English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have a small pension fund which is due. According to legislation passed in April 2006, I am entitled to the whole amount as a lump sum. This is just under £13,000. 25% of this is free of tax but the remainder will be taxed using an 'emergency' code on a 'Week 1' basis as if it was earned in 2006 ... in other words, I would seem to pay far more tax on it than if I were to take the 'Lump sum and yearly income' option.

Will I be able to claim this tax back, perhaps, over the next six years, if my income is really nowhere near this when averaged over a period of time?

Would I definitely be better off taking one of the 'Lump sum and yearly income' options? My bank won't advise me (in so many words) and the Insurance company simply say that they don't like the way it is so complex.

2006-07-18 11:53:29 · 3 answers · asked by Owlwings 7 in Business & Finance Personal Finance

Sarah: I should what?

2006-07-18 12:05:04 · update #1

3 answers

You probably wouldn't get to reclaim taxes. You haven't indicated what your alternative is -- are you due an annuity if you don't take the lump sum? You might see whether you could purchase something similar from a private source, and how much the cost of that would compare (after tax effects) to whatever would be left after taxes on the 13,000.

2006-07-18 17:07:37 · answer #1 · answered by dWj 1 · 4 1

you answered your own question .. the least amount to be taxed is the only way to go.... you can invest it in something that will increase in value ...coins, gold silver, never jewelry unless its high end.. real estate.. your return is higher then funds stocks or bank

2006-07-18 12:05:09 · answer #2 · answered by Clyde 5 · 0 0

u should

2006-07-18 12:02:54 · answer #3 · answered by sarah m 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers