In H Scurfield v HMRC (TC01379 – 22 August) an individual (S) retired from his post as a full-time director of a large life insurance company in 1992 and took up an occupational pension.
In 1994 S invested in a second pension into which he paid premiums from 1994 to 2004.
In 2010 he advised this pension provider that he wished to take his benefits under the policy.
He was informed that his pension would be affected by the ‘lifetime allowance charge’ introduced by FA 2004 s 214 with effect from 6 April 2006.
In September 2010 he submitted a claim to make a late election under the Registered Pension Schemes (Enhanced Lifetime Allowance) Regulations SI 2006/3261.
HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that the time limit laid down by SI 2006/3261...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In H Scurfield v HMRC (TC01379 – 22 August) an individual (S) retired from his post as a full-time director of a large life insurance company in 1992 and took up an occupational pension.
In 1994 S invested in a second pension into which he paid premiums from 1994 to 2004.
In 2010 he advised this pension provider that he wished to take his benefits under the policy.
He was informed that his pension would be affected by the ‘lifetime allowance charge’ introduced by FA 2004 s 214 with effect from 6 April 2006.
In September 2010 he submitted a claim to make a late election under the Registered Pension Schemes (Enhanced Lifetime Allowance) Regulations SI 2006/3261.
HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that the time limit laid down by SI 2006/3261...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")