | In a nutshell, if the post A-Day rules mean that you will enhance
> | your
> || > > | benefits, then the new rules will apply. If you would be
> | disadvantaged
> || > > | by the new rules, you can apply for protection.
> || > > |
> || > > | Under an EPP, if your lump sum entitlement was, say, equivalent to
> | 20%
> || > > | of the fund value, then you do nothing and get a lump sum of 25%.
> || > > |
> || > > | However, if you are talking about a Final Salary scheme, things may
> | not
> || > > | be any different, because the Trustees may not have changed the
> | rules
> || > > | of the scheme.
> || > > |
> || > > | The formula for calculating lump sums under Final Salary schemes
> | that
> || > > | operate on an accrual rate of 1/60th per annum or lower has changed
> || > > | (this now often gives a higher lump sum entitlement). For more
> | details,
> || > > | see
> || > > |
> |
> || > > |
> || > > |
> || > > | However, just because this has changed, it does not mean that the
> | old
> || > > | scheme will enhance your benefits.
> || > > |
> || > > | Remember, the new rules have changed the MAXIMUM benefits that can
> | be
> || > > | taken. However, your scheme may pay out benefits based on their
> | scheme
> || > > | rules that are less than the maximum, because that is what the
> | scheme
> || > > | rules state.
> || > > |
> || > > | I think you may need to provide a little more info about the exact
> | type
> || > > | of pension scheme you were a member of, and how what the rules of
> | the
> || > > | scheme permit.
> || > > |
> || > > | Neil.
> || > > |
> || > > | Stickems. wrote:
> || > > | > No benefits have been taken. I want the post A-Day rules to
> apply,
> || > > because
> || > > | > they ignore the calculations, that limit the pension and the tax
> | free
> || > > cash
> || > > | > to a percentage of final remuneration, which are in the pre A-Day
> | rules.
> || > > | > You say all pensions operate under the new rules. If a normal
> | retirement
> || > > | > date was in 2003 and the pension is backdated to 2003 can it be
> | assumed
> || > > that
> || > > | > the pension will be calculated under the new rules and that it
> | won't
> || > > limit
> || > > | > the tax free cash and the pension to percentages of final
> | remuneration?
> || > > | >
> || > > | >
> || > > | > <> wrote in message
> || > > | > news:
> || > > | > | By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking the
> | actual
> || > > | > | benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
> || > > | > |
> || > > | > | The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which refers
> | to the
> || > > | > | act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so I'm
> not
> | sure
> || > > | > | what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have
> | received
> || > > | > | payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
> || > > | > |
> || > > | > | If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan yet,
> | and
> || > > the
> || > > | > | pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the lifetime
> | limit,
> || > > | > | etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the
> | changes
> || > > | > | until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25% of
> | the
> || > > fund
> || > > | > | value should be automatically protected.
> || > > | > |
> || > > | > | All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think you
> | may
> || > > mean
> || > > | > | by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect pre
> | A-Day
> || > > | > | benefits from the changes if they will be adversely affected.
> | However,
> || > > | > | this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' - all it
> | is
> || > > | > | doing is giving transitional protection to existing benefits.
> || > > | > |
> || > > | > | Neil.
> || > > | > |
> || > > | > | Stickems. wrote:
> || > > | > | > If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which
> rules
> | will
> || > > | > apply if
> || > > | > | > the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it the
> | so
> || > > called
> || > > | > | > retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that pertained
> | prior to
> || > > A
> || > > | > Day?
> || > > | > |
> || > > |
> ||
> |
> |
My providers says that the pension and the tax free cash has to be based on
final remuneration if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
<> wrote in message
news:
| OK, I could have phrased the last reply better, but yes, you should
| commence winding up the scheme after you have taken the benefits - what
| was going through my mind is the longer the leave it, the more chance
| you have of getting entangled in the new requirements.
|
| The HMRC website is not the easiest site to navigate, but it does state
| on http:www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/pts.htm in point 7:
|
| "If your scheme rules allow, you can take up to 25% of your pension
| fund as a tax free lump sum."
|
| All the other points seem quite straightforward. If you ask anybody who
| knows anything about pensions, they will confirm these points.
|
| Therefore, why do you need this inscribed in stone ?
|
| If you go to the EPP provider and ask for 25% of the fund as a lump
| sum, they will arrange it (scheme rules permitting). If this was not
| allowed, they would not give it to you.
|
| So what is the big issue here ?
|
| Neil.
|
|
|
| Stickems. wrote:
| > That link should be
| >
| >
| > "Stickems." <> wrote in message
| > news:EwChg.13871$
| > | Shouldn't I wait till after all benefits have been taken before
winding
| > up?
| > | I spoke to the pensions office in Northampton and they agree with you
but
| > | couldn't point to any printed reference in the rules. I had a look on
the
| > | website but it is a dogs dinner, the nearest I could get to something
| > | pertinent was item 1. on http:www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/pts.htm
which
| > | is probably not pertinent enough.
| > |
| > | <> wrote in message
| > | news:
| > ||I should have added a note to the above to the effect that you should
| > || check whether the rules of your scheme / the Trust Deed allows you to
| > || do this.
| > ||
| > || If not, you may have to ammend the scheme rules to be able to take a
| > || higher lump sum.
| > ||
| > || Also, if this is a one-man EPP, this may a good time to wind the
scheme
| > || up.
