Tax writer
Share this content

Government prescribes a solution to doctors’ pension predicament

Flexing contributions to the NHS pension scheme may solve the problem which has led to doctors reducing their working hours to avoid excessive tax charges in respective of pension contributions.

25th Oct 2019
Tax writer
Share this content
Doctor is using a pulse meter to measure the pressure of the patient at the hospital
istock_wutwhanfoto_aw

This arises from pension tax charges for high earners. In the case of the NHS, these are consultants and GP partners. Changes to the tax regime since 2016 have exposed individuals to tax charges which can lead to either reductions in take-home pay, reduced final pension entitlements, or both.

In an attempt to mitigate these effects, some clinicians have chosen either to retire early or to reduce the amount of work they undertake for the NHS, as Simon Nicol explained in April.  

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is consulting on possible changes to the NHS Pension Scheme to reduce this effect and to incentivise senior clinicians to devote their energies to the NHS.

Pension tax charges

The tax charges increasingly affecting high earning doctors are:

Lifetime allowance charge

If the total value of a member’s pension rights on retirement (lump sum plus pension) exceeds £1.055m, there is a tax charge. On current values within the NHS Scheme, this equates to a pension of £46,000 per annum plus a lump sum of £138,000. Excesses are taxable at 55% if taken as a lump sum or 25% if used to purchase additional pension.

Annual allowance charge

If a member’s rights under their pension scheme increase in any fiscal year by more than the individual’s annual allowance (AA), the surplus is taxable at their marginal tax rate – up to 45% or 46% in Scotland.

For members of the NHS scheme, the standard AA (£40,000) represents an additional annual accrual of around £2,500 of final pension entitlement.

However, since 2016 individuals earning over £210,000 have a tapered AA of only £10,000 which equates to an accrual of £625 of final pension.

Options for change

As it stands, the NHS Scheme is totally inflexible. The level of contributions and the level at which members accrue pension rights are set by the individual’s earnings. The only way in which senior clinicians can reduce their exposure to tax charges is to do less work for the NHS – with the consequent risk of shortfalls in service levels.

The DHSC is suggesting a tailored range of options to add flexibility.

Flexible accrual

Members can choose a level of contributions and accrual before the start of the year, in 10% increments. This would enable someone to choose an accrual rate (for example 30% of maximum) which they were confident should not trigger any tax charges, and to make regular contributions at the same rate.

Fine-tuning

Towards the end of the year, members can increase their accrual level once they know the likely level of earnings for the year. The adjustment would be in 10% increments and the contributions would be increased in step.

Since the increase in contribution level would have retrospective effect back to the start of the year, any increased contributions would need to be paid before the year-end.

Ancillary benefits

Death in service insurance, survivor’s pensions and ill-health retirement cover would continue to be provided (and paid for) at current levels.

Employer contributions

If a member has elected to contribute a reduced amount, the employer’s contributions will also be reduced, although not to the same extent, since ancillary benefits are funded out of employer contributions.

It will be open to employers to pay any net reduction in contribution cost to the member as taxable earnings (a lump sum at year-end).

No zero accrual

The government believes that the minimum level of contribution and accrual should be 10% of the maximum contribution. It would be inappropriate for the ancillary benefits to be provided if no actual pension rights were accruing.

In any event, at a 10% accrual rate, it would require pensionable earnings of around £340,000 before even a small tax charge could arise.

Phased pensionability

A substantial one-off increase in earnings (such as a promotion) could still trigger a one-off exposure to the annual allowance charge. This spike in earnings might be smoothed out by phasing in the “pensionability” of the rise over a three year period: in year one, only 50% of the increase might be counted, and 75% in year two, with the full amount only being considered in the third year.

This approach would be more beneficial to high earners nearer the end of their careers, while more junior clinicians might find it acted to their disadvantage. If the pension is based on a career average salary, more junior doctors would want to get the higher amount on their pension record as quickly as possible.

Who will be affected?

The DHSC proposes to limit the changes to those who need them. This cannot be achieved simplistically, such as by offering the new options to all employees earning over a given amount or to all clinicians regardless of earnings.

It is proposed that to qualify for flexible accrual an individual must both:

  • be employed in a role that requires registration with an appropriate healthcare regulatory body; and
  • demonstrate a reasonable expectation that their prospective NHS commitments would result in pension growth exceeding their annual allowance.

