Funding above the annual allowance - when it makes sense
3 August 2022
Restrictions to pension funding are one of the key frustrations facing financial planners today. A recent survey by abrdn found that two thirds of advisers surveyed included either the tapered annual allowance or the money purchase annual allowance in the top three things that they would like to see reformed to help their business and clients.
Pensions are the best place for clients to save for their retirement, with the tax breaks on offer likely to provide more spendable cash in retirement than the main alternatives invested on a like for like basis.
However, for some this premise could be challenged if a client pays in more than their annual allowance and incurs an annual allowance tax charge. And many clients faced with a tax charge may either cut the amounts being saved or the turn their back on pension saving completely.
But the annual allowance tax charge on its own should not be an automatic trigger to stop saving and for certain clients, pension funding remains an attractive option despite the tax charge.
Impact of the annual allowance
The annual allowance is the way HMRC limits the amount of tax relieved pension savings that can be made for an individual each tax year.
The allowance has been frozen at £40,000 since 2016/17, though it can be lower - all the way down to £4,000 - for high earners subject to the tapered annual allowance or for those who have flexibly accessed their defined contribution (DC) pension and become subject to the money purchase annual allowance (MPAA).
The number of people having to pay the tax charge has increased year on year from just 5,460 in 2015/16 to 42,350 in 2019/20*, with the introduction of the tapered annual allowance in 2016/17 no doubt being a factor. The income levels at which the taper takes effect were raised in 2020/21, reducing the numbers of high earners that might be affected, although the benefit of this could begin to be reversed to some extent by the potential for wage inflation given the current economic backdrop.
The cost of the annual allowance charge has been cited as a reason for doctors within the NHS reducing their hours, turning down promotions, or even taking early retirement as the tax charge bites into the benefit of remaining a member of the pension scheme.
How does it work?
It's possible to exceed the annual allowance in a tax year and still avoid any penalties by carrying forward any unused allowance from the previous three years, though it's not possible to do this to cover DC contributions over the MPAA.
If the annual allowance is exceeded and there's no unused allowance to carry forward to cover the excess, then that amount will be subject to the annual allowance tax charge. Regardless of who paid the contributions, the charge is a liability of the scheme member themselves and the amount due is based on the individual's marginal tax rate.
The individual can either pay the charge themselves, in which case it should be made in accordance with the normal self-assessment deadlines for the tax year to which the charge relates, or it may be possible for the scheme to pay the charge on the member's behalf, deducting it from their DC fund or making an adjustment to the accrued pension under a DB scheme.
The effect of the charge is to remove the tax relief that the member would have been entitled to had they made the contributions themselves.
Is there still a benefit to paying in when above the allowance?
Clients should only consider giving up saving into their pension if there is a better alternative. If the net returns on pension savings (including employer contributions) are still greater than saving alternatives elsewhere then an annual allowance charge may be a price worth paying.
Any client faced with the prospect of exceeding their annual allowance has some difficult decisions to make and the best course of action will depend on their individual circumstances:
- Should they give up their employer pension contributions?
- Does carrying on paying matching contributions make sense?
- If their employer offers extra salary in exchange for pension contributions, will they be better off taking this and investing it elsewhere?
Employer funding
Clearly, one of the key elements influencing choice will be the value of the employer contribution, which might also depend on the employee making contributions. Many employers offer matching contributions. So if your client stops funding, will their employer stop funding too?
Employer pension contributions are essentially 'free money'. Even if they suffer the highest level of annual allowance charge at 45% (or 46% in Scotland) on their entire amount, clients should still be better off as they're receiving 55% (or 54%) of something they would otherwise miss out on. It may therefore make financial sense for most to continue their own funding to retain the funding from their employer, despite the charge.
Example
Felix has a salary of £200,000. His employer has a generous scheme where they will pay 15% of salary if he pays 7.5%. He is not subject to the MPAA and also avoids the taper, so he is subject to the standard £40,000 annual allowance.
Based on his salary, the employer contribution will be £30,000 and his personal one will be £15,000, totalling £45,000. Because he has paid in similar levels over the last three years, Felix has no unused allowance available for carry forward, so there will be an annual allowance charge due on £5,000.
The charge at 45% would be £2,250. If Felix pays this himself, the cost of getting a total of £45,000 into the scheme has increased by £2,250 on top of his 7.5% gross contribution.
