As reported, the Revenue said it published the incorrect list because of a manual error which occurred during the collation of the registered Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Schemes.
A statement published on the HMRC website today said: “A new QROPS list has been published. Some pension schemes were inadvertently omitted from the QROPS list dated 1 July 2013. HMRC apologise for any concern this may have caused.”
The timing of the error could perhaps not have been much worse for an industry which has already suffered a few knocks in confidence over the past few years and which is currently awaiting the possible publication of a further policy statement by HMRC as part of the ROSIIP trial.
As reported by International Adviser two weeks ago, HMRC made an application to withdraw from the long-running ROSIIP proceedings on the basis that it could not properly explain why it had decided to pursue the ROSIIP investors for a tax charge of up to 55% and not those who invested in a similar scheme known as Beazley.
The judge, Justice Charles, said he would only accept the application to withdraw on the basis HMRC provides a public statement, effectively a policy statement, setting out its exact position on the schemes.
Justice Charles gave the Revenue 21 days from 21 June to decide whether it would be able to provide such a document and said if it decided it could not, he would not accept the application to withdraw and would make a judgement on the case, which he pointed out would be public.
It was also interesting to note at the hearing that the judge said investors in both the ROSIIP and Beazley schemes had taken some comfort from the fact the schemes were on the QROPS list. HMRC retorted that it had since added a disclaimer to the list which explained publication on the list does not mean it “is approved or backed by HMRC”.
Yesterday’s shenanigans are likely to raise a few questions about the way HMRC is handling the QROPS industry in its position as de-facto regulator – a position it holds, like it or not.
As highlighted yesterday, it is not the first time the Revenue has published documents incorrectly, stirring unneeded uncertainty within an already sensitive industry.
Indeed, anecdotally, IA understands that at least one sizeable provider was told by a transferring UK scheme it would not complete the transfer because the QROPS was not on the list. It’s hard to imagine something similar happening to another financial product.
It does raise the question of whether it is right so much importance is heaped on the publication of a .pdf every two weeks by HMRC.
Tell us what you think using the comment box below. Is there another way of providing assurance to transferring schemes of a QROPS’ legitimacy?
