‘HMRC is fining me £190k for abusing millionaire pension rules'

Has a company treated you unfairly? Our Consumer Champion is available to help. For how to contact her click here.
Dear Katie,
I retired from my role as a financial adviser in 2016, handing over all my clients to someone else. It was an incredibly busy year, and I was very much focussed on visiting them all at home to ensure they were looked after.
Nine years on, after I took some tax-free cash from my pension in October last year, I received a letter from HMRC. It was called a Section 36 request, and it asked me to provide more information about what I had done with my pension.
The letter claimed that back in 2016, I had put into place a newly introduced form of pension protection called fixed protection, which was designed for people with pensions who were near or over the pensions lifetime limit, which had just been reduced to £1m.
Once this protection is in place, your fund can grow to above the threshold without you paying penal tax, however, you lose it as soon as you contribute any more into your pension. If you apply for the protection and continue making pension contributions, you lose the protection, and if you haven't told HMRC, you could incur fines for trying to cheat the system.
HMRC says I applied for this protection and then lost it days later when I made a regular pension contribution. However. I can't have lost it, because I never applied for it in the first place. This is because my pension has never been big enough to worry about the lifetime limit.
I have absolutely no idea why the application is on HMRC's records. Since I retired in 2016, I've continued paying into my pension every month, as I'm still receiving at least £7,000 a year in commission from my former financial advice clients. HMRC wants me to declare when I lost the fixed protection, but since I never arranged to have it, I cannot give it an answer.
Therefore, HMRC seems to be accusing me of abusing its rules to protect my large pension fund from paying too much tax. As a professional adviser in full awareness of the pension contribution rules, this accusation seems totally illogical.
I've also been told to admit that it was me who applied for the protection, which I refuse to do. I understand the fine I could be looking at for losing my fixed protection all those years ago but not telling HMRC is £60-a-day. This would amount to around £190,000.
This is a devastating amount of money for a mistake which I never made, and I am not prepared to pay it. By phone I was told that this is not the first person this has happened to, but in writing I have been told that HMRC's own computers cannot be wrong. The only other option is that someone has logged into my account and done this to try to sabotage me.
I refer you to the scandal that has engulfed the Post Office and the sub-postmasters over their use of the Horizon accounting system. If it is true that HMRC has even a few situations such as this, then perhaps it is necessary for HMRC's website and internal computer systems to be forensically investigated.
– Anon
Dear Anon,
Since receiving this letter, you've been in a difficult back and forth with HMRC, yet the issue has remained unresolved. This has understandably caused you a huge amount of stress. It is adamant that you did apply for fixed protection in August 2016 not once, but twice, even though you firmly deny this.
HMRC said the first application failed, and a second one was filed that same day, which was accepted. When I asked HMRC how it could be sure it was you who actively applied for the protection, it said the person who did it logged in via your own 'government gateway' account. This means that whoever it was must have either hacked in, or known your passwords and all your details.
You have raised the possibility of someone having done this to deliberately sabotage you, however, you could not think who it might be. I also note that the person who logged in did not attempt to withdraw any money or tamper with your finances in any other way, which they could have done. And nor have you had any other suspicious activity on your account since, which makes me highly doubt this theory.
You also wonder whether you could have been a victim within a scandal similar to the Post Office/Horizon incident, since you claim that someone from HMRC intimated to you verbally that yours was not an isolated case.
However, when I asked HMRC, it could not have been clearer that this was not a wider issue. As I said to you, if it is a wider issue, we'll soon know once this piece is published. Other victims, if they exist, will have the chance to come forward. I'll be all ears if they do.
It also occurred to me that HMRC might have mixed up your records with someone of the same name, as I've seen this before. But as it turns out, your name is unique, with you being the only one in the UK.
All this aside, the main issue was whether you were going to have to pay this massive £190,000 fine or not, and when I asked HMRC about this aspect of your case, it came through with some good news.
As it turns out, you have misinterpreted what the £60-a-day 'schedule 36' penalties are, and when they apply. In fact, they are only charged where a customer fails to provide the information that HMRC has requested in an information notice.
And since you did provide the information upon receiving the letter, the penalty would not be applicable. And since your pension was never over the £1m (now £1.25m) lifetime limit, you will not be paying any penal tax either.
Following my involvement, HMRC has removed fixed protection 2016 from your records to avoid any further confusion.
You're incredibly relieved at this outcome, which you feel you would not have been able to achieve without my involvement. I note that you've got a lot on your plate at the moment as you're the main carer for your wife, who has advanced dementia. This can't be easy for you, so I've been very happy to assist you over this matter.
However, once all was said and done and you'd relaxed about the fine, I felt I had to ask: were you 100pc sure it wasn't you who applied for fixed protection back in 2016 in the hope that your pension might reach £1m?
After all, the rules had only just come in, and you were admittedly running around the country tending to clients. It occurred to me that you might have done this rashly and then forgotten about it? However, you replied that you were '110pc' sure it wasn't you, which of course, I accepted.
I've filed your case on my ever-growing pile of mysteries which may never be solved, but I wish you and your wife all the best.
An HMRC spokesman said: 'We have corrected the customer's records to remove fixed protection 2016. There is no wider issue.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

4 hours ago

• Telegraph

Post Office admits Horizon scandal staff are compensating victims

The Post Office has admitted that staff linked to wrongful prosecutions of postmasters are still working in a department which compensates victims of the scandal. Chairman Nigel Railton has acknowledged three so-called 'past roles employees' remain employed in the organisation's remuneration unit. It came after the chair of the advisory board for compensating victims said how postmasters had been left 'deeply distressed' after encountering certain members of staff. The Telegraph can reveal one employee was involved in the mediation scheme case of Lee Castleton, a former postmaster bankrupted as a result of civil action taken against him by the Post Office. More than 900 former sub-postmasters were wrongfully prosecuted as a result of the Horizon scandal, when faulty Fujitsu software incorrectly recorded shortfalls on their accounts. A public inquiry into the scandal is expected to produce its first report in the coming weeks, which will focus on the human impact of the scandal and the ongoing process of financial redress. Though various schemes were set up to compensate victims, Sir Alan Bates and others have criticised them for taking too long and for offering payouts far smaller than some have claimed for. The majority of the schemes – including the one set up to pay out Sir Alan and more than 500 others who took legal action against the Post Office – are now administered by the Government. However, the Post Office continues to run the Horizon Shortfall Scheme for victims who were neither wrongfully convicted nor involved in the High Court Case. Last month, The Telegraph revealed a former Post Office auditor who visited branches with suspected shortfalls, was, until recently, employed within the unit. And earlier this month, Christopher Hodges, chair of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, wrote to Mr Railton to express his concerns about staff who had roles linked to historic cases linked to the scandal. 'The issue is the ongoing involvement in redress and appeals work of Post Office staff who are perceived as having earlier been involved in the scandal,' he said. 'We continue to hear reports from victims who have met such staff in compensation meetings, and who find it deeply distressing and inappropriate.' 'No conflict' In a letter in response, Mr Railton said that as far as its 'analysis' showed, it had 'no employees working on redress who are in a position of actual conflict'. Mr Railton said some individuals who worked for Post Office while postmasters were being wrongfully prosecuted were employed in the Remediation Unit when it was set up. He then said the Post Office 'quickly acknowledged' that this gave rise to 'perceived conflict' particularly in the case of those who worked in roles 'even loosely connected with historic prosecutions' – known as 'past roles employees'. While the chair said the Post Office had 'taken steps to remove' these staff, he said the organisation was anxious that as these individuals hadn't been accused of wrongdoing, they were to be treated fairly and that the process should not 'slow down the pace of redress'. 'Leaving at the earliest opportunity' Mr Railton then added: 'As at the date of your last meeting (at which the oral update was given), we were in a position to report that all but two Past Roles Employees had been redeployed from the Remediation Unit (and many had left the business altogether), and that discussions were ongoing with the remaining two individuals with a view to their leaving Post Office. 'Since then, one further individual has been identified and the team is working towards their leaving Post Office too at the earliest opportunity.' One individual who continues to be employed within the unit is Shirley Hailstones, who is not accused of wrongdoing. Documents shown to the inquiry show Ms Hailstones gave feedback on a defence drafted on the Post Office's behalf in relation to victims' cases. And Ms Hailstones was also previously involved in the mediation case of Mr Castleton, who was portrayed by Will Mellor in the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office. Mr Castleton was ultimately told he would not be able to take part in the scheme and that his only option would be to take his case to court. The inquiry was shown emails from forensic accountant Ron Warmington and Ms Hailstones, a Post Office case review manager, sent in November 2013, discussing potential links between faults at different Post Office branches. Ms Hailstones did not copy-in former sub-postmasters Mr Castleton and Sir Alan to her email, before she shared it with then-Post Office irrelevant Angela van den Bogerd and said: 'This interaction in my view should not be widely circulated.' Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Castleton said: 'It's entirely irrelevant whether any of these people are guilty of wrongdoing or not. 'From the perspective of former sub-postmasters, anybody working at the Post Office in that era will be tainted – it's the optics. They need to be removed.' A Post Office spokesman said: 'We do not comment on individual employment matters. 'We can confirm, as per our letter to the Advisory Board that has been published, there are three individuals leaving the Post Office at the earliest opportunity.'

Telegraph

6 hours ago

• Telegraph

Raising capital gains tax again will backfire, Reeves warned

Another capital gains tax raid in the next Budget would 'backfire' on Rachel Reeves and cost the Treasury money, experts have warned. The Chancellor is under pressure to launch a fresh round of tax hikes after raising the top rate of capital gains by four percentage points last year. However, if capital gains rates rise again, anyone selling assets for a profit may choose to delay crystallising their gains or find ways around the tax, which would lead to a loss of revenue for the Exchequer. Tax advisers have warned that a large proportion of capital gains revenues derive from a small number of taxpayers, meaning a significant increase in the rate could 'distort their behaviour', and reduce tax receipts. HMRC estimates suggest that just 2,000 individuals with gains of £5m or more accounted for 37pc of the capital gains subject to tax in 2022-23. Chris Etherington, of accountancy firm RSM, said: 'Given that a significant amount of annual capital gains derive from such a small tranche of the population, it is far from guaranteed that a significant increase in the rate would translate to a windfall of additional tax receipts. 'The Chancellor will no doubt be mindful of the potential risks presented by a further capital gains tax rate rise and may be wary of tax policy changes that could backfire.' In last year's October Budget, Ms Reeves raised the main rates of capital gains tax from 10pc to 18pc for basic rate taxpayers, and from 20pc to 24pc for higher rate taxpayers. She also stripped back relief offered to those selling companies or shares. In March, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the fiscal watchdog, warned that the decision would leave a £23bn hole in the public purse as investors hold off from crystallising gains. Speculation mounted in the lead-up to the Budget that capital gains would be aligned much more closely with income tax, with rates as high as 39pc being modelled by Treasury officials. Households are bracing for a slew of tax rises after the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) halved the country's growth forecast for this year to 1pc. Low growth and high borrowing costs could force Ms Reeves to raise taxes again in what the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank has warned could be a 'blockbuster Budget'. Capital gains tax receipts fell to £13bn in the year to March 2025, down 10pc from £14.5bn in the same period last year, according to HM Revenue & Customs data. The tax accounts for less than 2pc of all government revenue. Nimesh Shah, of accountancy firm Blick Rothenberg, said: 'Capital gains tax revenue comes from a narrow pool of people, so it doesn't take much for that distortion to make an impact – a small change can make a big difference. 'It's an optional tax. You only pay when you dispose of an asset, so people may simply choose to hold on to things like houses, so as not to crystallise the tax bill – or they may simply leave the UK and crystallise the gains abroad. 'Like all taxes, there's a Laffer Curve point with capital gains tax where revenue starts to fall as rates rise.'

Daily Mirror

12 hours ago

• Daily Mirror

Summer job rules every parent needs to know this summer for their child

MoneyMagpie Editor and financial expert Vicky Parry explores employment law for under-18s considering a summer job Working a summer job is a great way for teenagers to earn some extra cash, gain some work experience, and have some independence. But there are some important laws that parents – and teens – should know about to make sure their employer is sticking to the rules. ‌ How long can an under-18 work each week? Children from the age of 14 can work part-time hours (in some areas, this is lowered to 13 – check your local council's education department). Those under 14 may be able to work in exceptional circumstances, such as if they are a performer in TV, theatre, or as a model, and will need a performance licence. ‌ Children over school leaving age can work full-time up to 40 hours a week. This is the age of 16 in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In England, children must be in part-time education or training until the age of 18, so can only work part-time hours. How much can under-18s earn? Young people aged 16 and above may be paid through PAYE systems, and once they turn 18 adult employment rights apply. National Minimum Wage rates apply regardless of a person's age. This means employment must meet the minimum hourly rate for their age bracket. For under-18s, that is £7.55 an hour (rising to £10 an hour when they turn 18). So, if you get a job earning £7.55 an hour for twenty hours a week, that would be a gross pay of £151 a week. This would not be enough to qualify for National Insurance or tax contributions, so £151 would be the take-home in most cases. Over-16s need to pay National Insurance if they earn more than £242 a week. They would pay tax when they earn more than the annual Personal Allowance (currently £12,570). Sometimes, for full-time or highly paid summer jobs, this means they may be taxed at first but can claim a refund when the job ends. Can under-18s be self-employed? Yes! Technically, a company director can be appointed to a Limited Company from the age of 16, however it is advisable they are not the sole director. This is because they are legally responsible for company activities, including filing with Companies House and tax returns. Under-18s also don't have legal capacity to enter into certain contracts such as with suppliers, and will not be able to apply for financial business support or business bank accounts. ‌ Under-18s can operate as sole traders, and will need to register with HMRC for Self Assessment if they will earn more than £1000 (the Trading Allowance). They will need to submit a tax return every year to HMRC, and keep accurate accounting records to do so. They won't pay tax on their income if it is below the Personal Allowance of £12,570 each year, after business expenses. They may be required to pay National Insurance contributions. Safe work environment awareness If a job requires operating heavy machinery or toxic chemicals, the workplace must provide relevant training and supervision. There may be some parts of the job that an under-18 cannot do, such as operating dangerous machinery. They cannot be discriminated against for their age in the work environment. ‌ An employer must provide relevant health and safety training to every employee, regardless of their age. This includes a responsibility to work within reasonable hours. For most employment for under-18s, this means no scheduled work between 10pm – 6am, with some exceptions such as creative work (like being a theatre actor), healthcare, or retail. This only applies if there are no adult workers available to do the work. It is illegal for any under-18 to work between midnight and 4am, regardless of their job or industry type. There must be a 12-hour rest break in any 24-hour period in which they work, and any shift over 4.5 hours must include a half hour break (paid or unpaid). Each week must also include a continuous 48-hr (two-day) rest break. ‌ When working late, an employer has a duty of care to under-18s to ensure they have the supervision of an adult employee where possible and necessary. They shouldn't be left alone unless there is nobody else to do the job. Under-18s working on alcohol licenced premises Local councils set their own rules about under-18s working in pubs, cafes, restaurants and event venues that serve alcohol. Usually, they are permitted to serve alcohol but this may be restricted to only bottled or canned drinks. Make sure teens know HR policies Summer jobs are often the first time young people will come into regular contact with hierarchies and colleagues and customers of all ages. This can mean they are unsure how to handle difficult situations where they feel uncomfortable. ‌ It might be that they feel a colleague or customer is being inappropriate with them. Or, they may not realise that someone is acting inappropriately, such as using a managerial position to pressure them into social engagements outside of work which they don't want to attend. Make sure your teen knows the policies of the company they work for, including grievance policies. You should also ensure they are aware of creating boundaries between work and personal life, and that it is OK to have them. Create a safe space for your teen to talk about work, and pay attention to anything they say which sounds like a senior colleague is being inappropriate or they are put into unsafe situations with customers. Saving summer job cash Under-18s can access savings accounts for children, so if they already have a Junior ISA it's a great idea to encourage them to save some of their summer job earnings into it. If they don't yet have an ISA or savings account, now is the time to talk to them about the importance of creating a financial safety net early on, and to help them find a bank account that suits them. Some parents also choose to use their teen's first earning opportunity as a way to teach them about life skills. Take some time to explain what their payslip means, how National Insurance works, and tax basics. You might also help them learn about budgeting, breaking down their weekly or monthly earnings into savings and spending pots based on their expenses. Some of the brands and websites we mention may be, or may have been, a partner of However, we only ever mention brands we believe in and trust, so it never influences who we prioritise and link to.