Pension Fund Return

Pension Fund Return

Didn't find your answer?

Just received a request from HMRC for a Pension Fund Return. Needed to ring them so tried the phone no on the letter. This number is no longer available was the telephone message response. Why are they using old letterheads? If they are that hard up they should ask David Cameron as he seems to waste money sending out C**P 

Replies (6)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By fellowcraft
14th Apr 2016 22:27

.

Had exactly the same problem last week! The numbers on the top right and bottom left were both incorrect. Couldn't believe it.

Do you mind me asking - are you adept in filing these returns? I haven't done one before, and have minimal info re the scheme. Can't even file it atm as the Scheme Administrator went into Liquidation, and they apparently have to consent to change it over.

>3 month penalties start in 2 weeks, and HMRC can't help by phone, and haven't responded to letter......?   I'm not sure if audited accounts need doing, and whether they are required every year etc. Do you know?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By PCBACFV
15th Apr 2016 01:26

HMRC Pension Scheme Filing

We have consistently had difficulties with the HMRC on line pension scheme administration system - our main difficulty is that we cannot remove an administrator who is now longer involved in the Scheme.  Apparently this has to be done by the Administrator himself using his personal HMRC log-in credentials - not easy when that person is no longer able to use the system due to ill health (I don't know if they even drop off when they die!).

We also have been unable to register the updated registered office address for the Trustee Company as the HMRC will only accept registrations from the individual trustee directors using their private residential address.

"Administrator" also appears to mean something different to HMRC from the rest of the pension system.  We were advised when the system was first introduced that the Trustees (or Trustee Directors where the Trustee is incorporated) should personally register as "Administrators" and they should then register the Scheme administrator as their "advisor".

It appears that provided you know the appropriate PSTR Number, any of the Trustees (Trustee Directors) can register themselves as an administrator by first getting a pension scheme administrator ID Number through to their own HMRC online Gateway.  You do not need an existing "administrator"  to consent to a new administrator being added to the Scheme.

With regard to your question about an audit - if it is a defined benefit pension (whether closed or not) I believe the Pension Regulator requires copies of audited accounts to be attached to the Annual Scheme Return (usually submitted by the actuary).  I would have thought (but am not sure) the same would apply to a trust based money purchase arrangement. 

 

 

 

Thanks (1)
Replying to DaveyJonesLocker:
avatar
By fellowcraft
15th Apr 2016 08:03

.
Thanks - this is great advice. Re Administrator, I've registered the Director under the GG but it won't allow him to file - only the Scheme Administrator- who is not around. I have tried everything.

Are the penalties £60/day from 1st May?

Re type of scheme, I just don't know. It is a 1 man scheme and was a tax avoidance 'strategy' to liberate existing pension pot. Funds were transferred in, then paid out to limited company as preference shares. There are no defined benefits and no ongoing contributions - in fact there is nothing in it. Any idea?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By fellowcraft
15th Apr 2016 09:28

.

Aha, it is a contracted-out money purchase occupational scheme. A dormant company must be the principal employer.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By PCBACFV
15th Apr 2016 20:29

Penalties

Hi Fellowcraft

Re type of scheme - it does appear to be a money purchase arrangement, but unlikely to be contracted out as that ceased to operate for money purchase pension schemes in 2012 (and even before then they had to provide a minimum level of benefits paid in the form of an annual pension).  This might have been the previous scheme.

To me it seems the Scheme you are now dealing with is likely to be a money purchase investment regulated pension scheme.   A Dormant Company cannot by definition be a principal employer because it has to currently employ the Members.  In most cases if a former employer ceases to trade a separate trustee has to be appointed to wind up the Scheme (this may be your liquidated administrator).

I hope there was appropriate pension specialist professional advice, because the arrangement does appear to be questionable against the requirements for a pension scheme operating under pensions legislation as is required to receive a transfer value to avoid generating an unauthorised payment tax charge (55%) on the transfer payment from the previous scheme.  Incidentally the previous scheme is required to pay a transfer value where it has been validly requested by the Member even though the transfer request was to pay into an unauthorised scheme (knowingly or unknowingly).

While you should do your best to get this matter resolved, I would not worry too much about the daily filing penalties - "reasonable excuse" immediately springs to mind.  It would indeed be quite fun if it went before a tribunal given the inability to file arose due to no lack of effort to try and comply but purely due to HMRC's failings.  Also who would HMRC levy the penalty on - the wound up administrator or the Director who only registered to try and resolve the problem?

Thanks (1)
Replying to mariannajane:
avatar
By fellowcraft
18th Apr 2016 15:26

.

Thanks for the help - I really appreciate it.

I have a 'Contracting Out Certificate for a Money Purchase Scheme' certificate from HMRC. But if these ceased to exist in 2012, then that is probably by-the-by now.  Yes it's definitely set up as 'Dormant Company Limited Pension Scheme', and Dormant Company Ltd never traded. Yes, professional advice was given at outset. 

As TradingCo has now gone bust, the investment made by the pension fund into it is now worthless, so the scheme presumably does need to be wound-up without attracting a 55% charge. Is there anyone you know who could advise on that?

Cheers

Thanks (0)