| > ||
| > || The new rules that came in have meant that most insurance companies
are
| > || no longer acting as scheme administrators, and have effectively
dumped
| > || this responsibility back onto the scheme trustees.
| > ||
| > || This means that EPP Trustees will now be directly responsible for
| > || Pension Scheme reporting requirements, and will have to register
their
| > || schemes with the Revenue directly. Failure do this could result in
loss
| > || of tax approval for the scheme in question.
| > ||
| > || This will make running an EPP a real pain for most people in the
| > || future....
| > ||
| > ||
| > || wrote:
| > || > You'll find the definitive rules on the Revenue website at:
| > || >
| > || >
| > || >
| > || > or call the HRMC Pension Schemes office in Nottingham, and they
should
| > || > be able to tell you.
| > || >
| > || > The rules about 'years of service' are now effectivley redundant
for
| > || > EPP's. They are treated like any other money purchase scheme (such
as
| > || > personal pensions). The only thing you need to watch out for is the
| > || > lifetime allowance - but taking 25% of the fund value of an EPP
should
| > || > pose absolutely no problem if you do it now.
| > || >
| > || > Neil.
| > || >
| > || > Stickems. wrote:
| > || > > The scheme is an EPP. So from your answer I gather that if a
pension
| > | is
| > || > > backdated to before A-Day then the new rules will apply. O.K.
that's
| > | what I
| > || > > wanted to hear, BUT, and it is a big but, where can I see an
| > | authoritative
| > || > > and clear written confirmation of this.
| > || > >
| > || > > <> wrote in message
| > || > > news:
| > || > > |I think I follow what you are saying....
| > || > > |
| > || > > | However, are you talking about a Final Salary scheme, or an
| > || > > | Occupational Money Purchase scheme (such as an EPP) ?
| > || > > |
| > || > > | What is important here is that you are taking the benefits now.
The
| > || > > | fact that your normal retirement date was in 2003 is
irrelevant.
| > || > > |
| > || > > | In a nutshell, if the post A-Day rules mean that you will
enhance
| > | your
| > || > > | benefits, then the new rules will apply. If you would be
| > | disadvantaged
| > || > > | by the new rules, you can apply for protection.
| > || > > |
| > || > > | Under an EPP, if your lump sum entitlement was, say, equivalent
to
| > | 20%
| > || > > | of the fund value, then you do nothing and get a lump sum of
25%.
| > || > > |
| > || > > | However, if you are talking about a Final Salary scheme, things
may
| > | not
| > || > > | be any different, because the Trustees may not have changed the
| > | rules
| > || > > | of the scheme.
| > || > > |
| > || > > | The formula for calculating lump sums under Final Salary
schemes
| > | that
| > || > > | operate on an accrual rate of 1/60th per annum or lower has
changed
| > || > > | (this now often gives a higher lump sum entitlement). For more
| > | details,
| > || > > | see
| > || > > |
| > |
| > || > > |
| > || > > |
| > || > > | However, just because this has changed, it does not mean that
the
| > | old
| > || > > | scheme will enhance your benefits.
| > || > > |
| > || > > | Remember, the new rules have changed the MAXIMUM benefits that
can
| > | be
| > || > > | taken. However, your scheme may pay out benefits based on their
| > | scheme
| > || > > | rules that are less than the maximum, because that is what the
| > | scheme
| > || > > | rules state.
| > || > > |
| > || > > | I think you may need to provide a little more info about the
exact
| > | type
| > || > > | of pension scheme you were a member of, and how what the rules
of
| > | the
| > || > > | scheme permit.
| > || > > |
| > || > > | Neil.
| > || > > |
| > || > > | Stickems. wrote:
| > || > > | > No benefits have been taken. I want the post A-Day rules to
| > apply,
| > || > > because
| > || > > | > they ignore the calculations, that limit the pension and the
tax
| > | free
| > || > > cash
| > || > > | > to a percentage of final remuneration, which are in the pre
A-Day
| > | rules.
| > || > > | > You say all pensions operate under the new rules. If a normal
| > | retirement
| > || > > | > date was in 2003 and the pension is backdated to 2003 can it
be
| > | assumed
| > || > > that
| > || > > | > the pension will be calculated under the new rules and that
it
| > | won't
| > || > > limit
| > || > > | > the tax free cash and the pension to percentages of final
| > | remuneration?
| > || > > | >
| > || > > | >
| > || > > | > <> wrote in message
| > || > > | > news:
| > || > > | > | By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking
the
| > | actual
| > || > > | > | benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
| > || > > | > |
| > || > > | > | The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which
refers
| > | to the
| > || > > | > | act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so
I'm
| > not
| > | sure
| > || > > | > | what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have
| > | received
| > || > > | > | payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
| > || > > | > |
| > || > > | > | If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan
yet,
| > | and
| > || > > the
| > || > > | > | pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the
lifetime
| > | limit,
| > || > > | > | etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the
| > | changes
| > || > > | > | until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25%
of
| > | the
| > || > > fund
| > || > > | > | value should be automatically protected.
| > || > > | > |
| > || > > | > | All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think
you
| > | may
| > || > > mean
| > || > > | > | by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect
pre
| > | A-Day
| > || > > | > | benefits from the changes if they will be adversely
affected.
| > | However,
| > || > > | > | this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' -
all it
| > | is
| > || > > | > | doing is giving transitional protection to existing
benefits.
| > || > > | > |
| > || > > | > | Neil.
| > || > > | > |
| > || > > | > | Stickems. wrote:
| > || > > | > | > If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which
| > rules
| > | will
| > || > > | > apply if
| > || > > | > | > the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it
the
| > | so
| > || > > called
| > || > > | > | > retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that
pertained
| > | prior to
| > || > > A
| > || > > | > Day?
| > || > > | > |
| > || > > |
| > ||
| > |
| > |
|
Are they effectively talking about the 'scheme retirement age' under
the plan ?
