# Old aged pension for self employed 54 year old



## Susie2017 (23 Apr 2021)

A self employed 54 yr old business man has paid PRSI continuously since 1987/88 as follows;
5 years 52  K1
3 years  52 J1
1 year  52 J0
3 years  52 J
4  years  52 M
1 year 52 A
2 years 52 M
3 years M and S, these are listed as 104 M, 52 S for two of those years, not sure why. 
12 years x 52 S
So the DSP has stated he has 16 years reckonable paid contributions of 52 weeks each year. If he works 10 more years and retires at 65 he will have 26 years reckonable. Will he get a full contributory pension ? I think not but would ask the advice of experts on here. His accountant was entrusted with prsi deductions. Is there any way to improve his situation ? Any help appreciated.


----------



## Shirazman (23 Apr 2021)

My understanding is that, as things stand, he'd get 65% of the full OAP on the basis of 26 years' reckonable contributions; the calculation being:
26/40 = 0.65

Currently, the State Contrib OAP is paid from age 66 (this was meant to increase to 67 this year, but the government funked it when FF, SF and  some other parties kicked up a fuss).    So if we assume that it remains at 66 for the next decade then rather than retiring at 65 he could work for another year or he could apply to pay voluntary PRSI, either option would bring him up to 27/40 = 67.5% of the full pension. 

Do you believe that his accountant may have made mistakes in the past regarding his PRSI class?   (For example, if he was self-employed throughout, then it's hard to understand why he paid Class A PRSI in one of those years).      If so, then he would need to contact SCOPE section of the DSW and make a case to them to have each year re-examined.    I have no idea how this works, maybe Citizens Information could help.


----------



## Early Riser (23 Apr 2021)

Shirazman said:


> My understanding is that, as things stand, he'd get 65% of the full OAP on the basis of 26 years' reckonable contributions; the calculation being:
> 26/40 = 0.65


 Not quite. 
As things stand, his eligibility would be assessed using both the Total Contributions Approach (as you have outlined) and the Averaging Approach. He would be awarded the pension based on whichever was the more favourable. I reckon he would do better on the Averaging Approach. However, whether this option will still be there in 10 years time is another matter. It was meant to be phased out before now but still remains. Either way, it is unlikely that he will qualify for the full pension rate.

The current dual system (and how to calculate what would be payable under the Averaging Approach) is outlined here: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/...etired_people/state_pension_contributory.html


----------



## Susie2017 (23 Apr 2021)

Thank you. It's hard to understand why the accountant kept changing his PRSI rates. There was no apparent reason to do so. He was working for the family business from the start. Can anyone shed light on the SCOPE system. Is it an appeals mechanism ? How does he get advise on this ?


----------



## Shirazman (24 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> Thank you. It's hard to understand why the accountant kept changing his PRSI rates. There was no apparent reason to do so. He was working for the family business from the start. Can anyone shed light on the SCOPE system. Is it an appeals mechanism ? How does he get advise on this ?



My view - as an outsider, knowing only what you have posted in this thread.

Presumably he's been paying his accountant to file correct tax (and PRSI) returns for him for the past 34 years, so maybe start by asking the accountant to explain  - in writing - the various PRSI classes that he has been categorised under over the years, given that he believes that his employment category hasn't ever changed.  (send the accountant a copy of the PRSI record received from Social Welfare).   

Then, if the accountant can't provide a good reason for the various changes in Class, then it's likely that he (or whatever junior employee did the donkey work) may have made a dog's dinner of the PRSI returns!   That being the case, the accountant should be firmly instructed to take whatevers steps are necessary to rectify the mistake.      (Note however that if his recorded earnings "through the books" were very low in some years, then he may have correctly been returned as being in another PRSI category - so if there was a 'cash in hand' policy in the family firm, then it may have come back to haunt him!)

In passing I note that you wrote " He was working for the family business from the start"  which suggests that he may have been classed as an employee rather than self-employed for some of that time.     You/he needs to be quite clear as to what his employment status was for each of the years for which Class S PRSI wasn't paid.  

Finally, please note that I'm emphatically *not* a PRSI expert but I believe that I have a reasonable understanding of the system.


----------



## Cervelo (24 Apr 2021)

Shirazman said:


> Then, if the accountant can't provide a good reason for the various changes in Class, then it's likely that he (or whatever junior employee did the donkey work) may have made a dog's dinner of the PRSI returns!


