Small firm wins Supreme Court pension decision

A small business supplying street lighting equipment has won a tax case about a pension scheme in the Supreme Court.

The decision in favour of Forde and McHugh Limited, which is based in Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, could act as a precedent for how other company contributions to pension schemes are treated because similar cases have also been appealed.

Accounting firm Charterhouse advised Forde in setting up a pension scheme for the benefit of the director in 2002. 

The scheme - known as a funded unapproved retirement benefit scheme (FURBS) - is widely used for business owners to make provision for their retirement, Charterhouse said...

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments

Supreme Court Pension Decision for small firms

M.E.Bhayat | | Permalink

It is good decision for companys  pension contribution  scheme. Average small firms don't have that size of pension scheme.and they are generally small. I don't thonk make any difference to  them.But it is a good decision benefiting  small firms.

Excellent    1 thanks

Ian McTernan CTA | | Permalink

Excellent news for small business owners who can afford to put a little away towards their own retirement- too many of whom currently don't!

One less burdensome tax to worry about.

Tom 7000's picture

Difference

Tom 7000 | | Permalink

Whats the difference between this and

a) Just putting it in as an employers contribution  with a big pension co

b) Just putting it in a Sipp

 

 

Supreme court decision for smal firmsl

AfemikheWilliam... | | Permalink

This is a very good decision .  Small firms should take advantage of this so that they can plan well for their retirement. 

EBT's?

2221684 | | Permalink

I assume that this case is of little relevance to pensions and much more to do with the issue of disguised remuneration, and HMRC's ultimate goal of obtaining the PAYE/NIC on EBT/EFURB contributions/EBT loans, pre sch2 FA2011. Very different in context to the Rangers FC case but nonetheless another unhelpful decision for the Revenue.