You may need to ammend this on the scheme rules if you have now passed
that date.
Stickems. wrote:
> My providers says that the pension and the tax free cash has to be based on
> final remuneration if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
>
> <> wrote in message
> news:
> | OK, I could have phrased the last reply better, but yes, you should
> | commence winding up the scheme after you have taken the benefits - what
> | was going through my mind is the longer the leave it, the more chance
> | you have of getting entangled in the new requirements.
> |
> | The HMRC website is not the easiest site to navigate, but it does state
> | on http:www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/pts.htm in point 7:
> |
> | "If your scheme rules allow, you can take up to 25% of your pension
> | fund as a tax free lump sum."
> |
> | All the other points seem quite straightforward. If you ask anybody who
> | knows anything about pensions, they will confirm these points.
> |
> | Therefore, why do you need this inscribed in stone ?
> |
> | If you go to the EPP provider and ask for 25% of the fund as a lump
> | sum, they will arrange it (scheme rules permitting). If this was not
> | allowed, they would not give it to you.
> |
> | So what is the big issue here ?
> |
> | Neil.
> |
> |
> |
> | Stickems. wrote:
> | > That link should be
> | >
> | >
> | > "Stickems." <> wrote in message
> | > news:EwChg.13871$
> | > | Shouldn't I wait till after all benefits have been taken before
> winding
> | > up?
> | > | I spoke to the pensions office in Northampton and they agree with you
> but
> | > | couldn't point to any printed reference in the rules. I had a look on
> the
> | > | website but it is a dogs dinner, the nearest I could get to something
> | > | pertinent was item 1. on http:www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/pts.htm
> which
> | > | is probably not pertinent enough.
> | > |
> | > | <> wrote in message
> | > | news:
> | > ||I should have added a note to the above to the effect that you should
> | > || check whether the rules of your scheme / the Trust Deed allows you to
> | > || do this.
> | > ||
> | > || If not, you may have to ammend the scheme rules to be able to take a
> | > || higher lump sum.
> | > ||
> | > || Also, if this is a one-man EPP, this may a good time to wind the
> scheme
> | > || up.
> | > ||
> | > || The new rules that came in have meant that most insurance companies
> are
> | > || no longer acting as scheme administrators, and have effectively
> dumped
> | > || this responsibility back onto the scheme trustees.
> | > ||
> | > || This means that EPP Trustees will now be directly responsible for
> | > || Pension Scheme reporting requirements, and will have to register
> their
> | > || schemes with the Revenue directly. Failure do this could result in
> loss
> | > || of tax approval for the scheme in question.
> | > ||
> | > || This will make running an EPP a real pain for most people in the
> | > || future....
> | > ||
> | > ||
> | > || wrote:
> | > || > You'll find the definitive rules on the Revenue website at:
> | > || >
> | > || >
> | > || >
> | > || > or call the HRMC Pension Schemes office in Nottingham, and they
> should
> | > || > be able to tell you.
> | > || >
> | > || > The rules about 'years of service' are now effectivley redundant
> for
> | > || > EPP's. They are treated like any other money purchase scheme (such
> as
> | > || > personal pensions). The only thing you need to watch out for is the
> | > || > lifetime allowance - but taking 25% of the fund value of an EPP
> should
> | > || > pose absolutely no problem if you do it now.
> | > || >
> | > || > Neil.
> | > || >
> | > || > Stickems. wrote:
> | > || > > The scheme is an EPP. So from your answer I gather that if a
> pension
> | > | is
> | > || > > backdated to before A-Day then the new rules will apply. O.K.
> that's
> | > | what I
> | > || > > wanted to hear, BUT, and it is a big but, where can I see an
> | > | authoritative
> | > || > > and clear written confirmation of this.
> | > || > >
> | > || > > <> wrote in message
> | > || > > news:
> | > || > > |I think I follow what you are saying....
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | However, are you talking about a Final Salary scheme, or an
> | > || > > | Occupational Money Purchase scheme (such as an EPP) ?
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | What is important here is that you are taking the benefits now.
> The
> | > || > > | fact that your normal retirement date was in 2003 is
> irrelevant.
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | In a nutshell, if the post A-Day rules mean that you will
> enhance
> | > | your
> | > || > > | benefits, then the new rules will apply. If you would be
> | > | disadvantaged
> | > || > > | by the new rules, you can apply for protection.
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | Under an EPP, if your lump sum entitlement was, say, equivalent
> to
> | > | 20%
> | > || > > | of the fund value, then you do nothing and get a lump sum of
> 25%.
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | However, if you are talking about a Final Salary scheme, things
> may
> | > | not
> | > || > > | be any different, because the Trustees may not have changed the
> | > | rules
> | > || > > | of the scheme.
