22 Apr 2010
Finance directors face a cash crunch whichever government is in power but, instead of National Insurance being the big issue, as it has been in the election campaign so far, it will instead be pensions that causes the greatest headache.
A Labour government will restrict income tax relief on pension contributions for people earning between £150,000 and £180,000, tapering it from a rate of 50% to 20%.
But key for FDs will be a much-maligned part of new pensions legislation. Employees will be able to have their pensions tax bill paid by their company in exchange for a reduced benefit when they draw their pension.
Companies will have to stump up the tax far in advance of when they will receive the benefits of reduced pension responsibilities. “The scheme will be forced to pay the tax for the individual,” said Eleanor Dowling, Retirement Resource group principal at pension advisory experts Mercer.
And as if that wasn't enough for FDs to deal with, the situation will be compounded by the Baby Boomer generation beginning to draw their pensions from 2011, just as the restrictions to pension reliefs kick in, putting even more pressure on making payments into pension funds.
FDs can also look forward to a reporting headache because the government wants to align the start of a company’s pension year with the tax year.
Businesses prefer to run their pensions year alongside accounting periods when new salary and earnings data is available.
But advisers say there will be an added workload and cost for obtaining and processing the information to calculate the benefit accrued over the tax year. “It’s a complete mess,” Dowling added.
The CIoT has slated the compliance costs for businesses, which will have to shoulder the added burden just when the economic recovery is supposed to be fully under way next year.
Colin Ben-Nathan, chairman of the CIoT’s Employment Taxes Sub-Committee, said: “Even the government’s own figures indicate that the compliance cost on business will be in the region of £1bn in the scheme’s first year alone.”
The Conservatives do not agree with Labour’s policy – but have stopped short of reversing it. The Liberal Democrats proposed an even more drastic change by capping all reliefs to the basic rate. This would mean all taxpayers only receiving relief at a basic rate of 20%.
A larger base of workers impacted by the relief restrictions could force even more of them to ask their employer to foot the tax bill up front.
“We’re sitting on a pensions’ timebomb,” said Mike Warburton, tax partner at Grant Thornton. “For the next 30 years this problem will just get worse as these people cash in their pensions on an increasing basis.”
In a briefing note, HMRC insisted the government's changes do not affect the vast majority of individuals. “They affect only those who have a total annual income of £150,000 or higher in the current tax year or in either of the preceding two tax years.”
NIC tricks
While Labour and the Lib Dems line up pensions changes, the Tories have focused on National Insurance instead, trumpeting the fact that staff would be better off by £150 in some cases.
But advisers have stripped out the Tories figures to show how employers and employees still lose out.
Smith & Williamson worked out that under Tory proposals employers make the biggest saving – £140 – at a threshold of £6,807. From there it tapers down to zero until £20,785, at which point NIC increases by 1%.
Employees making £43,875 will be worse off by £231, according to the firm. Those paid above this threshold will lose £231, plus 11% made above this level.
“These are the figures they didn’t want you to see,” said David Hewison, employment taxes director at the firm.
in our view
In additon to the extra costs being shouldered by the FDs, the legislation
changes have been described as “clumsy” and “disappointing”. The government
needs to consult again with stakeholders including the accountancy institutes on
this. There is also the public policy issue of
high earners turning their backs on employer-sponsored pension saving, resulting
in the closure of high quality schemes for all employees.
Further reading
NAPF: Pension tax reform ten times more expensive than expected
You may also like
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
Visitor comments Add your comment
What additional tax cost?
Any business that suffers this charge will do so on a voluntary basis. I would think that all businesses where management are affected will take steps to implement an alternative to a registered pension scheme. There are a number out there (even ignoring the schemers who are promising the earth for a percentage of contributions), some of which are straightforward, cost-effective and easy to implement and administer.
Posted by: Nigel Davies, ITEPAdvisors, 22 Apr 2010 | 00:00