| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
(3) In this Part "scheme manager", in relation to a pension scheme, means the person or persons administering, or responsible for the management of, the pension scheme.
(4) In this section "prescribed information requirements" means—
(a) requirements imposed by or under regulations made by the Board of Inland Revenue to provide to the Inland Revenue any information of a description prescribed by regulations so made, and
(b) requirements specified by regulations so made to provide information to an authority so specified in circumstances so specified.
(5) A recognised overseas pension scheme is excluded from being a qualifying recognised overseas pension scheme by this subsection if the Inland Revenue has decided that—
(a) there has been a failure to comply with any prescribed information requirements imposed on the scheme manager and the failure is significant, and
(b) by reason of the failure it is not appropriate that transfers of sums or assets held for the purposes of, or representing accrued rights under, registered pension schemes so as to become held for the purposes of, or to represent rights under, the recognised overseas pension scheme should be recognised transfers,
7 Jul 2004 : Column 923
and has notified the person or persons appearing to be the scheme manager of that decision (but subject to subsection (7) and section (Appeal against decision to exclude recognised overseas pension scheme)).
(6) A failure to comply with prescribed information requirements imposed on the scheme manager is significant if—
(a) the amount of the information which has not been provided is substantial, or
(b) the failure to provide the information is likely to result in serious prejudice to the assessment or collection of tax.
(7) The Inland Revenue—
(a) may at any time after a recognised overseas pension scheme becomes excluded from being a qualifying recognised overseas pension scheme decide that the pension scheme is to cease to be so excluded, and
(b) must notify the scheme manager of the decision.'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]
Clause 184
Amendment made: No. 116, in page 163, line 32, after first 'contributions"' insert
', in relation to an individual and a pension scheme,'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]
Clause 212
Ruth Kelly: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 184, line 16, leave out from 'an' to end of line 19 and insert
'increased annual rate which exceeds by more than the permitted margin the rate at which it was payable on the day on which the individual became entitled to it'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 23, in page 184, line 20, leave out
'The aggregate of the amount of such of the sums, and the market value of such of the assets, representing the individual's rights under the arrangement as are applied to purchase the lifetime annuity'
and insert
(a) the aggregate of the amount of such of the sums, and the market value of such of the assets, representing the individual's rights under the arrangement as are applied to purchase the lifetime annuity; and
(b) AAF x A'.
Government amendment No. 119
Amendment No. 22, in schedule 32, page 472, line 27, leave out '50 pensioner members' and insert
'20 members or such other number of members as may be prescribed from time to time'.
Government amendments Nos. 120 to 124.
7 Jul 2004 : Column 924
Amendment No. 24, in schedule 32, page 473, line 41, at end insert—
'Benefit crystallisation event 4: meaning of "AAF"
14A For the purpose of benefit crystallisation event 4 "AAF" is:
(a) in the case of a lifetime annuity which is not a level annuity, the relevant valuation factor (see section 263); and
(b) in the case of a lifetime annuity which is a level annuity, the factor certified from time to time by the Government Actuary to be appropriate. Benefit crystallisation event 4: meaning of "A" 14B For the purpose of benefit crystallisation event 4 "A" is the annual amount of the lifetime annuity which will be payable to the individual in the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the individual becomes entitled to it (assuming that it remains payable throughout that period at the rate at which it is payable on that day).'.
Government amendments Nos. 125 and 132.
Ruth Kelly: We turn now to a group of amendments on the lifetime allowance rules. I hope that Opposition Members will welcome Government amendments Nos. 117, 119 and 120 to 124 because they concern a matter that they raised in Committee with which I sympathised in principle and agreed to look at further. I have now done so, and am pleased to introduce our amendments, which have the effect that they sought.
When a scheme pension is increased, there may be a benefit crystallisation event, which we have discussed at length. There will be no such event, however, if the increase is within the "permitted margin". The amendments ensure that the permitted margin is applied to the overall increase in the pension from the time that it commences, putting someone who receives a one-off discretionary catch-up increase in the same position as someone who receives steady annual increases in their pension. Government amendment No. 125 adds to the existing rules that prevent a benefit crystallisation event from occurring twice on the same funds. It applies when an individual has a crystallised pension in payment, then transfers their pension fund to an overseas scheme.
Government amendment No. 132 merely clarifies the valuation rules that apply where an individual's uncrystallised rights need to be valued. It ensures that the valuation will be made in relation to someone's benefits at a specific date. I commend the Government amendments to the House. The remaining amendments on clause 212 and schedule 32 touch on points raised by Opposition Members in Committee.
Amendment No. 22 is another attempt to dilute the 50-member rule. To recap, that rule allows schemes to increase the value of pensions in payment above the permitted margin without creating a benefit crystallisation event, but only if the scheme has at least 50 members, all of whom benefit from that increase. That anti-avoidance rule acts as a curb on small schemes, giving generous pension increases to a small number of retired members without being caught by the lifetime allowance. Reducing the threshold to 20, as suggested by Opposition Members, would weaken the rule. I admit that no threshold is obviously right, and one could go round in circles arguing about whether 50, 30 or 60 is the appropriate number. We could spend hours on that, but we believe that 50 is about the right level to prevent circumvention of the lifetime allowance
7 Jul 2004 : Column 925
test. Hon. Members may be reassured to learn that that was announced in the second consultation document and has elicited very little comment.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 to clause 212 and schedule 32 deal with the rules on quantifying the value of an individual's pension fund at each benefit crystallisation event, particularly the rule for valuing a lifetime annuity. They seek to change the way in which lifetime annuities are valued at benefit crystallisation events and use the lower purchase price of the annuity and the amount given by applying a factor of 20 to the first year's annuity payments, or a different factor if the annuity does not increase year on year. The aim of the amendments is for people with large money purchase funds to receive a pension income equal to the maximum that a final salary scheme could provide without triggering the lifetime allowance charge. We discussed that at length in Committee, when I explained that the facility would be available if a scheme pension was used instead.
The amendments miss the point of the relevant valuation factor. We are not introducing the factor as a means of favouring defined benefit schemes, nor do we believe that that would be the effect. We are using it as a simple valuation mechanism where there is no identifiable capital amount to use. Where such an identifiable capital amount exists, it is right to use it as the most accurate, simple and straightforward way to value the pension fund and the actuarial profession, which contributed to the consultation process, supports that approach.
Moreover—hon. Members may find this argument more persuasive—the amendments would open up a huge avoidance loophole. They allow a non-level annuity to be valued at 20:1 based on the first year's annuity payments. That would allow an individual to set up an annuity that paid an artificially low income for the first year, keeping the amount crystallised below the lifetime allowance. Later years' payments could then be boosted to an unlimited extent without being tested against the lifetime allowance, which is a hugely attractive tax loophole. I trust that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) agrees that we cannot afford to open up such avoidance routes and, even if he does not accept the principled arguments, will not press his amendments.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |