UPDATE from 12 January 2024 to 25 January 2024

TAXATION AND TRUSTS

 

England and Wales probate delays - Government update

(AF1, JO2, RO3)

On 9 January, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Mike Freer MP, said:

“The past 12 months have seen the largest volume of probate applications received by the service since 2006, and that follows two years of above-average receipts. In response, we have increased staffing levels by more than 100 people and streamlined processes. We have seen some improvement, in that the level of grants issued has been running at about 8,000 more over the past two months than receipts. The average mean length of time for a grant of probate following receipt of all the documents required is now 12 weeks.”

 

He added:

 

“Following a recovery plan…a new management team is in place and we are now seeing a distinct improvement in recruitment, competency, productivity and call handling, and for the past few months disposals have outstripped receipts. I appreciate that the service is not yet where we would want it to be, but…we are starting to see some impact as a result of the measures we have introduced.”

 

The House of Commons Justice Select Committee launched an inquiry into the probate registry's performance, in November last year, following continuing delays in the issue of grants. The inquiry is taking evidence on capacity, resources and delays across the probate service. It will also examine the impact of digitisation and centralisation, including the effectiveness of the online probate portal. Evidence can be submitted here until 22 January 2024.

 

Comments

Again, only time will tell whether we see any further reduction in the time taken to process applications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child Benefit and National Insurance Credits - a brief update from HMRC

(AF1, RO3)

HMRC has issued an update regarding National Insurance Credits for parents and carers for tax years where they have not claimed Child Benefit.

 

Where an individual or their partner receives Child Benefit and one of them has income over £50,000 a year, the High Income Child Benefit tax charge applies.

 

The High Income Child Benefit Charge was introduced from 7 January 2013. It works by clawing back an equivalent sum to all the Child Benefit paid if that person’s income is above £60,000 and a tapered proportion of it if the person’s income is between £50,000 and £60,000.

The difficulty is that those affected have various options about what to do, and the consequences of these options are not obvious. The options are to:

 

• not claim Child Benefit at all;
• claim Child Benefit, but not receive payment of it;
• receive Child Benefit but, in effect, pay some or all of it back through the High Income Child Benefit Charge tax charge.

 

Registering a claim for Child Benefit, but then opting not to receive it, is the only way to avoid paying the High Income Child Benefit Charge and its associated administration, while preserving national insurance entitlements.

 

It is not always appreciated that Child Benefit has important links with the wider national insurance system by, for example, providing the Child Benefit claimant with national insurance credits until the child is 12, which can help fill gaps in their national insurance record for State Pension if they are not working.

 

As a result, some people avoid the complexities of tax reporting by not claiming Child Benefit. However, this can mean they lose out on national insurance credits towards the State Pension.

Back in 2019, the (now defunct) Office for Tax Simplification suggested “The government should consider the potential for enabling national insurance credits to be restored to those people who have lost out through not claiming Child Benefit.”

 

It recommended that the Government review the administrative arrangements involved to improve the situation, and also look at the position of those who have lost out since 2013.

Also, where the working parent of a couple has registered to receive Child Benefit rather than their non-working partner, the non-working parent does not receive any national insurance credits and may therefore lose entitlement to future State Pension. National insurance credits can be transferred between parents of children under the age of 12 using HMRC form CF411A.

However, backdating is currently effectively limited to a single tax year. 

 

On 28 April 2023, the Government announced it would legislate to introduce a route for people to apply for National Insurance Credits for parents and carers for tax years where they have not claimed Child Benefit, to ensure that people do not miss out on their State Pension entitlement.

The Government has now published an update, saying that individuals will be able to claim this Credit from April 2026. The Government says that eligibility for the Credit will be closely based on Child Benefit eligibility criteria. Transitional arrangements will ensure those affected since 2013 are still able to claim. The credit will add qualifying years of National Insurance where eligible, which will support future State Pension eligibility.

 

Going forward, applications will be available for six years following the relevant tax year. The Government says that it will bring forward secondary legislation as soon as possible.

 

 

CGT on a property disposal - a case where payment for renovation help was not deductible

(AF1, RO3)

A First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case concerning the deductibility, for capital gains tax purposes, of certain sums paid in relation to the purchase, renovation and later disposal of a residential property.

 

This case concerned the purchase, renovation and later disposal of a residential property in Walsall. Following the sale of the renovated property, the Appellants, Wayne and Beverley Bottomer claimed a deduction for a profit share paid to a distant relative, Stuart Bottomer, who had introduced them to the opportunity and subsequently assisted with managing the project.

 

Stuart Bottomer, an accountant who was also involved in various other business activities including in the property sector, acted as introducer between Wayne and Beverley Bottomer and the seller of the property on the understanding that he would receive a fee if they went ahead with the purchase. Nothing firm was agreed, but fees in the range of £10,000 to £15,000 were discussed.

 

The purchase was completed in August 2014. Normally, being a carpenter and joiner by trade, Wayne Bottomer would have expected to manage the renovations to the property himself. However, owing to illness, he had minimal involvement in the project for the first nine to 12 months after the property purchase.

 

Wayne Bottomer reached an agreement with Stuart Bottomer that he and Beverley Bottomer would pay half the eventual profit on sale to Stuart and that Stuart would help as necessary with the oversight of the property during Wayne Bottomer’s illness. No written agreement was ever entered into.

 

In September 2017, the property was sold at a gain. One half of the final agreed profit of £63,813 (£31,906.50) was paid to Stuart Bottomer by Wayne and Beverley Bottomer.

 

Wayne and Beverley Bottomer reported the disposal in their 2017/18 tax returns, claiming the payment of £31,906.50 (approximately £16,000 each) as a deduction. 

In November 2020, HMRC wrote to Wayne Bottomer, seeking further information about the transaction, having noticed discrepancies on the stamp duty land tax return made by Wayne and Beverley Bottomer because Stuart Bottomer had also referenced the property in his self-assessment tax return.

 

HMRC accepted that the disposal should be treated as giving rise to a chargeable gain and issued assessments in March 2022, but disallowed the £31,906.50 in deductions, arguing that they did not fall within any of the categories of sums which were allowable as a deduction under section 38 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. Wayne and Beverley Bottomer appealed against the assessments that HMRC had raised to recover the resulting underpayment of capital gains tax.

 

The FTT decided that the sole issue it had to consider was whether the payments of £31,906.50 made by Wayne and Beverley Bottomer fell within any of the categories of allowable expenditure in section 38 TCGA in computing their respective chargeable gains arising on disposal of the property.

 

It rejected HMRC’s suggestion that Beverley Bottomer's lack of involvement in the discussions between Stuart Bottomer and her husband meant that she could not qualify for a deduction in any event. It noted that, in a situation where the two Appellants were joint owners of the property, the fact that the first Appellant, Wayne Bottomer, took on the role of negotiator with Stuart Bottomer simply implied that he was doing so with the authority of his wife, Beverley Bottomer. The only substantive point of dispute was whether the payments qualified as “incidental costs” of the acquisition or disposal (under section 38(1)(a) or (c)), or as “expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred on the asset” by Wayne and Beverley Bottomer “for the purpose of enhancing the value of the asset, being expenditure reflected in the state or nature of the asset at the time of the disposal” (under section 38(1)(b) TCGA).

 

Dealing with the second point first, the FTT quickly rejected the argument that the payments qualified for relief under 38(1)(b). It said that it did not consider the payments could fairly be said to represent expenditure “on” the property, nor could it fairly be said that their expenditure was “represented in the state or nature” of the property at the time of its disposal. The wording of section 38(1)(b) is clearly directed at allowing relief for expenditure where the result of that expenditure is clearly discernible in the “state or nature” of the asset when it is disposed of. The FTT's view was that, whether the payments were regarded as a “finder’s fee”, as payment for some involvement in the oversight of the early stages of the renovation project or as a profit-sharing arrangement, they did not represent expenditure “on” the property, nor were they in any way “represented in the state or nature” of the property when it was sold.

 

Then turning to what was, effectively, the main point of contention between the parties, namely whether the payments could be regarded as “incidental costs” of either the acquisition or disposal of the property, the FTT said that, to conform to this description, the payments would have had to satisfy two basic requirements under section 38(2) TCGA:

 

1. they would have to consist of expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of either the acquisition or the disposal;
2. they would have to represent fees, commission or remuneration paid for the professional services of a surveyor or valuer, or auctioneer, or accountant, or agent or legal adviser.

The FTT struggled to see how, in a situation where the payments had not even been agreed at the time of the acquisition, in August 2014, it could fairly be said that they were incurred “wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the acquisition”. And, where the disposal would have taken place independently of any obligation to make the payments, the FTT said it was difficult to see how they were incurred “wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the disposal”.

 

Additionally (and in the FTT’s view, most crucially), since Stuart Bottomer was neither a surveyor, valuer, auctioneer or legal adviser, the payments would have to represent “fees, commission or remuneration paid for the professional services of an accountant or agent”. As it was clear Stuart Bottomer was not providing professional services as an accountant in exchange for the payments, the only question was whether they might represent “fees, commission or remuneration paid for the professional services of an agent”. The FTT said that, on the evidence before it, the only capacities in which Stuart Bottomer acted in relation to the whole project was as introducer of the seller of the property to the Appellants, and as overseer of the early stages of the renovation while Wayne Bottomer was too ill to do so. 

 

The FTT accepted that the payments could be regarded as “fees, commission or remuneration” as it was clear that Stuart Bottomer rendered some service to Wayne and Beverley Bottomer, for which they agreed to make the payments. And it said that the fact that the payments took the form of a 50% share of the profits did not, in its view, affect this - many payments which quite clearly fall within section 38 TCGA as allowable costs are variable in their nature and linked to the consideration paid, most obviously an estate agent’s commission on a property sale. However, it did not consider that the payments were for Stuart Bottomer’s “professional services” as an agent. He introduced the seller to the Wayne and Beverley Bottomer, as an estate agent might (though in a very much less formal way), but there was no evidence before the FTT that he carried on any profession of that type; indeed, the evidence was to the contrary - this was a friendly introduction of a business opportunity from one businessman (who was not himself in a position to take advantage of it) to another (who was) on the basis of a general understanding that there would be “something in it” for Stuart Bottomer as introducer. 

 

Once Stuart Bottomer’s role evolved into something rather more participatory and a clear agreement on a profit-sharing arrangement was reached as a result, that, in the FTT’s view, demonstrated a change in the nature of the relationship from a simple informal introduction to something more in the nature of a shared business project. Whether viewed as the former, the latter, a progression from one to the other, or a combination of the two, the FTT said it would not consider it correct to regard the payments made to Stuart Bottomer as being for his “professional services” as an agent, but rather as arising from a profit-sharing arrangement that had been agreed between the parties on what had become a shared project.

 

On this basis, the FTT considered HMRC were correct to disallow any deduction by Wayne and Beverley Bottomer in their respective capital gains tax computations for the payments made to Stuart Bottomer. The appeal by Wayne and Beverley Bottomer was, therefore, dismissed.

 

Comment

 

In its arguments, HMRC had referred to the case of Blackwell vs HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 232. Whilst that case was largely concerned with an examination of the meaning and significance of the phrase “being expenditure reflected in the state or nature of the asset at the time of the disposal” in section 38(1)(b) TCGA, HMRC pointed out the comment of Briggs LJ at [27]: “…s 38 is couched in cautiously restrictive terms, plainly designed to ensure that not all forms of expenditure which a businessman might think should be taken into account in identifying his chargeable gain are in fact permitted deductions.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INVESTMENT PLANNING

 

2023 inflation numbers

(AF4, FA7, LP2, RO2)

 

Inflation fell sharply in 2023, but it is hard to give the Government much credit for the drop.

 

Source:ONS

 

The CPI annual inflation reading for December 2023 was 4.0%, 6.5% below the 10.5% of December 2022. The welcome fall was driven by a variety of factors, not all of which the Government can lay claim for. Drill down and the picture is far from one of price drops across the board:

 

• There were significant changes in the weightings of the twelve divisions in the CPI Index between 2022 and 2023, reflecting a post-pandemic change in spending patterns. For example, the weighting for Restaurants and Hotels rose from 11.4% to 13.8%, bad news for the Government when the 2023 annual inflation in the sector was 7.0%. On the other hand, the weighting of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco dropped from 5.0% to 4.2%, which helped the Government as the division’s 2023 inflation was 12.9%, mainly driven by the Government’s own duty increases.
• A major contributor to the decline in inflation was Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas and Other Fuels. In 2022, inflation in this division was 26.6%, driven by the hike in utility prices. That, in turn, reflect the spike in gas prices and the delayed effects of the utility price cap. In 2023 deflation in this category was 3.4%, which contributed -0.48% to the annual overall CPI number. In 2022, the contribution was +3.67%. Combine the two and this division alone accounted for 4.1 percentage points of the year-on-year CPI decline.
• While Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas and Other Fuels was the standout contributor to 2022 inflation, in 2023, that prize goes to Restaurants and Hotels. As well as higher food and alcohol prices, the rise in the division will also be a reflection of the increase in the National Living Wage, which was 9.7% in 2023, against 6.6% in 2022. The division’s 2023 annual inflation was 7.0% against 11.3% in 2022, but its weighting moved in the opposite direction, as explained above.
• Food and Non-alcoholic Drink price inflation more than halved between 2022 and 2023, from 16.8% to 8.0%.
• Although 2023 inflation was much lower than 2022’s, there were four divisions where annual inflation was higher last year, as the graph shows – Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; Health; Communication; and Education. Ironically, one the reasons behind these increases was that, in 2023, prices were increased based on 2022 inflation – mobile phone and broadband charges being a classic example.

