Understanding the exemption of legacy policies in the new pension system
Any policy in respect of a retirement annuity plan entered into before 1 September 2024 - is exempted from the two-component benefit system.
Members of pension funds must understand the implications of the new two-component retirement system and how legacy policies are exempted from it, following a recent ruling by the Pension Funds Adjudicator.
Any policy in respect of a retirement annuity plan entered into before 1 September 2024 - is exempted from the two-component benefit system.
The two-component pension system, implemented on 1 September 2024, splits retirement fund contributions into a "Savings Component" and a "Retirement Component". One-third of contributions goes to the Savings Component, which allows members to withdraw funds before retirement, while the remaining two-thirds go to the Retirement Component, which must be used to purchase a retirement income product.
Muvhango Lukhaimane, the Pension Funds Adjudicator, recently ruled on a complaint received from a fund member, who was aggrieved that the South African Retirement Annuity Fund denied him his right to withdraw from his savings component.
The complainant's policy commenced on February 1, 1998, with a contractual retirement option date of February 1, 2028. The complainant had a fund credit of R63 134.74 on June 15, 2024. The fund submitted the Income Tax Act (ITA) provides for the exclusion of legacy policies, defined as pre-universal life and universal life policies. It indicated that the complainant's policy fell under this category and was, therefore, excluded from the new two-component retirement system.
In compliance with the rules of the Financial Services Conduct Authority, the fund amended its rules to provide that the relevant elements of the two-component system would not apply to legacy retirement annuity policies.
The fund submitted that the complainant had an option to transfer his current policy to a two-component compliant retirement annuity to benefit from the new system. The deadline for this transfer was August 1, 2024, and the fund did not receive a transfer request within this period. The fund indicated that the complainant may transfer this contract to a compliant retirement annuity.
However, he would need to reinstate the premiums to start accumulating value in the savings component going forward to exercise a savings withdrawal in terms of the two-component retirement system.
In her determination, Lukhaimane said it was clear from the fund's submissions that the complainant's policy was exempted from the two-component retirement system in terms of section 1 of the ITA and the fund rules.
She said she was satisfied the fund acted lawfully in terms of its rules, the ITA and the policy contract in refusing to pay the complainant the withdrawal he requests. The complaint was dismissed.
The Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator is a statutory body established to resolve disputes in a procedurally fair, economical, and expeditious manner. The adjudicator's office investigates and determines complaints of abuse of power, maladministration, disputes of fact or law and employer dereliction of duty in respect of pension funds.
THE POST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
4 days ago
- IOL News
Navigating spousal status and marital regimes for better financial planning
Explore the critical aspects of spousal status and marital regimes in South Africa, and learn how these factors influence your financial and estate planning decisions. Determining whether a person is married for legal purposes and tax purposes is paramount in their financial or estate planning journey. Of further importance is whether a marriage is in or out of the community of property. The proprietary ownership of assets in marriages in South Africa is governed by the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. The Act requires that people who wish to marry need to decide, before their marriage, whether they wish to enter into an ante-nuptial contract or not. In financial planning and estate planning, there are certain benefits that come with being a spouse, and because of this, the definition of 'spouse' is important. These benefits include: · Bequests (in terms of a will) to a spouse are free from estate duty in terms of the Estate Duty Act · Transfers of assets between spouses are free of capital gains tax in terms of the Income Tax Act · Donations to a spouse are free from donations tax in terms of the Income Tax Act. · Transfers of property between spouses are free from Transfer Duty With so many blurred areas on what exactly defines a spouse, let us have a look at what qualifies one as a spouse, specifically in the context of income tax, capital gains tax, estate duty, transfer duty, and donations tax. The following people are considered to be spouses: A partner in a marriage or customary union recognised in terms of South African law. A partner in a union recognised as a marriage in accordance with the requirements or practices of any religion. A partner in a same-sex or heterosexual union, which the Commissioner is satisfied is intended to be permanent. Partners, therefore, do not have to be married to enjoy the tax benefits of married spouses. There are, however, certain instances where these