By EILEEN BLACKBURN
Former pension minister Steve Webb once commented (in)famously that this year's pension liberation would enable retirees to spend their savings on a Lamborghini.
How many Lamborghinis have been snapped up since then is not known, but we do know that pension savers withdrew more than £1.8 billion in the first two months of the new retirement freedoms.
The data show that during April and May savers took out more than £1bn in 65,000 cash withdrawals from UK pension pots. Some £800m of payments were also taken out by savers from income drawdown policies, in 170,000 withdrawals, according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI).
At present, subject to certain specific exceptions, when an individual is declared bankrupt his personal pension is excluded from the estate – but what remains a grey area is the question of what then happens if a bankrupt cashes in his personal pension during the course of the bankruptcy?
Should these funds still be excluded from the estate? Should the bankrupt be entitled to cash in his pension pot and splash out on a Lamborghini whilst his creditors are not entitled to a penny?
Or might it be regarded as irresponsible on the part of the debtor if he withdrew his pension pot to pay off his creditors because then he might be left with little money for his old age?
These questions aside, there seems to be a strong argument that on bankruptcy, debtors should be compelled to withdraw a proportion of their pension pot to be set aside for the benefit of their creditors. It does seem inherently unfair that, in some cases, individuals have been able to amass large amounts of credit which is left unpaid when they are declared bankrupt and which, ultimately, the rest of society has to pay one way or another.
Prior to pensions liberation, pensioners could only take a certain amount of cash from their pension. Indeed there is an ongoing court case in England which will decide on whether an Income Payment Order can be granted in respect of a pension pot which is not yet in payment, in order to make a contribution to the debtor’s estate to help pay off creditors.
Whilst we await the outcome of the appeal in that case with interest, in order to consider its implications for Scotland, this becomes a much bigger issue in the wake of pensions liberation if debtors can cash in their pension fund in its entirety.
The grey area resides somewhere in the interaction between insolvency and tax law because, according to tax legislation, cash withdrawn from a pension pot is classified as income and, as such, insolvency practitioners would be seeking a contribution from income. This matter is not settled – there is a school of thought which suggests it is capital and, as such, the pension pot would vest in the Trustee in Bankruptcy in its entirety.
Ultimately, this question remains an unresolved policy issue, but what the government plans to do about it remains unknown at present. As far as the insolvency profession is concerned, the Accountant in Bankruptcy, responsible for administering the process of personal bankruptcy and recording corporate insolvencies in Scotland, should be advising practitioners.
Meanwhile, since pensions liberation, it is being reported that some pension companies are seeking to charge high administration fees for policyholders wishing to cash in some or all of their pension pot. Not all pension policies allow ‘flexi –access’ – that is, the partial withdrawal of benefits, whether income or capital – which means that if somebody wants to take advantage in a flexible manner, then they would have to incur the costs of advice to transfer and any potential charges the provider might impose for facilitating the transfer.
Whilst the government has made it legal for people to draw their money down from their pensions, they have not as yet instructed pension companies that they are obliged to help them.
Eileen Blackburn is partner and head of Business Recovery at French Duncan, and chair of R3’s Scottish Technical Committee
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel