Company pension contribution

Company pension contribution

Didn't find your answer?

A colleague has asked me a question and I am not sure of the answer.

He has a one-man company client who has realised too late that he should have arranged to pay a pension contribution of £50,000 out of the company into his company pension scheme in 2011/12.  The company's accounting year ends on 31st March.  Can the contribution paid on 20th April be accrued into the company's accounts to 31st March 2012 and corporation tax relief obtained?

I thought that pension contributions were one of those things that had to be actually paid in the year in question, but I would be grateful for other people's views.

Replies (12)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
30th Apr 2012 12:15

Relief when paid

Your thoughts are correct, Euan. Relief is available only in the year of payment.

FA 2004 s196(2)(b)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andy.partridge
30th Apr 2012 12:10

I agree with you

No new research at this end so I can not provide you with a link, but it has long been my understanding that payment should clear the bank account in the accounting period to be deductible. No accrual permitted.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By taxhound
30th Apr 2012 12:10

I'm with you on this one

Relief is only available when the contribution is actually paid in the accounting period, as per BIM 46010

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM46010.htm

 

Thanks (0)
By Steve Kesby
30th Apr 2012 12:11

Yes it needs to have been paid

It needs to have been paid in the period of accounts though. So it would be possible (if you've still got time) to extend the accounts to 30th April (or even just the 20th) and get relief for 12/13ths of your £50K in the accounting period to 31st March.

Thanks (0)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
30th Apr 2012 12:12

Strewth!

Fast or what?

Thank you all for your very rapid replies.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
30th Apr 2012 12:20

Too fast!

I, and others, leapt in with the obvious response that relief is obtained only when paid. But Steve makes the very good point that it is the period of account, rather than the accounting period, that is relevant and a short extension to that period of account could be beneficial. (And nothing to stop the company reverting to 31 March in the following period should it so wish).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AndrewSullivan
30th Apr 2012 16:45

Possibly

Don't take this as gospel, just off the top of my head, and gives room for further discussion....

Could you not accrue a bonus in the accounts & claim CT relief, then pay the bonus as a pension contribution in the next FY? 

Thanks (0)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By User deleted
01st May 2012 12:31

No

AndrewSullivan wrote:

Don't take this as gospel, just off the top of my head, and gives room for further discussion....

Could you not accrue a bonus in the accounts & claim CT relief, then pay the bonus as a pension contribution in the next FY? 

Because a bonus is a bonus and a pension contribution is a pension contribution. Otherwise, why not accrue a bonus and then pay the bonus as a dividend?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ozzy
01st May 2012 12:05

I'm not an accountant but I am trying to follow the discussion as much out of interest as for anything else.  I usually manage to grapple with the HMRC BIM guidance just fine but finding the wording of this one just a little too technical.

Reading between the lines it seems that pension contributions may not be used to create a loss thereby offsetting previous a year's profit, is that correct?

A simplistic example, sticking with the one-man-band theme - say the company makes 100k one year and then nothing for then following year.  If it pays 7k salary + 43k company pension contribution for each of the two years running, a) is this allowed and b) does it leave a net balance of zero or -10k ?

I think also it's spelt out in plain English here:

However, the employer's contribution is deducted from the employer’s trading profits for tax purposes and can normally only be applied to the period of account in which it is paid. A practical limitation therefore is that the company profits must be greater than the contribution, otherwise not all of the contribution can be offset.

which if I understand it correctly, could be better worded: "...the company profits for that year must be greater than the contribution..."

Thanks.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johngroganjga:
avatar
By User deleted
01st May 2012 12:47

@ozzy

A simplistic example, sticking with the one-man-band theme - say the company makes 100k one year and then nothing for then following year.  If it pays 7k salary + 43k company pension contribution for each of the two years running, a) is this allowed and b) does it leave a net balance of zero or -10k ?
 

How do you arrive at -10k? (Answer a is correct, BTW)

I think also it's spelt out in plain English here:

However, the employer's contribution is deducted from the employer’s trading profits for tax purposes and can normally only be applied to the period of account in which it is paid. A practical limitation therefore is that the company profits must be greater than the contribution, otherwise not all of the contribution can be offset.

which if I understand it correctly, could be better worded: "...the company profits for that year must be greater than the contribution..."

That is misleading - contributions in excess of profits will (provided they are not otherwise disallowable) create or increase loss.

Thanks (0)
Replying to dylanski:
avatar
By ozzy
03rd May 2012 15:47

Company pension contribution - excessive remuneration

BKD wrote:

How do you arrive at -10k? (Answer a is correct, BTW)

... contributions in excess of profits will (provided they are not otherwise disallowable) create or increase loss.

Thanks.  I think I was confusing two different issues:

BIM46010 opens with "Employers’ contributions are deducted for the period of account in which they are paid by the employer, and for no other period,"

Since the OP mentioned "one-man company", I was also thinking about what BIM46035 had to say with regard to the pension contribution not being an allowable expense if the total remuneration package exceeded the value of the work undertaken.  The interpretation of this (made elsewhere) being that for a one man co. the generated profit reflects the value of work undertaken and therefore the allowable level of company pension contribution.

In my simplistic example I had assumed these together meant that the pension contribution wouldn't be an allowed expense in the 2nd year because the profits were generated in a different accounting period.

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
03rd May 2012 16:33

Excessive remuneration

The interpretation of this (made elsewhere) being that for a one man co. the generated profit reflects the value of work undertaken and therefore the allowable level of company pension contribution.

I'm not sure where the "made elsewhere" is, but it is usually the case that the value of work undertaken is determined by turnover and not profit. Healthy though they may be, I'd be a little concerned if folks used my net profits as an indication of the value of my advice.

But in theory you have a point - in periods where little or no work is undertaken, remuneration - including, but not restricted to, pension contributions - might be considered excessive. This is unlikely to be the case if there has been a one-off drop in activity, but if the non-activity were to continue .......

Thanks (1)