It's a long time since I've had anything to do with payroll but I seem to remember in the 80's and 90's and IIRC back then certain employees namely directors had a choice as to which PRSI class they wanted to pay and not all classes had the same benefits
I know when I was made a director in 92 of the family business the accountants advised us to keep paying PRSI at the standard rate simply because of the entitlement to the OAP


----------



## Susie2017 (24 Apr 2021)

This gentleman has been running the business for 20 years now, particularly since the development of his fathers final illness which meant he could no longer do it. His mother is 86 and despite the fact that her now ddeceased husband ran a successful business as well as a farm she never received an old aged pension. The 54 year old is paying her the amount of the old aged pension for her keep. The same family accountant has done accounts for as long as the 54 year old son can remember. Yes I suppose he was an employee of his fathers for some years but he was on the books and surely that meant his PRSI contributions should have been paid in such a manner to credit him for the state pension. He will write to the accountant to see what has happened.


----------



## Susie2017 (24 Apr 2021)

Is it possible to rectify mistakes at this point in time ? Anyone any experience of this predicament ?


----------



## Shirazman (24 Apr 2021)

Why not have a look at *this link* - in particular the references to "family employment" and "prescribed relatives" and the section regarding "_*Family Employments that Are Not Covered for Social Insurance (PRSI)*_".    As you will see, it's a complex area.


----------



## Clamball (24 Apr 2021)

It may be the case that his mother is entitled to a non contributory old age pension but that is assessed on  her means, which may not entitle her to any if she still owns the farm and or the business.  

My dad was not entitled to the OAP either because he was a farmer and still had means.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (24 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> He was working for the family business from the start.


Could you give us more of an idea about the nature of business and his employment patterns?

It seems odd that he paid so many PRSI classes.

Class J seems to be for people with income <€38 a week.


----------



## Susie2017 (24 Apr 2021)

I cant give anymore detail to preserve confidentiality. I see class M is for people under the age if 16  even though he was much older than that when the accountant used this rate. His income exceeded the minimum wage at all times. Will need to look back to see exactly what he earned. There seems to be no logic to the changing between rates. A dogs dinner sounds about right. But is there any angle of recourse. Can you report your accountant to a professional body ? In relation to his mother she does not own the farm. She got no old age pension. The farm was divided between two other sons. Incidentally I have two aunts who both got state pensions ? Non contributory even though they were farmers wives who never worked outside the farm/ home setting. How did they manage to get them but yet this gentleman's did not ?


----------



## Shirazman (25 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> I cant give anymore detail to preserve confidentiality. I see class M is for people under the age if 16  even though he was much older than that when the accountant used this rate. His income exceeded the minimum wage at all times.



I think that the conditions for some PRSI Classes including M may have changed over the years.    (My missus paid at Class M for a number of years when her only income came from correcting Leaving Cert scripts - and she was well over the age of 16!)  



Susie2017 said:


> There seems to be no logic to the changing between rates. A dogs dinner sounds about right.


Agreed - but before condemning the accountant, we need to know all of the facts.



Susie2017 said:


> But is there any angle of recourse. Can you report your accountant to a professional body ?


Yes - but it's the nuclear option!     First establish the facts and then decide on what action is required.  



Susie2017 said:


> In relation to his mother she does not own the farm. She got no old age pension. The farm was divided between two other sons. Incidentally I have two aunts who both got state pensions ? Non contributory even though they were farmers wives who never worked outside the farm/ home setting. How did they manage to get them but yet this gentleman's did not ?



To answer that in respect of an 86 year old woman, I'd need to know the conditions that applied to the State Contributory and non-Contributory Pensions from 21 years ago, as well as the eligibility criteria that applied to the widow's pension (if she applied for one) whenever  her spouse died.    I'd also need to know what means information she provided and what reasons the DSW gave for not awarding her a pension.
Did her spouse get the Contributory OAP?   Did he apply for the Qualified Adult payment?  If not, why not?   And so on. 

In short, you can't expect comprehensive answers without providing comprehensive information.

As for the other two ladies, that's a red herring, but presumably the means information that they provided in their applications to DSW meant that they satisfied the criteria for the payment of the N-C pension.   

