Pension rules, pre or post A Day?

Date of retirement is now, according to the new law, not relevant. The law current at the date that a benefit is taken is the law to be applied. Retrospective:- to apply to a past era. The new rules, which now disregard retirement but talk of "crystallisation" i.e taking a benefit, should be applied retrospectively to someone who retired in 2003 as long as no benefits have been taken.

"Tim" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@bt.com... |> |> |> |> |> Stickems. wrote: | > | > | > | > | > > My providers says that the pension and the tax | > | > | > | > | > > free cash has to be based on final remuneration | > | > | > | > | > > if I backdate my pension to maturity in 2003. | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | wrote | > | > | > | > | > Are they effectively talking about the | > | > | > | > | > 'scheme retirement age' under the plan ? | > | > | > | > | | > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote | > | > | > | > | Why would that matter at all? | > | > | > | > | You can retire either before or after the 'scheme | > | > | > | > | retirement after the 'scheme retirement age'... | > | > | > | > | | > | > | > | > | wrote | > | > | > | > | > You may need to ammend this on the scheme | > | > | > | > | > rules if you have now passed that date. | > | > | > | > | | > | > | > | > "Tim" wrote | > | > | > | > | Why? How would that help?... | > | > | > | > | | > | > | > | > | AIUI, the OP is talking about making his effective date | > | > | > | > | of retirement in 2003 - then the missing pension payments | > | > | > | > | would be paid now in one big lump. Surely that would | > | > | > | > | be based on the law applicable in 2003? He wouldn't | > | > | > | > | be "retiring now", he'll be saying "I retired back in

2003, | > | > | > | > | now pay me the pension I've missed in the meantime!" | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | "Stickems." wrote | > | > | > | > The changes made earlier this year | > | > | > | > are retrospective, aren't they? | > | > | > | | > | > | > "Tim" wrote | > | > | > | How do you mean? | > | > | > | Do you think that someone who had overfunded under | > | > | > | the old rules and therefore had to pay extra tax when | > | > | > | they retired, say in 2003, will get that tax refunded | > | > | > | now if there was no overfunding on the new rules? | > | > | > | > | > | "Stickems." wrote | > | > | > The old laws are no more. The new rules should be applied. | > | > | | > | > "Tim" wrote | > | > | Of course, from April this year onwards. But | > | > | it was the *old* rules back in 2003, wasn't it? | > | > | | > | > | Do you think the new rules should be applied | > | > | retrospectively to someone who retired back in 2003? | > | > | > | "Stickems." wrote | > | > Yes, if they haven't taken any | > | > benefits by deferring their pension. | > | | > "Tim" wrote | > | If they are still "deferred" then they have not "retired"... | > | | > | What are you trying to achieve? - To have "retired" | > | in 2003, and so receive all missing payments from | > | between 2003 & now, or to "retire" now after deferment? | > | | > | You say you want to "backdate ... to maturity | > | in 2003", but then you say that you are | > | "deferring" the pension. Well - which is it? | > | | > | "Stickems." wrote | > | > The tax office think as I do. | > | | > "Tim" wrote | > | And how do you (/"they") think? | > | "Stickems." wrote | > They say the old rules are no more and cannot be applied | > retrospectively and that the new rules must be applied after | > 5th April 2006 and that the new rules are retrospective. | | You still haven't said what you mean | by "retrospective" in this context... | | Again : Do you think the new rules should be applied | retrospectively to someone who actually retired back in 2003? | | | |

Aha! You don't want to "backdate [your] pension to maturity in 2003" at all. You want to take it *now*!

"Stickems." wrote

Of course. So why ask if the new rules are retrospective?

"Stickems." wrote

But you didn't retire in 2003, did you? And you don't now want to retrospectively retire in 2003, do you? You said just (above) that "Date of retirement is now"...

I cannot understand your line of thinking or make sense of your contributions to this discussion.

In message of Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Stickems. writes

Neither can anyone else with all this upside down posting. I gave up on this thread ages ago, when none of the previous quotes were snipped (and were upside down)

"Stickems." wrote

OK, let's re-state the facts:

You want to start taking pension benefits now, don't you?

You don't want to "pretend" that you really started taking benefits in 2003, thus "backdat[ing] [your] pension to maturity in 2003" -- which would involve being paid missing past pension payments now -- do you? [Would that even be allowed, that far back?!]

So it does not matter about whether-or-not the new rules are "retrospective", because you are starting to take benefits *now*.

Further, as you are starting to take benefits now, the new rules will operate (with any transitional arrangements as noted by Neil).

Isn't that the case?

Just to wrap this one up - my insurance company has confirmed, after some persistence from me, that a deferred pension can be backdated to a date prior to A-Day without the pre A-Day rules being applied.