partners will not automatically benefit from the same protection that a married spouse has, for example, on death if there is no will. There are three marital regimes in the Matrimonial Property Act: Marriages without an antenuptial contract, called in community of property marriages Marriages with an ante-nuptial contract, with accrual Marriages with an antenuptial contract. without accrual Marriage in community of property A marriage is in community of property if no antenuptial contract is entered into by the spouses before marriage. On the date of marriage, the spouses' assets and liabilities are joined into one estate, with each spouse having an equal 50% claim to it. All assets and liabilities accumulated during the marriage will form part of the joint estate in the future and are shared equally between the spouses when the marriage ends, either at death or in divorce. Each spouse owns half of the joint estate, irrespective of how much they had at the beginning of the marriage or how much they each added during the marriage. On the first death, only half of the joint estate will be subject to estate duty. Any amount bequeathed to (left to) the surviving spouse is not subject to estate duty, and that spouse benefits from any unused estate allowance when they pass away. The full estate is subject to the executor's fees. Gifts or inheritances that are specifically stipulated to be excluded from the community of property estate do not form part of the joint estate. This is for example, if a spouse inherits a property, the other spouse will not be able to benefit from it at divorce, as it does not form part of the joint estate. The law also states that spouses married in community of property may not perform certain juristic acts without consent from both spouses. For example, one spouse cannot take on debt without the other's consent, as it affects their joint estate. Where this becomes important is when one spouse is sequestrated or becomes insolvent, the other immediately becomes sequestrated as well, and their joint estate becomes insolvent. If one spouse wants to set up a business when they get married, it might be prudent to set up an antenuptial contract when they get married to protect the other spouse's assets if the business fails. Marriage out of community of property The accrual system automatically applies to a marriage out of community of property after 1 November 1984 with an Ante Nuptial Contract (ANC). It can be excluded in terms of the antenuptial contract signed before the marriage. It is a document drawn up and signed in front of a notary public (such as an attorney) and is registered at the Deeds Office. A post-nuptial agreement can be entered into during the marriage, but there has to be a valid reason for this, and the application must be made to the High Court, showing that no creditors will be harmed or disadvantaged by this agreement. It is a costly application, and it is therefore easier to set it up from the start. Where there is an out-of-community property accrual system, each spouse's estate remains separate and will not require the other spouse's consent for transactions. When the marriage ends through death or divorce, the wealth acquired by the two spouses during the marriage is shared equally between the spouses. The additional value that each spouse brought into the marriage is considered, and the difference between the value gains is split so that each person's estate after marriage becomes equal. This way, a spouse who did not work and whose investments didn't grow as much will benefit from the other spouse's assets as an equal partner and is not left destitute when the marriage ends. The accrual claim by the surviving spouse reduces the value of the deceased's estate for Estate Duty purposes. If the antenuptial contract excludes accrual, there is no accrual claim. However, this is far less clear-cut these days as there are fairness issues that have come before the Constitutional Court. Amendments to the law might shortly be made to provide a sharing regime to spouses who had uneven bargaining power in marriage. Before getting married, it is essential to understand the legal and financial implications of the different marital regimes available in South Africa. The choice you make will significantly impact your future financial well-being, asset protection, and estate planning. Always consult a qualified financial adviser before entering into marriage to ensure your financial plan is aligned with your personal circumstances and goals. * Nxumalo is a financial planner at Alexforbes. PERSONAL FINANCE
IOL News
11-05-2025
- IOL News
Pension funds must comply with PFA information requests, says Muvhango Lukhaimane