The 86 year old could, if she wishes, make an FoI application to the Department for a copy of the file dealing with her pension application file (or files, if she also applied for the widow's), which she or you could study at your leisure.


----------



## Early Riser (25 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> I see class M is for people under the age if 16



That is not quite right. Class M applies to *"*_People with no contribution liability_* such as: *_employees under age 16,................."_

As has already been suggested by Shirazman, your first port of call would seem to be a conversation with the Accountant to establish why the different PRSI categories were applied at different times. Show him a copy of the PRSI record with the different categories and ask for an explanation. 
If the DEASP record does not correspond to the deductions and submissions made by the Accountant then you can appeal to the DEASP. If they do correspond then it is up to the Accountant to explain how/why these categories were applied. It may all be perfectly legitimate. However, there may also have been some "creative accounting" in past years. Apart from incorrect PRSI deductions, this may also raise questions about tax deductions. This issue may rest with the Accountant, the family business, or both. When you pull at this string it could possibly lead in unforeseen directions.  

In any event, it would seem premature to look at "reporting the accountant to the professional body" until you establish the basic facts.

In the event that you cannot resolve matters via the Accountant and/or the PRSI records office, there is an outline of the function and operation of the DEASP Scope section here: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/25300e-operational-guidelines-scope-insurability-of-employment/


----------



## Susie2017 (25 Apr 2021)

Ok. Thank you for all the advice. He has written to the accountant and I will update with further information if it is provided. It would seem from the last link that a lot hinges on contracts of employment. This gentleman would have had no written contract. It was just understood that he was taking over the family business in the future so he I did not work outside of that role since leaving school. The accountant was entrusted with all tax matters.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (26 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> 3 years 52 J
> 4 years 52 M


I don't know the full historical situation but on the basis of today's eligibility it's hard to know why an adult was paying J and M PRSI.



Susie2017 said:


> It's hard to understand why the accountant kept changing his PRSI rates.



Was it literally the same accountant in ever single tax year since 1987?



Susie2017 said:


> This gentleman has been running the business for 20 years now


But what was he doing before that? It's very hard to give advice if we don't know the nature of the man's employment. Was he doing other work on his own account? Did he ever have other employment, etc? 



Susie2017 said:


> His income exceeded the minimum wage at all times.



There was no minimum wage before 2000.

Anyway you've made several posts but the key details are to me quite vague. In general you would have to provide a lot more detail about the nature of the man's employment and who he was working for. It appears to be some kind of family arrangement involving faming. There is a lot more you can tell us without in any way making this man identifiable.

As a general rule I would take @Early Riser 's point that there may have been some creative accounting in the past to reduce this man's or his employer's tax or PRSI liability. Think very carefully before unpicking this knot as it might not have the outcome you would like. No one official is going to look into events of 10+ years ago unless you go asking them too.


----------



## Susie2017 (26 Apr 2021)

He did no farming whatsoever. I'm not sure what creative accounting is but the number of prsi classes used is very odd. He is awaiting feedback from the accountant.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (26 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> I'm not sure what creative accounting is but the number of prsi classes used is very odd.


What could have happened is that he his income was under-declared, or the nature of his work was not correctly reported. This could have happened without his knowledge.

I don't know the historical rules for Class J, but it seems to be for people earning below €38 a week, or people with another job . You say he never earned that little, and if he'd had another job he would have had Class A payments, and he only has one year of those.

So for the Class J years he either:

Earned an extremely low wage in the family business and was correctly classified as Class J;
Had another job which didn't report him for PRSI, while working part-time for the family business which correctly classified him as Class J;
Earned a normal wage in the family business and was reported as earning very little to minimise his and the family business's tax and PRSI liability;
It if it's 3 you will want to be very careful.


----------



## Susie2017 (26 Apr 2021)

He was an employee of the family business, on at least 100 pounds a week since 1990 as he recalls. All his income was documented with the accountant for tax purposes. He received his income via business cheques signed by his father the stubbs of which were all returned yearly to the accountant, together with other business related outlays.  To clarify there was no other employment whatsoever during all those years. and yes the accountant is the same one during all this time. There would be a tax record on all of his income with revenue. Is there anyone he could go to to get an independent opinion on the overall situation ? His accountants verbal reply to date is 'sure you will have a business to sell when you retire if you ever need money'. Not good enough, in my view.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (26 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> All his income was documented with the accountant for tax purposes.


