Skip to the content

Budget briefcase

Bell tolls for commercial property in Sipps

By Edward Lander | 00:01:00 | 14 June 2009

The government’s decision to increase pensions tax for higher earners will kill off demand for commercial property investments in Sipps, pensions experts have warned.

In the Budget in April, the government said that it would taper off higher rate tax relief for those earning more than £150,000 from 40% to 20% for those earning more than £180,000 from 2011.

It also added a clause to prevent people maximising their contributions before 2011, saying that those paying more than £20,000 into their pension in a year would see their HRT allowance tapered early if these payments are higher than a person’s normal contributions.

But Nathan Bridgeman, director of Nottingham-based TM Sipp Services, said that as an unintended consequence of the new rules, people wanting to invest in commercial property within their Sipp will be discouraged from doing so by the higher tax liabilities unless they already have substantial amounts of cash holdings in the pension.

This is because the commercial property purchase counts as a pension investment under the new limits, he said.

‘You’ve got a situation where people can’t pay significant contributions into a pension scheme as a one-off payment to fund a property purchase,’ he said. ‘It’s the high-net-worth market that has this appetite for buying commercial property.’

Bridgeman said that the combination of low borrowing rates, high yields and low prices has sparked demand for commercial property purchases within Sipps, which will now be quashed by the tax changes at a time when the government desperately needs to kick-start the economy.

‘There has been a huge demand in using our Sipps for commercial property transactions over the past six months,’ he said. ‘That’s gathering pace; people are taking the view where the market’s bottomed out, it’s time to get in.’

1 | 2 |  Total pages: 2

Comments (4)

Qyestion - Property Purchase as an Investment

13:18 | 14 Jun 2009

There are too many inaccuracies in this article for it to have any credibility.

I don't understand your comment about the purchase of a property being regarded as an Investment into a Pension Scheme.

The borrowing rates changed from 75% Loan to Value to 33% Loan to Value.

Where did 50% come from in comparison to 75%?

The costs of purchasing a property in your own name do not make sense.

What about 50% Tax on the Profit?

Have you worked though the figures?

John Mathers - What a shame

09:29 | 15 Jun 2009

What a shame these ultra rich tax dodgers are suffering. They can afford it, so I don't feel particularly concerned about them. There are more deserving cases to worry about.

John Mathers

ggsinclair - Qyestion - Some Answers

12:49 | 15 Jun 2009

Qyestion

In answer to a couple of your comments:

The purchase of a property / land is an investment in a pension scheme. Some people choose to pay in-specie contributions whereby they contribute a tangible asset i.e. property as opposed to cash.

The 50% max borrowing is correct. Pre 06/04/2006 a SIPP could borrow up to 75% of the purchase price of a property. After this date the max borrowing figure changed to up to 50% of the net asset value of the pension scheme.

Overall few inaccuracies from a pension scheme point of view. However, I do agree that owning the property personally will have tax consequences.

Glen Manson - Do Your Homework

15:13 | 16 Jun 2009

This article is dreadful - littered with inaccuracies, I'm afraid, or the content has been mis-interpreted?

Have your say here:

Protected by FormShield