Categories: SIPPs
Topics: SIPP| Tax| unauthorised payment charges| growth
Axa has denied a practice it permits within its Family Suntrust SIPP is in breach of tax regulations.
The product allows members of the pension to allocate varying levels of investment growth to different members.
It is commonly used to transfer pension benefits from parents to children without incurring tax charges.
For example, within a SIPP with a 10% investment return and five members, one member could take 6% of the growth and the remaining four could take 1% each.
An Axa spokesperson said: "Based on the legal advice we have taken, we are comfortable with our approach to the product features of Family Suntrust."
However, rival providers have claimed this practice is in breach of tax legislation.
Hornbuckle Mitchell, Aegon, Standard Life, and Dentons forbid the practice in their SIPPs.
Martin Tilley, business development director at Dentons, said the practice may break tax rules.
"All members should benefit equally from the returns on all investments," said Tilley, (pictured).
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs' (HRMC) rules state in cases after October 2007 where a member surrenders any benefit they have a right to under a pension scheme, it is treated as an unauthorized member payment and the member therefore becomes liable to a tax charge.
There are some exceptions, such as where the surrender is made to provide benefits for the member's dependents after the member's death.
However, an HMRC spokesperson warned: "Tax charges may apply where members surrender their rights to other individuals within a SIPP."
The spokesperson stressed it is the responsibility of schemes to ensure they comply with tax rules.
| Share | |
| Comment | Axa denies SIPP function breaks HMRC rules |
More sipps news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
legal opinion
Ah, the much talked about 'Legal Opinion'. I seem to remember a company that had 'legal opinion' that French chalets was fine. HMRC won't comment on individual cases and we'll just have to wait for the court case if and when it comes, or HMRC find another way to encourage firms to change their ways. Until then, I'd be a little nervous if my clients were racking up potential Unauthorised Payments by the day. What IFA would put their client into a scenario that the rest of the industry says is, at least, suspect?
Posted by: anon
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
Traditionally, the purpose of a bank account within a pension scheme has been rather one...
Viewpoints
The relatively illiquid nature of commercial property investments within a pension could...
easy
Well its easy to resolve, Axa should issue their legal opinion and some proper guidance for IFA's and document a test case the HMRC has ok'd. Of course everyone that can't do it is going to say its wrong until given irrefutable proof.
Posted by: anon