DC Pension - Transfer to new employer Provider substantial amount

Realcork said:
sorry clubman , maybe im confusing the thread, i was just referring to early retirement rules from a PRSA.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you said that the PA said that once the PRSA is retired then one must be (and remain?) economically inactive. Can anybody confirm or rebut this?
 
ClubMan said:
Yes, but you said that the PA said that once the PRSA is retired then one must be (and remain?) economically inactive. Can anybody confirm or rebut this?
Click to expand...
Sorry clubman for confusion . My understanding is that you musy be economically inactive at the time of early retirement. You don’t have to remain economically inactive
 
Steven Barrett said:
Willis have a market cap of $14.28 billion compared to Mercer who are valued at $552 million. They are a much bigger company than Mercer!!!
Click to expand...

This is not correct. The Willis market cap is as you say. Mercer is an ever increasing part of MMC - especially since it decided to favour asset management over consulting. MMC's market cap is c. $95 billion. Mercer is much bigger company than Willis.
 
Read it again, its specifies “retirement at age 50”. It doesn’t say “from a specific employment” or provide an avenue for any other inference to be made. Retirement is very clear.
 
Smoneen said:
Read it again, its specifies “retirement at age 50”. It doesn’t say “from a specific employment” or provide an avenue for any other inference to be made. Retirement is very clear.
Click to expand...
No it’s not. Retirement is not defined anywhere. You have read it the way you want to read it. Your view is also in clear conflict with other revenue rules
 
Ok…you choose your battle with Revenue so. There have been enough comments here trying to give the correct guidance on the legislation. Its up to you if you choose to interpret it the way you want to.
to me the meaning of retirement is very clear as too is the legislation regarding PRSAs.
You are mentioning a conflict with “revenue rules”. What i think you are drawing comparisons to is the legislation as it applies to occupational pension schemes. A PRSA is not an occupational pension scheme. There are other occupational pension rules which do not apply on PRSAs. Why then would it be the case that the early retirement rules on PRSAs are in conflict when there are a while host of differences between the different arrangements?
 
Unless I have missed an update and I am happy to be corrected on this but show me the published revenue guidance that backs your view? I bet you can’t cause it doesn’t exist.
 
Smoneen said:
Read it again, its specifies “retirement at age 50”. It doesn’t say “from a specific employment” or provide an avenue for any other inference to be made. Retirement is very clear.
Click to expand...
So what do you think happens in the scenario that I asked about earlier? Somebody pulls your ARF/annuity pension income payments if you take up paid work later until you stop working again? That doesn't sound plausible to me.
 
It's not a battle with Revenue. If a PRSA holder shows a P45 from the employment associated with the last contributions to the PRSA, they are able to take benefits once they are 50 years old. They don't have to stop working their current job. There's plenty of people who have done it.
 
Smoneen, You agree that an ops can be retired early. Now consider someone who is a member of an ops and also has a prsa that is used for avcs.

Revenue rules state that all company pensions and avcs from the same source must be retired together. As a result of this the prsa must be retired at the exact same time as the ops. As a result of this I feel you can’t have different meanings for retirement for a prsa and an ops. This is the conflict.
 
Nothing happens.

You can retire from an employment and then use AVCs from this employment to set up an annuity or ARF. At the time of doing this you can remain in a second employment.

While in retirement you can take up a new employment.

You can also claim Jobseekers benefit or Prsi credits if you are unemployed in retirement up to age 66.

You could also be retired and in an employment and also claim Jobseekers benefit if your employment meets the rules for subsidery employment.
 
This is a great debate. Im just out for an hour or so but will come back to you all asap. It all comes down to theory (legislation) and practice (clubmans e.g.). I’ll be back to you all shortly
 
Yes agreed. Good debate and happy to trash it out.

Unfortunately, my view or anyone else’s views won’t matter. different providers have different views so it’s important to choose your provider wisely
 
Thanks @S class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register