bakala wrote:so the pension fund contributions are in fact invested in a foriegn company. they cannot stop anyone doing this because a large volume of the pensions funds are tied up at present in long term contracts in foreign companies under indeminty Gaurantee,
in other words if the Government stop you as an individual investing your pension in a foreign company they would also have to stop pension fund managers doing it too,
According to a leading firm of IFA's in the UK the position is as follows:
The Chancellor’s U-Turn
On 5 December, in his Pre-Budget Report, Gordon Brown
indicated that residential property and ‘exotic’ investments
(such as fine wines etc) would not now be allowed as
investments in pension schemes. Although HM Revenue and
Customs’ Technical Note uses the term ‘prohibited’ about these
investments, they will not technically be prohibited, but will be
tax prohibitive. It is not just a question of these types of
investment being cost neutral whether made personally or
within one’s pension scheme. The potential tax charges of
putting exotic investments in a SIPP could be astronomical!
If a member does invest in this type of asset, the
consequences may be as follows:
• The member will be subject to an income tax charge at
40% on the value of the prohibited asset;
• The scheme administrator will become liable to the scheme
sanction charge, which will usually be a net amount of
15% of the value of the prohibited asset;
• If set limits are exceeded by the investment, the cost of
the asset may also be subject to the unauthorised payments
surcharge which is a further charge on the scheme member
of 15% of the value of the asset;
• If the value of the prohibited asset exceeds 25% of the
value of the pension scheme’s assets, the scheme may
be de-registered which would lead to a tax charge on
the scheme administrator on the value of the scheme
assets at the rate of 40%.
Some types of prohibited assets will receive transitional
protection from the new rules, although this is likely to be
conditional on not improving or developing the assets.Where
members have bought ‘off plan’ (i.e. already paid a deposit for
a property that is not yet built), the investment will only be
protected if it would be permitted under current rules.
However, it is more than likely that these will be in residential
developments and so not allowable under current tax rules.
The purchase of 100% of shares in a Company that holds
residential property is also prohibited.
So is there still a workable loophole that these IFA's have missed?