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | The formula for calculating lump sums under Final Salary
> schemes
> | > | that
> | > || > > | operate on an accrual rate of 1/60th per annum or lower has
> changed
> | > || > > | (this now often gives a higher lump sum entitlement). For more
> | > | details,
> | > || > > | see
> | > || > > |
> | > |
>
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | However, just because this has changed, it does not mean that
> the
> | > | old
> | > || > > | scheme will enhance your benefits.
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | Remember, the new rules have changed the MAXIMUM benefits that
> can
> | > | be
> | > || > > | taken. However, your scheme may pay out benefits based on their
> | > | scheme
> | > || > > | rules that are less than the maximum, because that is what the
> | > | scheme
> | > || > > | rules state.
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | I think you may need to provide a little more info about the
> exact
> | > | type
> | > || > > | of pension scheme you were a member of, and how what the rules
> of
> | > | the
> | > || > > | scheme permit.
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | Neil.
> | > || > > |
> | > || > > | Stickems. wrote:
> | > || > > | > No benefits have been taken. I want the post A-Day rules to
> | > apply,
> | > || > > because
> | > || > > | > they ignore the calculations, that limit the pension and the
> tax
> | > | free
> | > || > > cash
> | > || > > | > to a percentage of final remuneration, which are in the pre
> A-Day
> | > | rules.
> | > || > > | > You say all pensions operate under the new rules. If a normal
> | > | retirement
> | > || > > | > date was in 2003 and the pension is backdated to 2003 can it
> be
> | > | assumed
> | > || > > that
> | > || > > | > the pension will be calculated under the new rules and that
> it
> | > | won't
> | > || > > limit
> | > || > > | > the tax free cash and the pension to percentages of final
> | > | remuneration?
> | > || > > | >
> | > || > > | >
> | > || > > | > <> wrote in message
> | > || > > | > news:
> | > || > > | > | By 'deferment' do you mean that you are postponing taking
> the
> | > | actual
> | > || > > | > | benefits, or have you received any money from the pension ?
> | > || > > | > |
> | > || > > | > | The new rules use a term called 'crystallisation', which
> refers
> | > | to the
> | > || > > | > | act of physically taking the benfits from a pension - so
> I'm
> | > not
> | > | sure
> | > || > > | > | what you mean by 'pension is backdated' - either you have
> | > | received
> | > || > > | > | payments from your pension scheme, or you haven't.
> | > || > > | > |
> | > || > > | > | If you haven't physically taken any benefits from the plan
> yet,
> | > | and
> | > || > > the
> | > || > > | > | pre A-Day rules were more beneficial (i.e. above the
> lifetime
> | > | limit,
> | > || > > | > | etc), then you can apply to protect these benefits from the
> | > | changes
> | > || > > | > | until March 2009. Lump sum entitlements of greater than 25%
> of
> | > | the
> | > || > > fund
> | > || > > | > | value should be automatically protected.
> | > || > > | > |
> | > || > > | > | All pensions now operate under the new rules. What I think
> you
> | > | may
> | > || > > mean
> | > || > > | > | by 'retrospective A Day rules' is the ability to protect
> pre
> | > | A-Day
> | > || > > | > | benefits from the changes if they will be adversely
> affected.
> | > | However,
> | > || > > | > | this is not the same as applying 'retrospective rules' -
> all it
> | > | is
> | > || > > | > | doing is giving transitional protection to existing
> benefits.
> | > || > > | > |
> | > || > > | > | Neil.
> | > || > > | > |
> | > || > > | > | Stickems. wrote:
> | > || > > | > | > If a pension matured pre A Day and is in deferment which
> | > rules
> | > | will
> | > || > > | > apply if
> | > || > > | > | > the pension is backdated to a date prior to A Day. Is it
> the
> | > | so
> | > || > > called
> | > || > > | > | > retrospective A Day rules or is it the rules that
> pertained
> | > | prior to
> | > || > > A
> | > || > > | > Day?
> | > || > > | > |
> | > || > > |
> | > ||
> | > |
> | > |
> |
> Stickems. wrote:
> > My providers says that the pension and the tax
> > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
> > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
>
<> wrote
> Are they effectively talking about the
> 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
Why would that matter at all?
You can retire either before or after the 'scheme retirement age'...
<> wrote
> You may need to ammend this on the scheme
> rules if you have now passed that date.
Why? How would that help?...
AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments
would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in 2003,
now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
The changes made earlier this year are retrospective, aren't they?
"Tim" <
|> Stickems. wrote:
| > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
| > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
| > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
| >
| <> wrote
| > Are they effectively talking about the
| > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
|
| Why would that matter at all?
| You can retire either before or after the 'scheme retirement age'...
|
| <> wrote
| > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
| > rules if you have now passed that date.
|
| Why? How would that help?...
|
| AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
| of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments
| would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
| be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
| be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in 2003,
| now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
|
|
|
> |> Stickems. wrote:
> | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
> | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
> | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
> | >
> | <> wrote
> | > Are they effectively talking about the
> | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
> |
> "Tim" wrote
> | Why would that matter at all?
> | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme retirement age'...
> |
> | <> wrote
> | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
> | > rules if you have now passed that date.
> |
> "Tim" wrote
> | Why? How would that help?...