Was this the business's accountant? His own accountant? Both?




Susie2017 said:


> He was an employee, on at least 100 pounds a week since 1990 as he recalls.



Well then his employer should have given him a P60 every year stating how much his pay was for PRSI purposes and what PRSI class he was paying.

If he ever got them, he should look back through his old P60s.


----------



## Shirazman (26 Apr 2021)

From what you've written it seems evident that there has been some uncertainty about your father's employment status over the years.   
Initially, you referred to him as "self-employed", but have gone on to say that he was "working for the family business" and you later mention that he was "employed there".     All of these things have different meanings when it comes to PRSI Classes, so you/he need to establish his exact employment situation for each of the years.    It's fair to assume that from his perspective he wouldn't have been aware of the significance of that which is why his professional adviser must be asked to clarify the situation, year by year. 

So instead of asking who else can help, you first need to tackle the source of the information that was filed with the Revenue Commissioners and Social Welfare over the past 34 years - and that's the accountant.    I appreciate that this may require a difficult conversation - or a solicitor's letter! - but it must be done.    Because until that has been clarified, you're not even at the start line so cannot take any steps towards addressing the situation.


----------



## Susie2017 (26 Apr 2021)

Apologies. Initially he was employed by his father, who subsequently became ill and then he took over the running of the business and so is now deemed self employed. As I stated at no stage did he work other than for the family business.  The family accountant has been asked to provide the rationale for the PRSI payments. He has obtained advice today from a friend ( another accountant ) and he has told him to make an appointment to discuss the issue at his local social welfare office to back remedy the contributions, ie request to change them to A on the basis that the family accountant was incorrect. This will mean back calculating the payments for 18 years (1987-2005, excluding 2003, which was paid as A). His friend indicates that the rate paid should have been A. Depending on his income this could be costly but the figure won’t be clear until the income is examined.


----------



## bstop (26 Apr 2021)

If a family member is employed as an employee by a 'prescribed relative' and the family employment relates to a private dwelling house or a farm in or on which both they and the employer reside then that family member has a nil liabllity for PRSI.

A 'Prescribed relative' is a parent, grandparent, stepparent, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, stepson, stepdaughter, brother, sister, half-brother, or half-sister.

PRSI Class M is used to record situations in which there is a nil contribution liability.

The 54 year old business man was probably returned as a person who worked on duties relating to the home or farm. This would account for the Class M contributions.


----------



## Susie2017 (27 Apr 2021)

Agree entirely. That will be the focus of his claim. Much like a publican living over a bar his business was not conducted in the home.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (27 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> Depending on his income this could be costly but the figure won’t be clear until the income is examined.


You do realise that there will be an income tax liability too if there is a PRSI one?

Look, a full state pension is very valuable, and I'm just a stranger on the internet.

But what it looks like here is two decades of  misreporting of this man's income to the Revenue on a big scale.

Look into this carefully and take your time. There is no rush. Talk to DSP in the abstract about how they deal with misrecorded PRSI records and what evidence is needed to rectify. Act only when you think that the benefit of getting back contributions rectified is worth the risk of Revenue getting involved, including the risk to the assets of the business.


----------



## Susie2017 (27 Apr 2021)

I am assuming that income tax was paid at the correct rate during this period. It would be at the lower rate as his father was in charge of the business. But that remains to be clarified by his accountant.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (27 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> I am assuming that income tax was paid at the correct rate during this period.


Why would you assume this?


----------



## Shirazman (27 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> Apologies. Initially he was employed by his father, who subsequently became ill and then he took over the running of the business and so is now deemed self employed. As I stated at no stage did he work other than for the family business.  The family accountant has been asked to provide the rationale for the PRSI payments. He has obtained advice today from a friend ( another accountant ) and he has told him to make an appointment to discuss the issue at his local social welfare office to back remedy the contributions, ie request to change them to A on the basis that the family accountant was incorrect. This will mean back calculating the payments for 18 years (1987-2005, excluding 2003, which was paid as A). His friend indicates that the rate paid should have been A. Depending on his income this could be costly but the figure won’t be clear until the income is examined.



Assuming that the PRSI Classes listed in your opening post are in chronological order then it appears that he has been returned at Class S for the past 15 years - which is good!

