QROPS or not?
#31
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 193
Re: QROPS or not?
The fact it was removed shows that the list is not an approved list.
The wording was changed when HMRC dropped the Qualifying from the name. HMRC had the following wording on their site.
This list is based on information provided to HMRC by non-UK schemes when they notify HMRC they meet the conditions to be a QROPS. Publication on the list should not be seen as confirmation by HMRC that it has verified all of the information supplied by the scheme in its notification.
The purpose of this list is merely to help UK registered pension schemes carry out their due diligence when transferring pension savings to another pension scheme that is not a registered pension scheme.
The list is not to be taken as a recommendation for a particular scheme or product. Nor should it be taken that any scheme featured on the list is approved or backed by HMRC.
If you are referring the the Panthera QROPS case ( ref Singapore ) the appeal was overturned in favour of Panthera and HMRC lost the case.
#33
Re: QROPS or not?
The fact it was removed shows that the list is not an approved list.
The wording was changed when HMRC dropped the Qualifying from the name. HMRC had the following wording on their site.
This list is based on information provided to HMRC by non-UK schemes when they notify HMRC they meet the conditions to be a QROPS. Publication on the list should not be seen as confirmation by HMRC that it has verified all of the information supplied by the scheme in its notification.
The purpose of this list is merely to help UK registered pension schemes carry out their due diligence when transferring pension savings to another pension scheme that is not a registered pension scheme.
The list is not to be taken as a recommendation for a particular scheme or product. Nor should it be taken that any scheme featured on the list is approved or backed by HMRC.
If you are referring the the Panthera QROPS case ( ref Singapore ) the appeal was overturned in favour of Panthera and HMRC lost the case.
The wording was changed when HMRC dropped the Qualifying from the name. HMRC had the following wording on their site.
This list is based on information provided to HMRC by non-UK schemes when they notify HMRC they meet the conditions to be a QROPS. Publication on the list should not be seen as confirmation by HMRC that it has verified all of the information supplied by the scheme in its notification.
The purpose of this list is merely to help UK registered pension schemes carry out their due diligence when transferring pension savings to another pension scheme that is not a registered pension scheme.
The list is not to be taken as a recommendation for a particular scheme or product. Nor should it be taken that any scheme featured on the list is approved or backed by HMRC.
If you are referring the the Panthera QROPS case ( ref Singapore ) the appeal was overturned in favour of Panthera and HMRC lost the case.
#34
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 193
Re: QROPS or not?
Recognising a pension is not the same as approving it. NMRC do not approve or recommend.
#35
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 71
Re: QROPS or not?
This provided more useful info regarding the tax situation when it comes to drawing pensions from the UK (not for a few years yet though...).
The only other concern is what the impact of the exchange rate will be at the time but that is pure crystal ball stuff I suppose.
The only other concern is what the impact of the exchange rate will be at the time but that is pure crystal ball stuff I suppose.
#36
Re: QROPS or not?
So I would definitely try not to stress about it because unless you move your pension, which as discussed above may or may not be a good idea, or even possible, it is something you have very few options to affect by more than a few percent.
Some people who don't need their pension every month accumulate it in a bank account in the UK then move it when the exchange rate is favourable, or just move a little when they need money and the rate is bad.