A secure future

Author: Adam Wrench
Retirement Planner | 23 Jun 2011 | 09:00

Categories: Retiring Abroad

Topics: HMRC| Qrops| GAD| Hong Kong

wrench-adam-cut-out

Adam Wrench assesses the issues advisers need to bear in mind when looking at the QROPS market

Recent moves by HMRC to close loopholes in the legislation affecting QROPS has led to concerns that the product is no longer a safe way to take retirement income.

In April, HMRC introduced a clause in the Finance Bill to close a tax loophole created by a new double taxation treaty with Hong Kong, which allowed UK residents to pay lower tax on pension income than would apply in the UK.

The loophole had arisen because certain double taxation agreements between the UK and offshore jurisdictions allowed UK residents, with a QROPS registered in such jurisdictions, to draw pension income at the rate applicable in the country where the QROPS is registered, which in the case of Hong Kong is up to a maximum of 17%.

HMRC’s action was to ensure that people do not use QROPS to avoid paying the right level of tax within the UK.

It will therefore affect anyone who has taken out a QROPS in an overseas jurisdiction, where there is a double taxation agreement that allows them to pay income tax at a lower rate than that applicable in the UK.

What does this mean?

This means that where there is a double taxation agreement in place between the UK and another country, payment of a pension would be taxed in the UK under the following circumstances:

where the payment arises in the other territory

where it is received by an individual resident of the United Kingdom

where the pension savings, in respect of which the pension or other similar remuneration is paid, have been transferred to a pension scheme in the other territory.

where the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of any person concerned with the transfer of pension savings in respect of which the payment is made, was to take advantage of the double taxation arrangement.

Where QROPS are found to have broken or abused HMRC rules, providers could be disqualified and a tax charge applied to the member’s pension fund of 55% to 82%, with implications for other members within the same scheme.

This means that financial advisers must conduct comprehensive due diligence, both on the QROPS provider and the retiree’s circumstances in particular, the retiree’s current country of residence, their future residency plans and the existence of any double taxation agreements which might affect the member’s tax position, both now and in the future.

The jurisdiction in which the QROPS is registered will be crucial. Retirees should also be warned that, if they, or their spouse, is drawing from their QROPS and return to the UK after retiring, then UK pension regulations will come into force and QROPS advantages will be lost.

Is the end nigh?

So does HMRC’s clampdown spell the end of QROPS as an attractive way for individuals who are living abroad, or who intend to retire overseas, to take their pension income? Certainly not.

QROPS continue to enjoy numerous advantages such as the facility for members to hold their investments in the currency of their country of residence, enabling them to draw their retirement income in that currency, eliminating the currency risk and foreign exchange charges which would apply to taking payments from a UK-based pension fund.

Expats who reside outside the UK for five whole financial years following the transfer of their UK pension, can enjoy tax advantages, such as income paid gross in jurisdictions where there is no double taxation agreement with the UK.

The income is then taxed at the rate applicable in the retiree’s country of residence. A 25% tax free lump sum can also be taken and up to 30% may be allowed.

This enables retirees, who have accumulated pension savings with the benefit of 40% (and now 50%) tax relief, to arrange to take income from a QROPS in the tax regime of their domicile, possibly at a significantly lower rate than would be payable in the UK.

Once a client has been non-UK resident for at least five years, QROPS are no longer subject to UK GAD rates, enabling a higher annual income to be taken.

Another advantage is the facility for the retiree to pass their entire residual pension fund to their beneficiaries on death.

While QROPS are likely to remain under scrutiny by HMRC for some time to come, advisers who conduct the necessary due diligence and have a thorough understanding of their clients’ future plans can still deliver significant benefits for those wishing to spend their retirement years abroad.

Adam Wrench is product development director at London & Colonial

More from retirement planner

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

QROPS are here to stay

It is great to read an article that is concise and accurate for a change. I think that this sums it up; This means that financial advisers must (MUST) conduct comprehensive due diligence, both on the QROPS provider (MOSTLY THEIR EXPERTESE) and the retiree’s circumstances in particular, the retiree’s current country of residence (THIS POINT IS OFTEN MISSED), their future residency plans (WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE) and the existence of any double taxation agreements which might affect the member’s tax position, both now and in the future. QROPS are here to stay

Posted by: Qyestion

24 Jun 2011 | 22:03
Complain about this comment

Related articles

Most Read

Audio / Visual

Coffee Lounge

View all the winners here

PPR Structured Product Awards 2011

View all the winners here

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

event logo

International Fund & Product Awards 2012

14 Jun 2012 - 14 Jun 2012

London, UK

event logo

British Mortgage Awards 2012

03 Jul 2012 - 03 Jul 2012

London, UK

event logo

Cover Webinars

04 Jul 2012 - 04 Jul 2012

London, UK

Poll

Should there be a cap on hourly fees?

In Focus

Viewpoints