The Pension Funds Adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane, asserts that pension funds must provide requested information without beneficiary consent, clarifying the PFA's authority under the Protection of Personal Information Act. A pension fund is obliged to provide the Pension Funds Adjudicator (PFA) with requested information without obtaining consent from beneficiaries, says Muvhango Lukhaimane, the PFA. According to Lukhaimane, funds cannot use the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) as an excuse to withhold information from the PFA. She says that as a public body, as defined in the Act, the PFA has the right to access personal information when performing its duties. This came to light in a recent determination, where Lukhaimane made it clear that the PFA falls within the definition of a tribunal under POPIA and is permitted to collect personal information when necessary for its investigations. The issue arose when a fund initially refused to provide its investigation report to the PFA, citing the need to protect beneficiaries' personal details. Only after being reminded that POPIA allows the PFA to process personal information in the exercise of its powers and duties, did the fund comply with the request. Lukhaimane clarified that, in matters involving death benefits, the PFA's role is to assess whether the board acted rationally, reasonably, and within the law. 'Therefore, a fund cannot hide behind POPIA and bears the onus of demonstrating that it has conducted a proper investigation per section 37C,' she says. The Financial Services Tribunal further reinforced this point, stating that the PFA should insist on investigation reports to confirm that funds have provided sufficient information to justify their allocations. A recent complaint brought before the PFA highlighted the consequences of inadequate investigations. The case involved the Eskom Pension and Provident Fund, which was tasked with allocating a lump sum death benefit of R560,160 following the passing of a pension fund member. The board distributed the benefit among the deceased's customary spouse, life partner, and children, but Lukhaimane was not satisfied that a thorough investigation had been conducted to justify the final distribution. She ruled that the fund had a duty to actively investigate the extent of each beneficiary's financial dependency on the deceased to ensure an equitable allocation. The deceased had nominated his customary spouse to receive 80% of the benefit, with 10% allocated to his life partner and the remainder to two of his children. However, the actual allocation deviated significantly from his wishes: 28% was allocated to his customary spouse 28% to his life partner Two percent each to five major children 30% to a minor child Two percent each to two other minor children The fund justified its decision by arguing that the life partner qualified as the deceased's factual dependant, given that she was 50 years old, unemployed, and had no immediate income prospects. However, Lukhaimane found that the board had failed to give sufficient weight to the beneficiary nomination form, which must be a substantial factor in any decision on death benefits. Lukhaimane stressed that the law recognises three categories of dependants: Legal dependants – Those for whom the deceased had a legal duty of support, such as spouses and children. Factual dependants – Individuals who relied on the deceased for financial support, but for whom there was no legal obligation. Future dependants – Those who could have become financially reliant on the deceased over time. While qualifying as a legal or factual dependant does not automatically entitle someone to a portion of the benefit, the determining factor remains financial dependency. Lukhaimane says dependants must not be left destitute by the death of the deceased, which places an obligation on the funds to actively investigate the financial circumstances of each beneficiary. 'There must be a good reason for a fund not to give effect to a nomination, to justify its decision to deviate from the wishes of the deceased,' she ruled. She also criticised the Eskom Pension and Provident Fund for failing to gather adequate proof of dependency, stating: 'The fund indicated that the complainant and the deceased's major children failed to provide proof of the extent of their financial dependency on the deceased. However, there is a duty on the fund to actively investigate this before making an allocation.' In this case, the board's decision was set aside, reinforcing the importance of transparent and fair decision-making in pension funds. Ultimately, she says pension funds have a duty to ensure that dependants receive what they are entitled to, not through assumption or incomplete investigations, but through rigorous and well-documented financial assessments. PERSONAL FINANCE
The Citizen
11-05-2025
- The Citizen
New shoes for 203 pupils at Fairbreeze Secondary
New shoes for 203 pupils at Fairbreeze Secondary Fairbreeze Secondary School in Tongaat was among the beneficiaries of a recent donation drive by a local hospitality group. Sibaya Sun International handed over 203 new pairs of school shoes, valued at R63 000, to pupils in need. This donation forms part of the company's ongoing commitment to support the community, particularly after the devastation caused by last year's tornado, which destroyed homes in the area. 'We hope this donation will improve these learners' self-image and dignity,' said Sibaya general manager Virath Gobrie. The group has donated nearly R3.5-million towards education as part of its ongoing initiative to improve the lives of schoolchildren across South Africa. Stay in the loop with The North Coast Courier on Facebook, X, Instagram & YouTube for the latest news. Mobile users can join our WhatsApp Broadcast Service here or if you're on desktop, scan the QR code below. At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