 

Comment

 

The fall in inflation was largely a commodity story – energy became marginally cheaper and food price increases halved. Some of that downward momentum should continue into 2024, with April’s projected fall in the utility price cap. However, the 9.8% increase in the National Living Wage, also due in April, will pull the cost of services in the other direction.

 

 

Premium Bond prize rate cut

(AF4, FA7, LP2, RO2)

 

National Savings & Investments (NS&I) has announced it will lower the prize rate for premium bonds from 4.65% to 4.40% tax free from 1 March. The odds of winning will remain unaltered at 1 in 21,000.

 

The premium bond prize rate was increased last September, when the chances of winning were marginally improved, as well as the average prize. Those changes were announced shortly after the Bank (Base) Rate was lifted by the Bank of England to its current level of 5.25%. The March nudge downwards could therefore be seen as pre-empting the likely next move by the Bank, although at present few commentators see a cut arriving as early as March.

 

The pattern of March’s prize distribution is detailed below along with the current distribution for comparison. The most notable feature is that there will be many more £25 prizes and correspondingly fewer larger prizes.

Comment

The prize rate remains higher than on offer from any other variable rate NS&I product, reflecting the importance of premium bonds to NS&I in meeting its funding target. Given that the top instant access rates are around 5.2%, the bonds still look attractive for anyone who pays tax on interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PENSIONS

 

New Life Expectancy figures released

(AF8, FA2, JO5, RO4, AF7)

 

 

 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has just updated some (but not all) of its life expectancy tables, based on 2020-2022 data.

 

What has been published in detail so far is period life expectancy tables – the National Life Tables. These are more of historical interest than the cohort life expectancy tables, which are what the ONS uses in its life expectancy calculator. The difference between the two types of life expectancy is:

 

• Period life expectancies use mortality rates from a single year (or group of years) and assume that those rates apply throughout the remainder of a person's life. Thus, any future changes to mortality rates are not taken into account.

 

• Cohort life expectancies consider a group of people with the same year of birth. Their life expectancies are calculated using a combination of observed mortality rates for the cohort for past years and projections about mortality rates for future years. For example, cohort life expectancy at age 65 years in 2024 would be worked out using the mortality rate for age 65 years in 2024, for age 66 years in 2025, for age 67 years in 2026, and so on.

 

The latest period life expectancy tables show life expectancy at age 65 years in the UK in 2020-2022 was 18.3 years for males and 20.8 years for females. This represents a fall of 22 weeks for males and 15 weeks for females compared with life expectancy at age 65 in 2017-2019 (the peak for period life expectancy). The ONS says that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic led to increased mortality in 2020 and 2021, the impact of which is seen in the life expectancy estimates for 2020-2022.

 

Similarly, life expectancy at birth has fallen to 78.6 years for males and 82.6 years for females; compared with 2017-2019, a decline of 38 weeks and 23 weeks respectively. This highlights the dangers of using period mortality when considering future life expectancy – a child born today will not experience a pandemic that predates their birth. 

 

Comment

 

The period graph shows life expectancy flatlining from around 2010, which will probably be echoed in the cohort figures when they emerge later in the year. The data complicates the post-election decision on when to raise the State Pension Age to 68, whatever the then Government’s political hue.

 

 

Paying Voluntary National Insurance contributions when abroad

(AF8, FA2, JO5, RO4)

 

HMRC has updated its guidance on applying to pay voluntary National Insurance contributions when abroad (CF83).

 

An individual can apply to pay voluntary National Insurance contributions to fill gaps in their National Insurance record.

