Frustrating wait for QROPS providers

This is all hideously frustrating for those of us involved in this sector.
The UK Government have effectively turned off our income tax!
Whilst the NZ providers might have been better prepared the reality is that the manner in which the UK introduced these changes gave very little time for anyone to get organised.

This is all compounded by the fact that HMRC has zero commercial awareness and hence seemingly have no sense to get on with recognising NZ schemes [or not as the case maybe] and so we sit and wait.

We are all trying to puish water uphill given this and the "rules" over whether we can or cannot approach new clients - Governments; got to wonder what the heck they are thinking - one thing is clear right now and that is that they don't give a flying monkeys for the Adviser and quid pro quo for the public!

Whilst I am confident a degree of commonsense will prevail and the UK HMRC will get there we all need to "survive" in the meantime!

Not frustrating at all. One would think that HMRC have no role to play in this judging by comments - when they have every right to ensure that the consumer is cared for.

Which NZ adviser ever recommends leaving a scheme behind in the UK - very few? HMRC were aware of this and though not financial advisers "QROPS" was their product and to be associated with one trick ponies who only ever move the funds to a scheme in the country of residence was clearly suspect.

Furthermore the blatant cashing of schemes for residents of the likes of Spain via New Zealand had to stop. I suppose HMRC were bad boys for that - come off it. HMRC had to protect its mates reputation in IRNZ and vice versa and didn't anybody spot the Government Actuary had gone to UK in 2011.

Frustrating because its not instant transfer any longer - shame.

As for not being prepared - Blind Freddie would have told you rule changes had to come.

And if it ain't broke why fix it would have been a good response - if it were true it was all OK it wasn't - it was broke!

And why has NZ got special rules now - ooh that's a hard one!

As for commercial awareness - sorry it was NZ schemes that were not commercially aware, some were paying scant regard to what the purpose of UK rules were.

Common sense will prevail - quality technical advice, weighing up all options with proper due diligence and reviewing attitude to loss, avoiding taking a fund into NZ when UK Sterling was weak - come off it. Advisers may be upset - but if they feel HMRC have done anything wrong - then you clearly are batting on the wrong cricket pitch.

And by the way why the 10 year rule - so they can open up all the QROPS transfers that have ever been, should be interesting.

I see HMRC have already started issuing tax assessments to those who had Singapore QROPS - well they weren't were they? Hence why the tax assessments will flow if NZ QROPS were never ever QROPS in the first place.

Lets see how many NZ QROPS members get meted out the same treatment, HMRC have given themselves enough time to open up the can of worms, lets see QROPS transferred to NZ in 12/11 - gives them till 12/21 methinks.

And then when clients find out they should have had a TVAS - well thats when the fun will start.

Some interesting comments above.

To me, it seems that HMRC are having to take over some sort of responsibility as regulator, as it is clear that regulators outside the UK ( and the UK regulator can only operate in the UK) have no interest in, or are unable to understand, the lack of controls and the problems that will start to surface in the future. I can see a lot of lawyers rubbing their hands at the potential business that will arise in the future.

I think that we have all seen the QROPS adverts that make a transfer from a UK pension (defined benefit scheme incl), the assumed default option. However, the default option in the UK is not to move a defined benefit pension. Then again, UK pensions advice is highly regulated and only those that have specific exams are allowed to give any advice about pension transfers. Not only that, they need Pension Transfer and Opt Out permissions and suitable PI cover in place.

I note Geraint's comments about transfer analysis( TVAS). Whilst there is no such requirement for a TVAS outside the UK ( and the TVAS is only the start of the advice process), I cannot imagine why anyone with a reasonable amount of pensionable service in a DB scheme would not be offered a proper initial analysis. I would guess that if they were offered a TVAS, in most cases, that clients that would balk at the necessary returns needed to provide similar pension levels to the UK scheme and would leave the benefits where they are.

Perhaps the cost of an analysis could be cited as a reason for not offering a TVAS, but then we have all seen the adverts for "free financial advice" and we all now where the money for the salemen comes from. To use an analagy, how many people would buy an expensively priced family home , using the majority of their savings, without a proper survey? The size of a lot of pension transfers are the same as the price of a family home and the cost of a TVAS is not dissimilar to the cost of a survey. Where clients receive a poor survey report, they would not proceed and decide that the survey money was well spent as it saved them a fortune over the longer term. A TVAS , together with associated professional advice, that suggests that the funds should not be moved should also be seen as money well spent.

There are always going to be sound, advice based, reasons for clients to look at QROPS. But there are still adverts out there that refer to HMRC approved schemes, 0% income tax, 0% Inheritance Tax and so on and no account seems to be taken of the main objectives of pensions- to provide a suitable income in retirement.

I suspect that HMRC do have some concerns about the advice that the public gets. Why else insist on the rule that there must be an "income for life" , if that income will not be paid out in the UK.

I have seen quite a few comments and adverts and blogs etc. that can only act as a red rag to a bull when it comes to HMRC. If advisers had treated HMRC's original rules with some kind of respect, then perhaps a lot of what is happening now would not be. If people feel that HMRC are somehow the enemy then perhaps they should follow the advice of Sun-tzu and "keep their friends close and their enemies closer still".

The priorities have to be to ensure the long term well-being of the clients, not the commercial well-being of some advisers that have to wait while HMRC deal with the list of recognised schemes.