> |
> | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
> | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments
> | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
> | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
> | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in 2003,
> | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
>
"Stickems." wrote
> The changes made earlier this year are retrospective, aren't they?
How do you mean?
Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied.
"Tim" <> wrote in message
news:
|> |> Stickems. wrote:
| > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
| > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
| > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
| > | >
| > | <> wrote
| > | > Are they effectively talking about the
| > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
| > |
| > "Tim" wrote
| > | Why would that matter at all?
| > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme retirement age'...
| > |
| > | <> wrote
| > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
| > | > rules if you have now passed that date.
| > |
| > "Tim" wrote
| > | Why? How would that help?...
| > |
| > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
| > | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments
| > | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
| > | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
| > | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in 2003,
| > | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
| >
| "Stickems." wrote
| > The changes made earlier this year are retrospective, aren't they?
|
| How do you mean?
| Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
| the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
| they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
| now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
|
|
|
> |> |> Stickems. wrote:
> | > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
> | > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
> | > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
> | > | >
> | > | <> wrote
> | > | > Are they effectively talking about the
> | > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
> | > |
> | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | Why would that matter at all?
> | > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme retirement age'...
> | > |
> | > | <> wrote
> | > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
> | > | > rules if you have now passed that date.
> | > |
> | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | Why? How would that help?...
> | > |
> | > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
> | > | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments
> | > | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
> | > | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
> | > | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in 2003,
> | > | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
> | >
> | "Stickems." wrote
> | > The changes made earlier this year are retrospective, aren't they?
> |
> "Tim" wrote
> | How do you mean?
> | Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
> | the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
> | they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
> | now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
>
"Stickems." wrote
> The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied.
Of course, from April this year onwards. But
it was the *old* rules back in 2003, wasn't it?
Do you think the new rules should be applied
retrospectively to someone who retired back in 2003?
Yes, if they haven't taken any benefits by deferring their pension. The tax
office think as I do.
"Tim" <
|> |> |> Stickems. wrote:
| > | > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
| > | > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
| > | > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
| > | > | >
| > | > | <> wrote
| > | > | > Are they effectively talking about the
| > | > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
| > | > |
| > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | Why would that matter at all?
| > | > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme retirement
age'...
| > | > |
| > | > | <> wrote
| > | > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
| > | > | > rules if you have now passed that date.
| > | > |
| > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | Why? How would that help?...
| > | > |
| > | > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
| > | > | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments
| > | > | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
| > | > | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
| > | > | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in 2003,
| > | > | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
| > | >
| > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > The changes made earlier this year are retrospective, aren't they?
| > |
| > "Tim" wrote
| > | How do you mean?
| > | Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
| > | the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
| > | they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
| > | now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
| >
| "Stickems." wrote
| > The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied.
|
| Of course, from April this year onwards. But
| it was the *old* rules back in 2003, wasn't it?
|
| Do you think the new rules should be applied
| retrospectively to someone who retired back in 2003?
|
|
|
> |> |> |> Stickems. wrote:
> | > | > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
> | > | > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
> | > | > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | <> wrote
> | > | > | > Are they effectively talking about the
> | > | > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
> | > | > |
> | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | Why would that matter at all?
> | > | > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme
> | > | > | retirement after the 'scheme retirement age'...
> | > | > |
> | > | > | <> wrote
> | > | > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
> | > | > | > rules if you have now passed that date.
> | > | > |
> | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | Why? How would that help?...
> | > | > |
> | > | > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
> | > | > | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments
> | > | > | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
> | > | > | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
> | > | > | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in 2003,
> | > | > | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
> | > | >
> | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > The changes made earlier this year are retrospective, aren't they?
> | > |
> | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | How do you mean?
> | > | Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
> | > | the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
> | > | they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
> | > | now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
> | >
> | "Stickems." wrote
> | > The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied.
> |
> "Tim" wrote
> | Of course, from April this year onwards. But
> | it was the *old* rules back in 2003, wasn't it?
> |
> | Do you think the new rules should be applied
> | retrospectively to someone who retired back in 2003?
>
"Stickems." wrote
> Yes, if they haven't taken any
> benefits by deferring their pension.
If they are still "deferred" then they have not "retired"...
What are you trying to achieve? - To have "retired"
in 2003, and so receive all missing payments from
between 2003 & now, or to "retire" now after deferment?
You say you want to "backdate ... to maturity
in 2003", but then you say that you are
"deferring" the pension. Well - which is it?
"Stickems." wrote
> The tax office think as I do.
And how do you (/"they") think?
They say the old rules are no more and cannot be applied retrospectively and
that the new rules must be applied after 5th April 2006 and that the new
rules are retrospective.
