Employer-financed retirement benefits scheme meaning

POWER CLAUSE / RULE HELD BY REQUIRES AGREEMENT OR CONSULTATION WITH SUBJECT TO Authority to amend; to wind the scheme up or delay winding-up; to cease future benefit accrual; to shut to new joiners; to readmit employees to membership of the scheme Discretion to set the employer contribution rate; to lower or suspend contributions; to apportion statutory debts Ability to enhance or vary benefits; to permit early retirement pensions and set actuarial reductions; to allow incapacity pensions, decide whether a member meets the incapacity definition, and reduce or pause such pensions; to grant pensions for serious ill-health; to apply actuarial uplifts for late retirement; to fix the rate at which pension is exchanged for a lump sum; to commute trivial pensions; to provide a bridging pension; to award discretionary increases to pensions; to make unauthorised payments Capacity to admit new employers or end their participation; to replace the principal employer; to transfer members’ benefits into or out of the scheme Authority to return...

MyFutureFund The State’s new automatic retirement savings scheme, ‘MyFutureFund’, has attracted significant media attention over the past week. While AE is due to commence within the next few weeks, the principal catalyst is that the Department of Social Protection (the Department) has recently sent letters to various organisations cautioning about the risk of employers ‘hindering’ staff from joining MyFutureFund. Specifically, the Department stated that compulsory enrolment into a company pension scheme, where this is not an explicit contractual term and only modest employer contributions (for example, 1%) are payable, would be treated by the Department as an offence of hindering. These communications have sparked engagement with the Department by employer representative groups and stakeholders across the Irish pensions sector, including the Irish Association of Pension Funds (the IAPF). From that engagement it is evident that employers whose strategy is built on all employees being in exempt employment, and therefore outside the auto-enrolment regime, will need to revisit—swiftly—the practicality and lawfulness of that approach over the coming weeks...

Original news Mrs H (CAS-65551-M8D0)—22 August 2024 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman has dismissed a complaint regarding a discretionary pension established by statute. The scheme’s provisions were outdated and offered no benefit to deferred members. To be entitled to a pension, an individual had to leave the Salvation Army’s service and make a claim—something the complainant had not done. The preservation legislation did not apply because no employer-provided resources existed (Salvation Army workers are viewed not as employees but as officers of religion). The Ombudsman’s decision serves as a reminder that the rules of a pension scheme determine a person’s eligibility for benefits. What were the facts? Mrs H was a commissioned officer for the Salvation Army (SA)...

In this issue: Data protection Retirement options Pension Schemes Bill Taxation The Pensions Regulator Dates for your diary Trackers Data protection GDPR breach doesn’t require proof of third-party access (Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1117) In Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s ruling ([2024] EWHC 383 (KB)) which had struck out data protection claims raised by pension scheme members after the scheme administrator, having failed to update its database, sent annual benefit statements containing personal data to out‑of‑date addresses. The officers pursued claims for data misuse and GDPR breaches, seeking compensation for non‑material harm—namely anxiety, alarm, distress and embarrassment—on the basis that their personal data had been posted to unknown third parties. At first instance, most claims were struck out because the claimants were found not to have a real prospect of success, due to insufficient evidence of damage and no act amounting to misuse, since...

ESPS (ESPS) is a trust-based arrangement created by an Electricity Council resolution on 20 January 1983 as an industry-wide pension for employees of the nationalised electricity sector. It remained a single scheme at privatisation on 31 March 1990, after which it was divided into separate sections or ‘Groups’. The rules are not publicly accessible. For further information on statutory protections for ESPS members following privatisation, see Practice Note: —Protected Persons. Each principal electricity company participating in the ESPS forms its own Group; there are currently 23 Groups. Some Groups have a single participating employer, while others have several. Each Group is actuarially independent, with its assets and liabilities assessed on a standalone basis... Although a common scheme-wide benefit structure applied at the point of privatisation, since then each Group has been able to offer different benefits to its members. The ESPS rules comprise a central set of clauses and provisions governing matters that apply across the scheme, with Group-specific rules appended as Schedules. This Practice Note outlines the...

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note summarises the Fee-Paid Judicial Pension Scheme (FPJPS), introduced by the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/522, arising from O’Brien v Ministry of Justice. It covers the statutory framework, governance, eligibility, contributions and benefit design. This note is not maintained... Statutory framework The Judicial Pension Scheme includes several arrangements: Judicial Pension Scheme 1981 (JPS 1981). Salaried judges appointed before 31 March 1995 will usually be members of this unfunded final salary scheme, created under JPA 1981. Judicial Pension Scheme 1993 (JPS 1993 or JUPRA). Salaried judges appointed between 31 March 1995 and 31 March 2015 will generally be members of this unfunded final salary scheme, established under JPRA 1993. Note that: There is an entitlement to elect to move from JPS 1981 to JUPRA at any point up to six months after retirement. For more information, see Eligibility, below. The Ministry of Justice began an options exercise in October 2023 to...

Ways of providing death-in-service benefits Employers commonly provide their staff with death-in-service benefits (often referred to as 'life assurance' or 'life cover' benefits). This protection is ordinarily limited to employees (hence the term 'death in service', reflecting the label itself), although in certain situations an employer may decide to extend the benefit beyond retirement. Employers can deliver these benefits in three ways: via a dedicated trust-based arrangement that, while registered as a pension scheme for the purposes of Part 4 of the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004), provides only death-in-service benefits—such arrangements are frequently known as 'life cover only schemes', 'death-in-service schemes' or 'standalone life assurance schemes', and no other benefits through a registered pension scheme (usually an occupational pension scheme) in which the death-in-service benefits form part of the broader benefit structure of the scheme as a whole. In this type of arrangement or model, a scheme member may receive: both death benefits (including death-in-service benefits) together with...

Termination payments qualifying for £30,000 exemption As set out in Practice Note: Termination payments qualifying for £30,000 exemption, where a compensation payment for loss of office or employment is made in circumstances where it does not fall to be taxed as: earnings within section 62 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) (see Practice Note: Termination payments taxed as earnings) benefits-in-kind (see Practice Note: How employment income is taxed—non-cash earnings or benefits) benefits from an employer-financed retirement benefits scheme employment-related securities (see: Employment-related securities—overview) disguised remuneration, where termination payments or benefits are provided by a third party (such as an employee benefit trust) rather than the employer (see: Disguised remuneration and EBTs—overview) restrictive undertakings (see Practice Note: Taxation of payments for restrictive covenants or undertakings) and for terminations for loss of office since 6 April 2018...