Unfair shares of the profits: Tax law on profit-sharing can penalise male pensioners. Neasa McErlean reports
Sunday 06 September 1992
Unusually, however, the latest tax anomaly to come to light is one that favours women over men, and in certain circumstances, a female employee will find herself with a tax bill half the size of that facing a male colleague.
The problem revolves around government-approved company profit-sharing schemes, under which employees can acquire shares in the company in a tax-saving way. If the shares are kept in the scheme for five years, the employee will not be subject to income tax on their value.
Sometimes, however, employees leave the schemes early because they retire or are made redundant. To soften the potential tax liability, the Inland Revenue gives these employees more favourable treatment than others who quit schemes early. But a quirk of the legislation denies this benefit to certain male employees retiring early.
For schemes established after 25 July 1991, pensioners who leave schemes early will be subject to tax on only 50 per cent of the initial value of their shares. These schemes are required to have a common retirement age - and employees leaving will be taxed the same way regardless of sex.
But under pre-July 1991 schemes, employees are subject to tax on 100 per cent of the original value if they leave in the first four years. If they leave in the fifth year, they pay tax on 75 per cent of the original value.
Whatever the specified common retirement age which a company now operates under the scheme, it will find that, in the eyes of the Inland Revenue, men will be regarded as retiring at the age of 65 and women at 60, for the purposes of a scheme established before 25 July 1991.
Consequently, a man retiring before that age will be forced to pay tax on 100 per cent or 75 per cent of the original share values, while female colleagues retiring at the same age or younger would be taxed on 50 per cent.
Overnight, some male pensioners will find their nest egg has turned into a financial noose.
'The effect is inequitable,' says Nilgun Izzett of the law firm Theodore Goddard. 'If you are trying to be a good employer and ensuring people are treated equally, it's a little unfortunate if all your efforts are, in a sense, thwarted because of the Government's tax policy.'
- 1 Humans of New York image of crying gay teen receives best response yet from Ellen DeGeneres
- 2 What supermodels really think about posing in the nude
- 3 People all over the world are getting semicolon tattoos to draw attention to mental health
- 5 Chris Moyles reportedly set to make radio comeback with new breakfast show on XFM
Humans of New York image of crying gay teen receives best response yet from Ellen DeGeneres
Swedish minister gives strongest case yet on why EU should stop turning away asylum seekers
North Korean defector flees to Finland 'with evidence of chemical testing on humans'
Isis schoolgirl Amira Abase who fled London to join terrorists in Syria mocks victims of Tunisia massacre
Father faces deportation to Thailand after 27 years in Britain for two 'stupid crimes'
More Britons believe that multiculturalism makes the country worse - not better, says poll
Nathan Collier: Montana man inspired by same-sex marriage ruling requests right to wed two wives
Greece crisis: IMF was pushed around by Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy – and now it is being humiliated
Forget little green men – aliens will look like humans, says Cambridge University evolution expert
Osborne to cap family benefits at £23,000 – announced ahead of his post-election Budget
Girl, 7, stares down hate preacher at Ohio festival with pro-LGBT rainbow flag gesture
iJobs Money & Business
£15000 - £17000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This company offers a range of ...
£15000 - £16000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Customer Service Advisors are r...
£20000 - £25000 per annum + OTE £45K: SThree: SThree were established in 1986....
£40000 - £60000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A Compliance Manager is require...