 

If an individual is living abroad, working abroad, or living and working abroad, they may be able to pay voluntary Class 2 or voluntary Class 3 National Insurance contributions if they had either: 

 

• previously lived in the UK for three years in a row; 
• paid at least three years of contributions. 

To pay voluntary Class 2 National Insurance contributions they must be working or have worked abroad during the period they are applying to pay and have worked in the UK immediately before leaving.

 

Broadly, Class 2 National Insurance contributions count towards State Pension, Contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance, Maternity Allowance and Bereavement Support Payment, whilst Class 3 National Insurance contributions only count towards State Pension. Please see here for a handy table of what benefits and pensions National Insurance contributions count towards.

 

Please also see here for the current National Insurance rates and categories.

 

An individual can get advice on whether they’ll benefit from paying voluntary National Insurance contributions, if they are below State Pension Age, by contacting the Future Pension Centre. If they are over State Pension Age, or within six months of reaching State Pension Age, they can contact the International Pension Centre. And more information is available on the Money Helper website.

 

Obviously, an individual may also want to speak to their financial adviser before they decide to make voluntary National Insurance contributions. 

The guidance says that the individual will need the following to apply: 

 

• full name; 
• date of birth; 
• National Insurance number — find a lost National Insurance number;
• their address in the UK if applicable;
• their address abroad if applicable;
• the date that they left the UK; 
• details of their employment before they left the UK;
• how long they lived or plan to live abroad if known;
• details of their employment or self-employment abroad if applicable;
• details of any Government benefit they were receiving or claiming if applicable.

 

If they are applying to pay voluntary National Insurance contributions for multiple periods, this information is required for each period.

 

They must apply by post using PDF form CF83: Application to pay voluntary National Insurance contributions abroad (CF83) to pay voluntary National Insurance contributions for gaps in the current tax year and going forward by Direct Debit.

 

The guidance states that the individual cannot pay voluntary Class 2 or voluntary Class 3 National Insurance contributions for any period during which they’re liable to pay Class 1 National Insurance contributions.

 

An individual can contact HMRC National Insurance enquiries if they have any further questions about paying National Insurance contributions and living abroad.

 

The following guidance is also available:

 

• Guidance on social security abroad NI38
• Tax if you leave the UK to live abroad
• Tax on your UK income if you live abroad
• National Insurance if you work abroad
• Moving or retiring abroad
• State Pension if you retire abroad
• Advice for UK nationals living abroad, including residency, health and benefits
• Apply for a National Insurance number if you’ve never had one

 

Please also see our guidance Class 2 NIC and Class 3 NIC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pension trustees challenged on TPR’s general code

(AF8, FA2, JO5, RO4)

 

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has issued a Press Release stating that their new General Code of Practice has been laid in Parliament on 10 January 2024. The new code combines and updates ten existing codes of practice into one set of “clear, consistent expectations” on scheme governance and administration. The “laying period” of the code lasts for 28 days and it is expected to come into force on 27 March 2024.

 

Louise Davey, Interim Director of Regulatory Policy, Analysis and Advice at TPR, said that: “Our new General Code is an opportunity for governing bodies to make sure their schemes meet the standards of governance we expect, and savers deserve. It means there is no excuse for failing to know what TPR expects of them. Some governing bodies have already grasped this opportunity and carried out analysis to ensure there are no gaps in their governance. However, we believe there are many who have not done so and risk falling short of our expectations. Those that do not meet the code’s expectations should take action to improve their scheme’s governance.”

 

Helpfully, TPR’s recent consultation response identifies the principal changes made to the final version of the Code, the most notable of which are outlined below:

 

• As indicated in its interim response in August 2021, TPR has revisited its proposals for the timing of the new Own Risk Assessment (ORA). Trustees must document their first ORA within 12 months after the end of the first scheme year that begins after 10 January 2024 or, if later:
• The date on which the trustees are next required to produce an annual chair’s statement (for schemes with any non-AVC money purchase benefits)
• Within 15 months beginning with the date on which the trustees are required to obtain their next Scheme Specific Funding actuarial valuation.
• Subsequent ORAs must be documented at intervals of not more than three years (not annually, as originally proposed) with each element being assessed in accordance with a scheme-specific timetable (and not necessarily all at once). TPR has stepped back from referring to the ORA as a “substantial process”, stating that many “well-run schemes” will already have broadly comparable processes in place, so it may merely be a matter of collating information into a single document. The content of the ORA is largely unchanged, other than the addition of two new elements “scams and the risks of members making poor choices” and “risks posed by legal and regulatory change and court decisions”. TPR emphasises that trustees’ focus should be on maintaining an effective system of governance (ESOG), as the ORA cannot be conducted effectively without it. TPR states that it “may consider failure to complete an ORA as an indicator of poor governance”. Further, in the accompanying press release, Louise Davey (TPR’s Interim Director of Regulatory Policy, Analysis and Advice) says schemes that are struggling to meet TPR’s expectations should consider whether their members would achieve better outcomes in a consolidation arrangement.
• TPR has removed its suggestions on who may perform the role of the new Risk Management Function (RMF), thereby helpfully removing any potential restrictions. In relation to the ‘independence’ of the RMF, TPR states that, “in practice, the degree of separation between the [RMF] and the [Board] will be influenced by the size and internal organisation of the scheme and participating employer(s)”. It clarifies that the person(s) performing the RMF is/are not prohibited from performing other roles related to the scheme, including the ‘Internal Auditor’ (IA). The scope and role of the IA remains flexible, enabling schemes to appoint the sponsor’s IA (subject to them having or acquiring the relevant knowledge and experience and identifying any conflicts of interest), but not the Statutory Auditor.
• TPR has clarified its intention for the new remuneration and fee policy to be a principles-based document, which should set out “the basis and means for paying those undertaking activities in relation to the scheme paid for by the [Board].” It has removed the expectation to publish the policy.
• Also, as was referenced in its interim response, TPR has removed the proposed 20% limit on unregulated investments, thereby addressing concerns about the impact on illiquid investments.
• As part of its equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) strategy, TPR has taken this opportunity to add high-level EDI expectations for trustees, having already published detailed practical guidance in March 2023.TPR suggests that trustees consider the appointment of a professional trustee when faced with ongoing difficulties in recruiting member-nominated trustees, which may impact the standard of scheme governance. It also strengthens its expectations in relation to accreditation, encouraging professional trustees to progress toward this if they haven’t done so already.

 

Laura Andrikopoulos, Head of Governance Consulting at Hymans Robertson, commented in their Press Release that: “After a lengthy delay, during which trustees may have put ‘pens down’ on their projects to ramp up scheme governance, the laying of the General Code means these important projects can now be resurrected. Delayed effectiveness and governance reviews can now be performed with greater confidence on the actual requirements. The laying of the code heralds an important step-up in the governance of occupational pension schemes, particularly DB schemes, which have not been subject to the same regulatory requirements as DC schemes have seen in recent years, such as the Chair Statement.”

 

According to LCP Partner and Head of Governance Rachika Cooray, the most significant new requirement of the code is the obligation to establish an effective system of governance (ESOG), and for schemes with 100 or more members to undertake an own risk assessment (ORA), an examination of how well the ESOG is working. She said in their Press Release that: “One welcome change from our perspective is the softening of the ORA requirement, which is now triennial rather than annual. Trustees and sponsors may also be pleased to hear that there is no longer a requirement for the remuneration policy to be published online.”

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pensions on divorce interdisciplinary working group issue 2^nd Edition of: A Guide to the Treatment of Pensions on Divorce

(AF8, FA2, JO5, RO4, AF7)

 

The Pensions Advisory Group (a multi-disciplinary group of professionals specialising in the field of financial remedies and pensions on divorce) has updated its guidance on how pensions should be treated on divorce: A Guide to the treatment of pensions on divorce.  A blog, announcing its publication, can be found on the Financial Remedies Journal’s website.

 

First published in June 2019 the second edition reflects various changes and events which have occurred since 2019, including developments in case law, changes to terminology introduced by the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act, the effects of Brexit on international family financial issues, the potential use of the Galbraith Tables, the abolition (and possible restoration) of the lifetime allowance, McCloud issues with public sector schemes and volatility in DB valuations following the 2022 LDI crisis.

 

Once again, the Group has produced a magisterial tome that will be of assistance primarily to legal practitioners and judges as they seek to understand issues relating to pensions on divorce impacting the cases they come across.  This includes when to seek assistance from a pension on divorce expert (a PODE) to assess the worth of pension assets in matrimonial property. It will also be essential reading for any adviser who has a client going through the divorce process.