"Tim" <> wrote in message
news:
|> |> |> |> Stickems. wrote:
| > | > | > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
| > | > | > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
| > | > | > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | <> wrote
| > | > | > | > Are they effectively talking about the
| > | > | > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | > | Why would that matter at all?
| > | > | > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme
| > | > | > | retirement after the 'scheme retirement age'...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | <> wrote
| > | > | > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
| > | > | > | > rules if you have now passed that date.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | > | Why? How would that help?...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
| > | > | > | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments
| > | > | > | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
| > | > | > | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
| > | > | > | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in 2003,
| > | > | > | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
| > | > | >
| > | > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > | > The changes made earlier this year are retrospective, aren't
they?
| > | > |
| > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | How do you mean?
| > | > | Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
| > | > | the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
| > | > | they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
| > | > | now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
| > | >
| > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied.
| > |
| > "Tim" wrote
| > | Of course, from April this year onwards. But
| > | it was the *old* rules back in 2003, wasn't it?
| > |
| > | Do you think the new rules should be applied
| > | retrospectively to someone who retired back in 2003?
| >
| "Stickems." wrote
| > Yes, if they haven't taken any
| > benefits by deferring their pension.
|
| If they are still "deferred" then they have not "retired"...
|
| What are you trying to achieve? - To have "retired"
| in 2003, and so receive all missing payments from
| between 2003 & now, or to "retire" now after deferment?
|
| You say you want to "backdate ... to maturity
| in 2003", but then you say that you are
| "deferring" the pension. Well - which is it?
|
| "Stickems." wrote
| > The tax office think as I do.
|
| And how do you (/"they") think?
|
|
|
> |> |> |> |> Stickems. wrote:
> | > | > | > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
> | > | > | > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
> | > | > | > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | <> wrote
> | > | > | > | > Are they effectively talking about the
> | > | > | > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | > | Why would that matter at all?
> | > | > | > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme
> | > | > | > | retirement after the 'scheme retirement age'...
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | <> wrote
> | > | > | > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
> | > | > | > | > rules if you have now passed that date.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | > | Why? How would that help?...
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
> | > | > | > | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments
> | > | > | > | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
> | > | > | > | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
> | > | > | > | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in 2003,
> | > | > | > | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > | > The changes made earlier this year
> | > | > | > are retrospective, aren't they?
> | > | > |
> | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | How do you mean?
> | > | > | Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
> | > | > | the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
> | > | > | they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
> | > | > | now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
> | > | >
> | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied.
> | > |
> | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | Of course, from April this year onwards. But
> | > | it was the *old* rules back in 2003, wasn't it?
> | > |
> | > | Do you think the new rules should be applied
> | > | retrospectively to someone who retired back in 2003?
> | >
> | "Stickems." wrote
> | > Yes, if they haven't taken any
> | > benefits by deferring their pension.
> |
> "Tim" wrote
> | If they are still "deferred" then they have not "retired"...
> |
> | What are you trying to achieve? - To have "retired"
> | in 2003, and so receive all missing payments from
> | between 2003 & now, or to "retire" now after deferment?
> |
> | You say you want to "backdate ... to maturity
> | in 2003", but then you say that you are
> | "deferring" the pension. Well - which is it?
> |
> | "Stickems." wrote
> | > The tax office think as I do.
> |
> "Tim" wrote
> | And how do you (/"they") think?
>
"Stickems." wrote
> They say the old rules are no more and cannot be applied
> retrospectively and that the new rules must be applied after
> 5th April 2006 and that the new rules are retrospective.
You still haven't said what you mean
by "retrospective" in this context...
Again : Do you think the new rules should be applied
retrospectively to someone who actually retired back in 2003?
Date of retirement is now, according to the new law, not relevant. The law
current at the date that a benefit is taken is the law to be applied.
Retrospective:- to apply to a past era.
The new rules, which now disregard retirement but talk of "crystallisation"
i.e taking a benefit, should be applied retrospectively to someone who
retired in 2003 as long as no benefits have been taken.
"Tim" <
|> |> |> |> |> Stickems. wrote:
| > | > | > | > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
| > | > | > | > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
| > | > | > | > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | <> wrote
| > | > | > | > | > Are they effectively talking about the
| > | > | > | > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | > | > | Why would that matter at all?
| > | > | > | > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme
| > | > | > | > | retirement after the 'scheme retirement age'...
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | <> wrote
| > | > | > | > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
| > | > | > | > | > rules if you have now passed that date.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | > | > | Why? How would that help?...
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
| > | > | > | > | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments
| > | > | > | > | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
| > | > | > | > | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
| > | > | > | > | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in
2003,
| > | > | > | > | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > | > | > The changes made earlier this year
| > | > | > | > are retrospective, aren't they?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | > | How do you mean?
| > | > | > | Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
| > | > | > | the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
| > | > | > | they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
| > | > | > | now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
| > | > | >
| > | > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > | > The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied.
| > | > |
| > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | Of course, from April this year onwards. But
| > | > | it was the *old* rules back in 2003, wasn't it?
| > | > |
| > | > | Do you think the new rules should be applied
| > | > | retrospectively to someone who retired back in 2003?
| > | >
| > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > Yes, if they haven't taken any
| > | > benefits by deferring their pension.
| > |
| > "Tim" wrote
| > | If they are still "deferred" then they have not "retired"...
| > |
| > | What are you trying to achieve? - To have "retired"
| > | in 2003, and so receive all missing payments from
| > | between 2003 & now, or to "retire" now after deferment?
| > |
| > | You say you want to "backdate ... to maturity
| > | in 2003", but then you say that you are
| > | "deferring" the pension. Well - which is it?
| > |
| > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > The tax office think as I do.
| > |
| > "Tim" wrote
| > | And how do you (/"they") think?
| >
| "Stickems." wrote
| > They say the old rules are no more and cannot be applied
| > retrospectively and that the new rules must be applied after
| > 5th April 2006 and that the new rules are retrospective.
|
| You still haven't said what you mean
| by "retrospective" in this context...
|
| Again : Do you think the new rules should be applied
| retrospectively to someone who actually retired back in 2003?
|
|
|
|
> |> |> |> |> |> Stickems. wrote:
> | > | > | > | > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
> | > | > | > | > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
> | > | > | > | > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | <> wrote
> | > | > | > | > | > Are they effectively talking about the
> | > | > | > | > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | > | > | Why would that matter at all?
> | > | > | > | > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme
> | > | > | > | > | retirement after the 'scheme retirement age'...
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | <> wrote
> | > | > | > | > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
> | > | > | > | > | > rules if you have now passed that date.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | > | > | Why? How would that help?...
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date
> | > | > | > | > | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension
payments
> | > | > | > | > | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
> | > | > | > | > | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
> | > | > | > | > | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in
2003,
> | > | > | > | > | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > | > | > The changes made earlier this year
> | > | > | > | > are retrospective, aren't they?
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | > | How do you mean?
> | > | > | > | Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
> | > | > | > | the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
> | > | > | > | they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
> | > | > | > | now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > | > The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied.
> | > | > |
> | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | Of course, from April this year onwards. But
> | > | > | it was the *old* rules back in 2003, wasn't it?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Do you think the new rules should be applied
> | > | > | retrospectively to someone who retired back in 2003?
> | > | >
> | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > Yes, if they haven't taken any
> | > | > benefits by deferring their pension.
> | > |
> | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | If they are still "deferred" then they have not "retired"...
> | > |
> | > | What are you trying to achieve? - To have "retired"
> | > | in 2003, and so receive all missing payments from
> | > | between 2003 & now, or to "retire" now after deferment?
> | > |
> | > | You say you want to "backdate ... to maturity
> | > | in 2003", but then you say that you are
> | > | "deferring" the pension. Well - which is it?
> | > |
> | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > The tax office think as I do.
> | > |
> | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | And how do you (/"they") think?
> | >
> | "Stickems." wrote
> | > They say the old rules are no more and cannot be applied
> | > retrospectively and that the new rules must be applied after
> | > 5th April 2006 and that the new rules are retrospective.
> |
> "Tim" wrote
> | You still haven't said what you mean
> | by "retrospective" in this context...
> |
> | Again : Do you think the new rules should be applied
> | retrospectively to someone who actually retired back in 2003?
>
"Stickems." wrote
> Date of retirement is now...
Aha! You don't want to "backdate [your] pension to
maturity in 2003" at all. You want to take it *now*!
"Stickems." wrote
> The law current at the date that a
> benefit is taken is the law to be applied.
Of course. So why ask if the new rules are retrospective?
"Stickems." wrote
> Retrospective:- to apply to a past era.
> The new rules, which now disregard retirement but
> talk of "crystallisation" i.e taking a benefit, should
> be applied retrospectively to someone who retired
> in 2003 as long as no benefits have been taken.
But you didn't retire in 2003, did you?
And you don't now want to
retrospectively retire in 2003, do you?
You said just (above) that "Date of retirement is now"...
I cannot understand your line of thinking or make sense of your
contributions to this discussion.
"Tim" <
|> |> |> |> |> |> Stickems. wrote:
| > | > | > | > | > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
| > | > | > | > | > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
| > | > | > | > | > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | <> wrote
| > | > | > | > | > | > Are they effectively talking about the
| > | > | > | > | > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | > | > | > | Why would that matter at all?
| > | > | > | > | > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme
| > | > | > | > | > | retirement after the 'scheme retirement age'...
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | <> wrote
| > | > | > | > | > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
| > | > | > | > | > | > rules if you have now passed that date.
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | > | > | > | Why? How would that help?...
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective
date
| > | > | > | > | > | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension
| payments
| > | > | > | > | > | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would
| > | > | > | > | > | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't
| > | > | > | > | > | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in
| 2003,
| > | > | > | > | > | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > | > | > | > The changes made earlier this year
| > | > | > | > | > are retrospective, aren't they?
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | > | > | How do you mean?
| > | > | > | > | Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
| > | > | > | > | the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
| > | > | > | > | they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
| > | > | > | > | now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > | > | > The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | > | Of course, from April this year onwards. But
| > | > | > | it was the *old* rules back in 2003, wasn't it?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Do you think the new rules should be applied
| > | > | > | retrospectively to someone who retired back in 2003?
| > | > | >
| > | > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > | > Yes, if they haven't taken any
| > | > | > benefits by deferring their pension.
| > | > |
| > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | If they are still "deferred" then they have not "retired"...
| > | > |
| > | > | What are you trying to achieve? - To have "retired"
| > | > | in 2003, and so receive all missing payments from
| > | > | between 2003 & now, or to "retire" now after deferment?
| > | > |
| > | > | You say you want to "backdate ... to maturity
| > | > | in 2003", but then you say that you are
| > | > | "deferring" the pension. Well - which is it?
| > | > |
| > | > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > | > The tax office think as I do.
| > | > |
| > | > "Tim" wrote
| > | > | And how do you (/"they") think?
| > | >
| > | "Stickems." wrote
| > | > They say the old rules are no more and cannot be applied
| > | > retrospectively and that the new rules must be applied after
| > | > 5th April 2006 and that the new rules are retrospective.
| > |
| > "Tim" wrote
| > | You still haven't said what you mean
| > | by "retrospective" in this context...
