Categories: Income Drawdown
Topics: Income Drawdown| IHT| annuity rates
IFAs must not allow clients in drawdown to fall foul of new tax rules surrounding death benefits, said Andrew Tully, retirement income technical manager at MGM Advantage.
Before the government removed compulsory annuitisation at age 75, the tax on death benefits from undrawn pension funds when death occurred after 75, was 70% (or 82% with IHT). For deaths occurring before 75, the tax was 35%.
Now the tax on death benefits from undrawn pension funds is 55% regardless of what age the investor died.
This means for some clients, the tax liability has fallen from 70% to 55%, but for others who may die before 75, it has actually increased from 35% to 55%, Tully said.
Tully explained IFAs may fall into the trap of leaving clients younger than 75 in drawdown, but should think through that choice.
"Half of people in drawdown used to take their lump sum and leave the rest in their pension. IFAs need to check their drawdown books to ensure they are not letting clients sleepwalk," Tully said.
Tully added some IFAs have "massive" books of aging drawdown business. Since the removal of the requirement to annuitise by age 75, there has been no trigger for them to exit drawdown, thereby exposing them to the tax threat.
"Advisers should look at putting money into a trust or gifting it," Tully said.
"By stripping out a pension fund gradually as income, paying income tax and putting it into a vehicle for beneficiaries, clients can double the money they leave behind as they mitigate tax," Tully said.
He suggested the money from the pension could then be put into a pension for children, a trust or an offshore bond.
| Share | |
| Comment | IFAs urged to warn clients of new death benefit tax trap |
More income drawdown news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
no, really!
Yes whilst it's always good to read something of interest and new, with a twist, this is blindingly obvious. As Geoff correctly states if this quirk is not known and been/being acted upon then no wonder IFA have an uphill struggle, i do suspect the "bank" advisers (salespersons) would not have even understood the old regime and the article should be re-directed to thier normal advice outlets - am i being synical again?
Posted by: Fraser Brydon
Related articles
Most Read
This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.
Events
Poll
|
|
Job search
Ifaonlinejobs will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies on www.ifaonlinejobs.co.uk now
In Focus
Two months left before the ‘real RDR deadline’ – are you compliant with the required professional...
Viewpoints
2012 marks a watershed for the Life companies, fund managers, banks and advisers who service...
Durrr!
I am very aware pride comes before a fall and so am always nervous about sounding off but if an IFA needs to be warned about such things after so much has been written and said then I wonder what sort of service some of the public receives and perhaps the FSA does have some point in making some of its otherwise more arcane and seemoingyl patronising pronouncements. Or is this more to do with the media making a mighty wind!
Posted by: Geof Pollock