As regards the earlier years, if he decides that he wants to be re-classified as a Class A PRSI payer, then some issues may arise for the business:-

Were P35 Forms (annual return for employees) ever filed with the Collector General?  If not, they may need to be (up to when he started to pay Class S PRSI) and there are penalties for late filing of this form.

Also, given that the business didn't treat him as a Class A employee, then it would be liable to pay the employer's Class A PRSI contribution for each year involved.    So the annual accounts might need to be revised. 

Some things to think about before kicking that sleeping dog - perhaps it would be wiser to leave it lying peacefully in its basket!


----------



## Susie2017 (27 Apr 2021)

Thank you. I will try to establish about the p35 forms. I assume they were, but I don't know. He was an employee of the business and received a wage, but does not recall getting payslips. An accountant did all the books. I think some of the posters might think it was a cash business and that no taxes were declared. The father was regimental about the visit to the accountant and supplied him with all the business related income and expenditure including wages. There were no other employees in this business only himself and his Dad. His Dad was also a farmer and had two other sons who helped with the farm and continue to farm after the fathers passing. Thats about all I know. Hopefully more detail will follow.


----------



## RedOnion (27 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> His mother is 86 and despite the fact that her now ddeceased husband ran a successful business as well as a farm she never received an old aged pension. The 54 year old is paying her the amount of the old aged pension for her keep.





Susie2017 said:


> In relation to his mother she does not own the farm. She got no old age pension.


Not related to the original PRSI question, but this doesn't really make sense. If the mother has no beneficial interest in either the farm or the business, which appear to have been split among 3 sons, then she should be eligible for non contributory pension (unless she has other assets).
Are you sure she's not a 'partner' in one of the enterprises for tax purposes? At the very least, the person giving her money should have structured it as a deed of covenant for tax relief.

Is this the same accountant that was involved in your previous thread about pensions?


----------



## Susie2017 (27 Apr 2021)

Yes it is the same accountant. As I said she is still receiving a wage from her son of about 12k a year to my knowledge (she didn't qualify for the OAP). However since the death of her husband around 6 years back she is getting a widows pension. Whether she was previously paid a wage from her husbands business while he was alive I am unsure. I am also not sure if she was deemed a partner in the business when her husband was alive. I just thought it was odd that she got no OAP, when I was aware other farmers wives had managed to qualify. I thought it was strange that a family accountant would not have made sure she would get that given that he was being paid a fair amount annually to deal with the tax affairs of the business. Her husbands final illness was over a period of 15 years so there was ample time to plan. Is there an amount limit on a deed of covenant ?


----------



## RedOnion (27 Apr 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> I just thought it was odd that she got no OAP,


The widows pension probably works out more in her circumstances. It's either or, you can't get both.



Susie2017 said:


> I thought it was strange that a family accountant would not have made sure she would get that


Not that unusual. PRSI for self employed only cane in during the late 80's. My parents were farmers, and I know my mam insisted on paying PRSI for herself, but the accountant was advising against it. It's paid off for her now, but it'd be very mixed among the farming population of that age.



Susie2017 said:


> Yes it is the same accountant.


As I said in the other thread, get a new accountant.


----------



## Susie2017 (7 May 2021)

Ok, just to update. The accountant has replied in writing but regretfully has not set out his rationale for EACH year of the PRSI contributions (which was requested by my friend) as I outlined in the opening post. Instead he states; ’under the social welfare act, your employment with your father up to 2005 was deemed to be an excepted employment under paragraph 3, Part 2 Accepted Employment First Schedule of SW Consolidated Act 2005. Consequently you were not deemed to be insurance under the Act‘. He has looked at the Act and it relates to ‘employment in the common home’ etc. However his employment related activities were NOT carried out in the home. Instead there were two separate workshops on the farm where he did preparatory work for the business. The rest of the work was entirely offsite, involving driving and time spent on other public premises, including clients homes and in their business premises on the town main street. The accountant states ‘in 2005 it was decided following discussion with your father that the best arrangement was to enter into a partnership so as to allow you make full class S contributions’. As I outlined above his PRSI classes are all over the place including one year of A contributions in a year prior to 2005, which perhaps could have been applied in other years? . The nature of the employment never changed. It looks like the accountant has not classified him correctly during the years from 1987-2004. He is also using the 2005 Act to cover the years before that - is that correct, whilst stating incorrectly that his work was in the home, which it was not. He also states that he will get 73% of the OAP based on a current eligible retirement date of 2033. By the calculations done earlier here that would appear to be an overestimate. He plans to write back to outline these concerns. Any thoughts ?