Despite the charge, the pension option remains attractive. After tax relief, the net cost to Felix will be £8,250. If he pays the annual allowance tax charge, his personal cost rises to £10,500. For this, his pension fund has increased by £45,000. Ignoring growth and charges, Felix will be able to draw his benefit as £11,250 tax free cash, with £33,750 taxable as income. If he's a 40% tax payer in retirement, then the net spendable cash he receives is £31,500 (£20,250 + £11,250) - three times his personal cost.
If he is able to control his taxable income in retirement such that he is a basic rate taxpayer, this could increase to £38,250 (£27,000 + £11,250) - a return of over 3.5 times on his personal cost.
The next best mainstream alternative would be to save his net cost of £8,250 into an ISA and, ignoring growth and charges, this would still be £8,250 when he comes to take it.
It may be possible for Felix to ask the scheme to pay the charge. Where the charge is taken this way Felix's cost doesn't increase, this remains £8,250, but he will be left with less in his pension pot - £42,750.
Obviously if new contributions could also lead to a LTA charge then this should also be taken into account. Where an employer recognises both the possibility of an annual allowance tax charge and/or a lifetime allowance tax charge, they may offer some alternative form of benefit instead of the employer pension contribution, such as extra salary.
The amount of extra salary offered is likely to take into account that the employer will have to pay employer NI on it. The salary received by the individual would of course suffer income tax and employee NI, but the net amount invested in a non-pension alternative may prove more attractive. However, it should be remembered that such investments could be subject to tax on the income and gains (unless held in an ISA wrapper) as well as IHT if they're still in the client's estate at the date of death.
Self-employed
The existence of a relatively generous employer pension contribution may mean that continuing to fund a pension is still a rational decision. But what about the self-employed?
Example
Felicity is self-employed and has earnings of £350,000. She is fully tapered down to £4,000 and has no carry forward but still wishes to make a pension contribution of £40,000.
The net cost of the contribution, after 45% tax relief, would be £22,000.
With a £4,000 annual allowance, there would be a chargeable amount of £36,000. At 45% the charge would be £16,200. If accounted for by scheme pays, her pension scheme has only increased by £23,800 at a personal cost of £22,000. If she extracts this in retirement as a basic rate taxpayer with 25% tax free cash, she would receive only £20,230.
Without the benefit of an employer contribution, the effect of the annual allowance tax charge is much more pronounced. Unless Felicity is a non-taxpayer when she draws from her pension, she may get better returns elsewhere.
However, there's still one significant benefit for making the contribution. Contributions made and any growth thereon will normally be protected from IHT immediately. And if the member dies before age 75, there will be no tax on withdrawals made by those inheriting the pension.
Had Felicity's earnings been say, £280,000, she would still have an annual allowance of £20,000. If she still wishes to contribute £40,000, the annual allowance tax charge would be £9,000.
If she again uses scheme pays, the amount accrued in her pension is £31,000 at a personal cost of £22,000. If she extracts this as a basic rate taxpayer in retirement, she would receive £26,350 - a return of nearly 20% (ignoring growth and charges).
Ultimately, these decisions depend on individual circumstances, both at the time of making the contribution and at the point of withdrawal in retirement.
Summary
The annual allowance tax charge is there to limit the tax breaks from contributions over the allowance. The decision to make contributions above the annual allowance will very much depend on a client's current and likely future circumstances. But the possibility of an annual allowance charge is not necessarily a signal to stop contributions, particularly where there's an employer contribution on offer but no alternative benefit.
Other investments for a client's own money may provide a better outcome in some circumstances. It should, however, be remembered that pensions offer benefits over and above tax relief on contributions, such as tax-free growth and IHT protection, and these benefits should also be taken into account.
* https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-04-20/156620
Issued by a member of abrdn group, which comprises abrdn plc and its subsidiaries.
Any links to websites, other than those belonging to the abrdn group, are provided for general information purposes only. We accept no responsibility for the content of these websites, nor do we guarantee their availability.
Any reference to legislation and tax is based on abrdn’s understanding of United Kingdom law and HM Revenue & Customs practice at the date of production. These may be subject to change in the future. Tax rates and reliefs may be altered. The value of tax reliefs to the investor depends on their financial circumstances. No guarantees are given regarding the effectiveness of any arrangements entered into on the basis of these comments.
This website describes products and services provided by subsidiaries of abrdn group.
Full product and service provider details are described on the legal information.
abrdn plc is registered in Scotland (SC286832) at 1 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 2LL
Standard Life Savings Limited is registered in Scotland (SC180203) at 1 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 2LL.
Standard Life Savings Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
© 2024 abrdn plc. All rights reserved.