logo
This £1 pension trick could save you thousands in emergency tax

This £1 pension trick could save you thousands in emergency tax

Telegraph13-05-2025

During the first three months of 2025, over-55s have been forced to reclaim a staggering £44m in overpaid tax on their pension withdrawals, with more than 15,000 pension savers submitting claims to HMRC worth an average of £2,881.
The emergency tax had been charged on certain flexible pension withdrawals, often landing savers with an unexpected charge that can take months to get back.
In some cases, savers needed to reclaim much more. A Freedom of Information request from Royal London last year found that in the 2022-23 tax year there were 2,300 claims worth more than £10,000.
No one wants to be needlessly out of pocket, but by taking advantage of the so-called '£1 HMRC pension trick', it might be possible to avoid the hassle of a hefty emergency tax bill.
Here, Telegraph Money explains what you need to know about emergency tax on pension withdrawals, and the steps you can take to avoid it.
Why is emergency tax charged on pension withdrawals?
The pension tax process
How the £1 trick works
Plan ahead to avoid emergency tax
Why is emergency tax charged on pension withdrawals?
Following the introduction of the pension freedoms in 2015, it's possible to make flexible withdrawals from your pension once you turn 55 (rising to 57 in 2028).
The first 25pc is paid tax-free, and the remainder is added to your income for the year and taxed at your highest rate.
However, as this withdrawal will come as something of a 'surprise' to HMRC, emergency tax will normally be applied, meaning you will end up paying more tax than you owe.
David Gibb, chartered financial planner at Quilter Cheviot, said: 'When someone makes their first flexible pension withdrawal, HMRC may apply emergency tax, assuming it's a monthly payment rather than a one-off lump sum. This happens because HMRC doesn't yet have an up-to-date tax code for the individual's pension provider, meaning they default to a higher estimated rate due to a quirk in how the PAYE system works.'
Helen Morrissey, pensions and retirement spokesman at Hargreaves Lansdown, explained how emergency tax is calculated: 'When you're taxed on an emergency basis you're treated as though the same amount will be taken on a monthly basis – it doesn't take into account that this payment is a one-off.
'As a result, the income tax payment is calculated using a twelfth of your personal allowance, a twelfth of your basic-rate tax allowance and twelfth of your higher-rate allowance. The remainder will be taxed at additional tax rates, so they are paying tax at much higher rates than they ordinarily would.'
This can be particularly problematic if you are cashing in a whole pension or withdrawing a lump sum. According to calculations from Hargreaves Lansdown, it would land a saver making a £20,000 withdrawal with an emergency tax charge of £7,379. However, assuming the saver paid basic-rate tax, they should only need to pay £1,484.
Ms Morrissey added: 'The excess tax can be reclaimed by filling out a form, but being taxed in this way can take a significant chunk out of the money you were expecting to receive, [which] could cause you financial hardship or mean you have to change your plans.'
The pension tax process
Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, described the taxation of pensions as 'outdated'.
'We have only just blown out the candles on the cake celebrating 10 years of pensions freedoms. It is simply unacceptable that, after all this time, the Government has still not managed to adapt the tax system to cope with the fact Britons are able to access their pensions flexibly from age 55, instead persisting with an arcane approach which hits people with an unfair tax bill, often running into thousands of pounds, and requires them to fill in one of three forms if they want to get their money back within 30 days.'
Since April 2025, the Government has made changes to the tax code process to ensure people taking regular income out of their pension get issued with the correct code faster. However, it still won't help those making one-off withdrawals.
How the £1 pension trick works
Clare Moffat, pensions expert at Royal London, says that one way you can avoid an emergency tax a charge is to take a notional amount out of your pension first, to trigger a tax code from HMRC. Then, once this is issued you can withdraw the amount you actually need, which should be taxed at the appropriate rate.
Theoretically, this notional amount could be as little as £1, as there is no legislative minimum pension withdrawal. 'How much you would need to take out would depend on your provider, so you need to check with them first. But even if you can't take £1 out, taking out £100 may still be enough to generate a tax code from HMRC that the provider can apply,' she said.
Many of the main pension providers will accept requests to withdraw £1, but may require you to submit a paper request for such a small amount – therefore, it's best to check what each provider's rules are in advance.
Mr Gibb added: 'While this trick can work well, it's not 100pc foolproof, and some individuals may still need to submit a tax reclaim form (P55, P53 or P50Z) to HMRC if excess tax is deducted. Nevertheless, it can significantly reduce the hassle of reclaiming large amounts later.'
Plan ahead to avoid emergency tax – but always think first
Ms Moffat said it's a big help for savers if they are aware of emergency tax on pension withdrawals. 'A little bit of forward planning means they can save waiting for that tax money. They can go on that holiday or buy that new kitchen.'
However, she also added that it's important to think about making any taxable withdrawal from your pension carefully, especially if you're still relatively young and yet to retire.
Aside from the fact that you're reducing your future retirement income, you could also trigger the money purchase annual allowance (MPAA). This will see the tax-free amount you can pay into your pension – including employer contributions – fall from a maximum of £60,000 a year to just £10,000. 'That might seem like a lot, but people in their 50s are often paying the most into their pensions and may have stopped paying their mortgage,' she said.
As such, if you're thinking about taking any money out of your pension, it's a good idea to talk to an expert. Ms Moffat said: 'Financial advice is the gold standard, but it's not always practical with small pots. Everyone [over 50] can book an appointment with Pension Wise, though. It won't be personalised – it's just guidance – but it can still help.'
Can't I take a tax-free lump sum out of my pension?
It is possible to take 25pc of your pension as a tax-free lump sum. This can be done in one go, or in chunks.
However, you can only take lump sums tax-free when you 'crystallise' your pot by moving funds into income drawdown or buying an annuity. If you make a flexible withdrawal without crystallising your fund, only 25pc of your withdrawal will be paid tax-free.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Britain's dysfunctional finances are stifling aspiration and opportunity
Britain's dysfunctional finances are stifling aspiration and opportunity