| > |
| > | Again : Do you think the new rules should be applied
| > | retrospectively to someone who actually retired back in 2003?
| >
| "Stickems." wrote
| > Date of retirement is now...
|
| Aha! You don't want to "backdate [your] pension to
| maturity in 2003" at all. You want to take it *now*!
|
| "Stickems." wrote
| > The law current at the date that a
| > benefit is taken is the law to be applied.
|
| Of course. So why ask if the new rules are retrospective?
|
| "Stickems." wrote
| > Retrospective:- to apply to a past era.
| > The new rules, which now disregard retirement but
| > talk of "crystallisation" i.e taking a benefit, should
| > be applied retrospectively to someone who retired
| > in 2003 as long as no benefits have been taken.
|
| But you didn't retire in 2003, did you?
| And you don't now want to
| retrospectively retire in 2003, do you?
| You said just (above) that "Date of retirement is now"...
|
|
|
In message of Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Stickems. writes
>I cannot understand your line of thinking or make sense of your
>contributions to this discussion.
>
Neither can anyone else with all this upside down posting. I gave up on
this thread ages ago, when none of the previous quotes were snipped (and
were upside down)
> |> |> |> |> |> |> Stickems. wrote:
> | > | > | > | > | > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax
> | > | > | > | > | > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration
> | > | > | > | > | > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003.
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | <> wrote
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Are they effectively talking about the
> | > | > | > | > | > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ?
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | > | > | > | Why would that matter at all?
> | > | > | > | > | > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme
> | > | > | > | > | > | retirement after the 'scheme retirement age'...
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | <> wrote
> | > | > | > | > | > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme
> | > | > | > | > | > | > rules if you have now passed that date.
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | > | > | > | Why? How would that help?...
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective
> | > | > | > | > | > | date of retirement in 2003 - then the missing
pension
> | > | > | > | > | > | payments would be paid now in one big lump.
> | > | > | > | > | > | Surely that would be based on the law applicable
> | > | > | > | > | > | in 2003? He wouldn't be "retiring now", he'll
> | > | > | > | > | > | be saying "I retired back in 2003, now pay
> | > | > | > | > | > | me the pension I've missed in the meantime!"
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > | > | > | > The changes made earlier this year
> | > | > | > | > | > are retrospective, aren't they?
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | > | > | How do you mean?
> | > | > | > | > | Do you think that someone who had overfunded under
> | > | > | > | > | the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when
> | > | > | > | > | they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded
> | > | > | > | > | now if there was no overfunding on the new rules?
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > | > | > The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | > | Of course, from April this year onwards. But
> | > | > | > | it was the *old* rules back in 2003, wasn't it?
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Do you think the new rules should be applied
> | > | > | > | retrospectively to someone who retired back in 2003?
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > | > Yes, if they haven't taken any
> | > | > | > benefits by deferring their pension.
> | > | > |
> | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | If they are still "deferred" then they have not "retired"...
> | > | > |
> | > | > | What are you trying to achieve? - To have "retired"
> | > | > | in 2003, and so receive all missing payments from
> | > | > | between 2003 & now, or to "retire" now after deferment?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | You say you want to "backdate ... to maturity
> | > | > | in 2003", but then you say that you are
> | > | > | "deferring" the pension. Well - which is it?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > | > The tax office think as I do.
> | > | > |
> | > | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | > | And how do you (/"they") think?
> | > | >
> | > | "Stickems." wrote
> | > | > They say the old rules are no more and cannot be applied
> | > | > retrospectively and that the new rules must be applied after
> | > | > 5th April 2006 and that the new rules are retrospective.
> | > |
> | > "Tim" wrote
> | > | You still haven't said what you mean
> | > | by "retrospective" in this context...
> | > |
> | > | Again : Do you think the new rules should be applied
> | > | retrospectively to someone who actually retired back in 2003?
> | >
> | "Stickems." wrote
> | > Date of retirement is now...
> |
> | Aha! You don't want to "backdate [your] pension to
> | maturity in 2003" at all. You want to take it *now*!
> |
> | "Stickems." wrote
> | > The law current at the date that a
> | > benefit is taken is the law to be applied.
> |
> "Tim" wrote
> | Of course. So why ask if the new rules are retrospective?
> |
> | "Stickems." wrote
> | > Retrospective:- to apply to a past era.
> | > The new rules, which now disregard retirement but
> | > talk of "crystallisation" i.e taking a benefit, should
> | > be applied retrospectively to someone who retired
> | > in 2003 as long as no benefits have been taken.
> |
> | But you didn't retire in 2003, did you?
> | And you don't now want to
> | retrospectively retire in 2003, do you?
> | You said just (above) that "Date of retirement is now"...
>
"Stickems." wrote
> I cannot understand your line of thinking or make
> sense of your contributions to this discussion.
OK, let's re-state the facts:
You want to start taking pension benefits now, don't you?
You don't want to "pretend" that you really started
taking benefits in 2003, thus "backdat[ing] [your]
pension to maturity in 2003" -- which would involve
being paid missing past pension payments now -- do you?
[Would that even be allowed, that far back?!]
So it does not matter about whether-or-not the new rules are
"retrospective", because you are starting to take benefits *now*.
Further, as you are starting to take benefits now, the new rules will
operate (with any transitional arrangements as noted by Neil).
Isn't that the case?