Research from the group risk trade body revealed that half of companies plan to take no action and a third are undecided about what to do when the pre A-day rules expire.
This inactivity could leave employers risking potentially huge uninsured liabilities on an employee's death.
Under previous tax rules schemes were subject to the old HMRC limits (e.g. 4 times "salary" for lump sum death benefits).
Additionally, the Earnings Cap (notionally set at £123,600) was introduced in 1989 to set a further limit on the salary that could be used to calculate benefits.
However, on 6 April 2006 (A-day) a single tax regime was introduced to simplify the eight previous ones, with a five year transition period attached.
The research questioned businesses which have maintained the status quo so far, and found that 9.8% will put a salary cap back into their scheme from this April, while a similar 9.2% plan to remove the earnings cap.
But, the body said, these figures are dwarfed by the 47.9% who will take no action, and the 32.1% who are still undecided.
"Within companies that plan to take no action, the percentage gets smaller with larger companies, suggesting that better planning is taking place when companies have a bigger workforce, possibly because these companies can better afford advice.
"This leaves four in five companies either unsure, or taking no action and open to potentially crippling uninsured liabilities," it added.
Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for Grid, was worried by the revelation and very concerned by the potential damage to businesses.
"The research suggests that companies felt like they were able to put off the decision indefinitely, but this is clearly not the case," she said.
"It's crucial for the relevant decision makers within companies to take action before the cut off date. Otherwise, they risk potentially crippling uninsured liabilities on an employee's death as the Earnings Cap is removed and the Lifetime Allowance of £1.8 million generally comes into play as the amount that will be applied as the maximum lump sum payable on an employee's death in service.
"The potential uninsured liabilities for dependants' death in service pensions are even greater as they fall outside of the Lifetime Allowance and thus will be completely unconstrained unless action is taken. Group Risk specialists can advise on the best action to take in time for the deadline," she added.
As reported by COVER, Canada Life began the effort to draw scheme trustees' attention to the problem earlier this week.
Advertisment
Stay up to date with all the latest news, product development and changes happening within the protection and health insurance market.
All of the latest news and features on all aspects of the protection and health insurance market are available from our print edition.
Advertisment
On Air Studio, 32-34 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 8JB
Visitor Comment
Add your comment
Add your comment
Insurance Companies Poor Support
This has been an issue for employers for the best part of five years. As advisers (especially of smaller IFA's) we look to Insurance companies to flag up any potential pitfalls such as the earnings cap scenario. Sadly it would appear the technical resources that Group Risk Insureres offfer is insufficient to meet advisers or their clients needs. There are two providers who come out of this fiasco with a modicum of respect. The support from the likes of Metlife, however, has been woefully inadequate.
Posted by: sanjay.merchant | Mar 31 2011
Add your comment