fbpx

Bankrupt's Pension Safe From Creditors

30th December 2016 By Arman Khosravi

People who get into financial difficulties leading to bankruptcy will be relieved to hear of a recent decision by the Court of Appeal which has confirmed that a bankrupt cannot be forced to draw down their pension entitlement to provide funds for their creditors.

The case involved a man, now aged 61, who declared himself bankrupt in 2012. A trustee in bankruptcy was appointed. The trustee sought access to his very substantial pension funds, which the man is now able to take, in order to satisfy the claims of his creditors.

The man refused to take his pensions. He is being provided for by his wife and family and has no need of the pension income.

In general, pensions cannot be taken by a bankrupt’s trustees. However, the Insolvency Act 1986 does allow this to happen when there is income over and above the bankrupt’s ‘reasonable domestic needs’. It was decided in a 2012 case that this rule can be applied to pensions which have not yet been taken.

The claim ran as far as the Court of Appeal, which concluded that the 2012 case was incorrectly decided and that a trustee in bankruptcy has no right to require that an approved pension is taken in order to provide assets for the bankrupt’s creditors.

The case is very significant as changes over the last few years allow many holders of pensions to take their pension as they choose rather than buying an annuity.

Pensions which are not taken prior to age 75 can normally pass tax-free on death to a nominated beneficiary. When the pension pot is not taken and death occurs after 75, the pension pot will normally be subject to Income Tax at the beneficiary’s marginal rate of tax. If the size of the pension pot exceeds the ‘lifetime allowance’ (currently £1 million), additional tax will arise.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...