Temporary Divorce to Transfer Pension Assets to my wife?

Malthusian

Michaels: You don't eat chocolate either? Or use / enjoy the smell of perfume?

If the newspapers are to be believed there is no moral issue as any tax saving is pocketed by the retailers anyway. I always assumed it was and was amazed when they made such a fuss about it. Anyone who buys anything in an airport knows they are subject to the Disorganised Idiot Tax for not buying something before they went.

I thought the first reply was very clear and could really have been the last word on the subject. Divorcing and then remarrying in order to fiddle the Lifetime Allowance is a clear abuse of the spirit of the laws and regulations around Pension Sharing. Saving in an ISA is not against the spirit of the laws that established the ISA, entirely the opposite. Buying duty-free is not against the spirit of the laws that established duty-free. See where I'm going with this?

Salary sacrifice... is not really one thing nor tother, it is neither for nor against the spirit of any laws, more a quirk of how National Insurance works that no government has been able to figure out how to fix (but they are trying).

atush

Apart from water. Which we are forced to buy in airports (post security).

Malthusian

No you aren't. Bring an empty bottle and ask a bar on the other side if they wouldn't mind filling it from the tap. Or just drink enough water before you go through.

ShowUsTheMoney

Back to the child benefit bit. If you earn over £50k (say £55k), could you in affect pay an extra £5k into your pension so that your income is back down to £50k and so you can then still claim child benefit ????? Just a question.

michaels

ShowUsTheMoney wrote: »

Back to the child benefit bit. If you earn over £50k (say £55k), could you in affect pay an extra £5k into your pension so that your income is back down to £50k and so you can then still claim child benefit ????? Just a question.

Yes and 'millions' do

michaels

Malthusian wrote: »

Michaels: You don't eat chocolate either? Or use / enjoy the smell of perfume?

If the newspapers are to be believed there is no moral issue as any tax saving is pocketed by the retailers anyway. I always assumed it was and was amazed when they made such a fuss about it. Anyone who buys anything in an airport knows they are subject to the Disorganised Idiot Tax for not buying something before they went.

I thought the first reply was very clear and could really have been the last word on the subject. Divorcing and then remarrying in order to fiddle the Lifetime Allowance is a clear abuse of the spirit of the laws and regulations around Pension Sharing. Saving in an ISA is not against the spirit of the laws that established the ISA, entirely the opposite. Buying duty-free is not against the spirit of the laws that established duty-free. See where I'm going with this?

Salary sacrifice... is not really one thing nor tother, it is neither for nor against the spirit of any laws, more a quirk of how National Insurance works that no government has been able to figure out how to fix (but they are trying).

Not really keen on chocolate and definitely prefer no perfume.

Also happy to accept that if there is a law against it then it shouldn't be done but I don't agree that it is up to us to guess what parliaments intention was when they draft laws and thus if you are within the letter of the law then you should not be challenged on the morality of what you are doing. Anyone can choose to pay more tax if they wish too but it is not 'right' to place your own interpretation on what was intended with a piece of tax legislation and then criticise those who use it in another way.

Wobblydeb

ShowUsTheMoney wrote: »

Back to the child benefit bit. If you earn over £50k (say £55k), could you in affect pay an extra £5k into your pension so that your income is back down to £50k and so you can then still claim child benefit ????? Just a question.

Yes, and also purchase the higher rate of childcare vouchers. I sacrifice out enough to take me out of the 40% tax band altogether.....

ShowUsTheMoney

Wow I didn't know you could do this ... Phew. Say if you do this for a few years.......can you then reduce the contribution when the time comes ???

Also is company car allowance and bonuses (not guaranteed) all added to the income first e.g. salary £50k, car £5k, bonus £7k = £62k....so you would need to add £12k to your pension pot to bring you down to £50k and then qualify for child benefit ??

TH1878

michaels wrote: »

My understanding was that marriage and religion were now completely separate?

Point being....? I'm an atheist but still believe in vows of marriage. If you don't, don't get married. Simple.

I hope al those who advocate doing everything possible to pay their taxes don't make use of an ISA, after all, given that the interest rates on ISAs are generally lower than on instant access savings accounts it would be hard to argue that one choose an ISA rather than a savings account for any reason other than to avoid tax....

You're equating using an ISA to getting divorced for tax reasons....:T:rotfl::T:money:

Malthusian

Not really keen on chocolate and definitely prefer no perfume.

I knew you were going to say that. You are Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my five pounds :-) (Although I don't like perfume either.)

Also happy to accept that if there is a law against it then it shouldn't be done but I don't agree that it is up to us to guess what parliaments intention was when they draft laws and thus if you are within the letter of the law then you should not be challenged on the morality of what you are doing.

It's not a guess. The intention of the laws which created ISAs was to encourage people to save by means of a tax incentive. The intention of the laws which allowed people to divorce was to allow men and women to leave unhappy marriages. And the intention of the further laws which created pension sharing orders was to allow people to do leave a marriage without the fear of being penniless in retirement.

This is not in doubt. If you really doubt what Parliament's intention was in introducing those laws (which you don't), you can confirm this easily by reading the relevant laws and drafts or the debates in Parliament. You will not find anyone saying "Honourable members, I think it would be a really good idea to incentivise people to divorce temporarily by allowing them to split their pensions to avoid the Lifetime Allowance and then remarry".

Everyone knows what the intention of the laws was. It is there in black and white in the relevant Acts, the white papers, and Hansard. Divorcing to get round the lifetime allowance would a blatant abuse. If you try to claim otherwise you deserve to get clobbered by HMRC.