----------



## Clamball (8 May 2021)

It sounds as if the accountant and the father discussed and agreed different scenarios over the years about the son, the employee, to best avail of the tax situation at the time.   The son and you are stuck in a rut of blaming the accountant for all the issues but the reality was he probably gave the father different options and the father made choices on which option lead him to pay the least tax.  Revenue did not seem to have any issues so the choices were probably the norm and within the guidelines for the time.

As several posters have pointed out if the son wishes to go back and change his class then the business accounts may need to be revisited for each of those years and the tax due recalculated.  If the 53 yr old wants to do that then get a new accountant and all the tax records that are still available.  He will probably pay revenue a lot of money for the exercise and pay his new accountant.  But that is a choice he is free to make.  He is probably better off using his money to make a pension plan for himself to ensure his own retirement.  But that is another choice he can make.

With only knowing what you have posted here and without all the details I still think you and the son need to stop obsessing over the accountant and move to planning for the future.  Put the past behind and move on.


----------



## Susie2017 (8 May 2021)

Easy to say. That let's the accountant off the hook. The father would not have been an educated man. He relied on the accountant for correct decision making. There was more than sufficient income to pay prsi. Their business was profitable. Other posters have pointed out that the prsi paid was a 'dog's dinner'. There is money within the business to back pay corrected prsi. It makes no sense when the individual was in the same job, over the age of 16 and on more than 38 euro a week to pay J and M. Why do you say more income tax would be due when income tax was paid already ?


----------



## RedOnion (8 May 2021)

@Clamball
Brilliant summary.

@Susie2017
Theres really not enough facts for anyone to advise.

We were told the son has been running the business for 20 years, yet it was the father discussing with the accountant in 2005? Why hadn't the son taken over the relationship?
When you now say there's enough money 'in the business' does that mean there's a limited company set up, rather than a sole trader? That would completely change things.

It's plausible that Class J might have been a valid option with family employment, depending on the circumstances.

The usual instruction to accountants, particularly in the earlier years we're talking about here, was to minimise tax / PRSI. The benefits for each class have changed over the period you're talking about here, so it might look like bad choices we're made looking back, but that doesn't mean they were wrong at the time.

If you want it examined, take all the factual information to another accountant,  and pay them to review it. You'll need to be clear on whether they were an employee or not, if there was a company,  exactly how much income they had each year, which class they paid for each year etc etc. None of this is clear to me reading the thread.


----------



## Susie2017 (8 May 2021)

He was employed by his father til 2005. Then self employed. Then started LTD co to manage the business in 2013. Why is accountant referring to 2005 Act, when the period in question is prior ?


----------



## RedOnion (8 May 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> Why is accountant referring to 2005 Act, when the period in question is prior ?


The 2005 Act was primarily a tidy up (a 'Consolidation' believe it or not!) of all the pre-existing legislation.  You could go back to all the legislation in effect at the time, and you'll find the same thing.

I'm assuming prior to 2005 the 'business' and the farm were all run as a single enterprise by the father?


----------



## Cervelo (8 May 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> Why do you say more income tax would be due when income tax was paid already ?


I would presume if as you say the son was paying the wrong rate of PRSI well then the father was also paying the wrong rate of Employers PRSI for the son as well


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 May 2021)

Susie2017 said:


> That let's the accountant off the hook. The father would not have been an educated man. He relied on the accountant for correct decision making.


If he wasn't sure he could always have sought separate professional advice.


Others have given good advice on this thread. This looks very like a tax minimisation strategy by the man's father in the past that hasn't worked out too well for the friend.


So I think your friend should look forward and not back. There might be ways for him to maximise a private pension going forward so head over to the money makeover forum. That would be a better use for his wealth than going down this rabbit hole.


----------



## Susie2017 (8 May 2021)

Ok. He will get another accountants opinion. Practically speaking is it difficult to check the rate of employers prsi that was paid by his father, given that he is now deceased. I take what you are saying about the self funded pension on board but he is very disappointed about the situation.


----------