Discrimination

The DHSC believes that its proposals would not fall foul of the Equalities Act 2010 but welcomes opinions on their impact. Here the department is taking note of the Court of Appeal’s judgment (McCloud and Sergeant) that transitional changes to the Judges’ Pension Scheme and the Firefighters Pension Scheme were unlawfully discriminatory on the grounds of age.

Conclusion

If you have views on the questions asked in the consultation document, send your input to the DHSC by midnight on 1 November 2019, or post them below and AccountingWEB will submit a reply on behalf of all members.

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By GR
26th Oct 2019 23:46

Must be nice to have these types of problem!

Thanks (2)
avatar
By flightdeck
27th Oct 2019 16:53

Hundreds of thousands of managers in the NHS and they cannot offer pension contribution flexibility? It's not rocket science. Resulting in even less doctors hours being available. Just so so so badly managed.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By pauljohnston
28th Oct 2019 10:30

Nice and straightforward then.

Seems like an increase in accountancy fees.

Problem will be made more complicated by those with both private and NHS income.

I thought the idea was to encourage consultants and doctors not to reduce their hours.

GR the problem is for us all. If we dont sort this properly waiting lists will continue to grow. It effects any person earning £110,000 which is not a fortune when you consider how long they have to train. A recent converstaion I had with an anaesthetist revealed he had been studying for 13 years and had more to go.

Probally a better system would be to pay more to everyone and reduce the employer contribution - that however is down to politicians

Thanks (2)
avatar
By dgilmour51
28th Oct 2019 11:15

The 'public face' of this shambolic disconnect, between HMRC [who will have suggested this 'solution' to our esteemed politicos ( they being generally bereft of sufficient intellectual prowess)] and reality, is most vivid in this specific NHS imbroglio, but is nevertheless a perfectly general thing affecting a swathe of the taxpaying population.
Point solutions, that increase the general entropy of the taxation system in general and the difficulties for individuals in their own particular tax affairs, are retrograde and without allure.
One will be interested to see how HMRC inveigle this to increase the proxy tax regime of fines.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By dmmarler
28th Oct 2019 12:05

This won't get NHS doctors/consultants working full time again. They will already have had a taste of private work and probably will not want to return to the NHS full time without proper inducement. Everyone seems to have forgotten the tremendous sacrifices they made at the start of their careers with the promise of a decent salary and pension at the end. That this is all being taken away is unacceptable.

Thanks (1)
Chris M
By mr. mischief
28th Oct 2019 20:19

My wife is an NHS receptionist. One of the best GPs in her practice - 35 but no kids - has just gone from 4 12 hour days down to 3. I am pretty sure pensions was one factor. The message has gone out loud and clear to GPs across the country that working flat out for 25 years just results in a pensions swipe.

Pretty damn stupid.

Thanks (1)
Replying to mr. mischief:
avatar
By flightdeck
29th Oct 2019 10:16

I would be surprised if they have breached the lifetime allowance by age 35 considering they start earning late and the junior jobs are not very well paid. I also know a young GP who does 3 days but his motivation is that he can live on a 3/5 salary and doesn't want the stress of more work. If I am honest (and this is totally unreasonable of me I know), it [***] me off a bit. All that training and then part-time? (I know, I know, why should they be different to anyone else who can afford to work part time ... but still ...).

Thanks (0)
Replying to mr. mischief:
avatar
By flightdeck
29th Oct 2019 10:17

I would be surprised if they have breached the lifetime allowance by age 35 considering they start earning late and the junior jobs are not very well paid. I also know a young GP who does 3 days but his motivation is that he can live on a 3/5 salary and doesn't want the stress of more work. If I am honest (and this is totally unreasonable of me I know), it rather annoys me. All that training and then part-time? (I know, I know, why should they be different to anyone else who can afford to work part time ... but still ...).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AndyC555
12th Nov 2019 11:00

It's not just the lifetime allowance here.

The £40k annual allowance can be breeched quite easily because the annual pension input amounts can be eye-watering (for those of us in the private sector).

I came across a case where the last 3 years' pension input amounts were c£91k, c£51k, c£54k. Given this person's NHS salary of c£123k this resulted in additional tax due of around £11k for the most recent year (which was why I was asked for advice).

The solution I suggested was to contribute enough into a personal pension to take the threshold income below £110k.

It's a crazy system full of unintended consequences.

Thanks (0)