Telegraph

time39 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Britain's dysfunctional finances are stifling aspiration and opportunity

SIR – As the Chancellor prepares for her Spending Review tomorrow, it is striking that no political party appears willing to confront the scale of Britain's fiscal problems. Now retired, I reflect on a life in which my generation enjoyed real opportunity. I left school at 16, completed an apprenticeship, studied further, bought a modest home, and raised a family. We lived carefully, but the path to security was there. Today's younger generation faces soaring taxes, student debt (we had grants), unaffordable housing, and strained public services – all while the state borrows heavily and spends over £100 billion a year on debt interest. Despite record tax receipts, driven by stealthy fiscal drag, the public gets little in return. When David Cameron's government attempted to rein in the deficit, this was attacked as 'austerity'. Yet no one now dares say what must be said: we must gradually pay down the national debt if we are to free up resources for housing, education and the NHS. The Government should focus not on how much it spends, but on what it delivers. A country that keeps dodging difficult choices will end up with no choices at all. Paul Allen Fleet, Hampshire SIR – As we await Rachel Reeves's Spending Review, we can only hope that the Government will cut up the national credit card, rather than grant itself a higher limit. But such an outcome would be controversial, not least because state-run institutions are bureaucratic and financially insatiable. We have reached the point where a major spending review should go far beyond manipulation of spreadsheets. It is time for serious questions as to what government does and why, and how it goes about it. However, these questions are too challenging for mere bean-counters. Are there any thinkers and innovators out there, or have they already left the country? David Porter Plymouth, Devon SIR – Britain is the sixth largest economy in the world, but it really doesn't feel like it. The country is seriously in debt and high interest rates mean that the cost of servicing that debt has also risen. This is being compounded by an ever-increasing welfare bill, an immediate demand to boost our spending on defence and a frankly unachievable net zero policy. The only plausible way out of this situation is to encourage economic growth, improve productivity and reduce uncompetitive energy costs. Yet this Government appears to have no solution except to tax and spend. The country is going broke fast, and at some point – perhaps even within this parliament – the IMF or the markets will call time on the situation.

Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level

The Independent

time41 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level

The Government has been warned against raising the minimum income threshold for family visas to the same level for skilled workers as it is most likely to conflict with human rights law, an advisory body has said. Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'

Luxury UK car makers hit by ‘multiple geopolitical headwinds'
Luxury UK car makers hit by ‘multiple geopolitical headwinds'

The Independent

time41 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Luxury UK car makers hit by ‘multiple geopolitical headwinds'

Luxury, high-performance and niche UK car makers face challenges which 'threaten competitiveness and growth', according to a report. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said companies such as Aston Martin, McLaren and Morgan are having to cope with volatile trading conditions, decarbonisation rules and production cost pressures. The study found the total turnover of the UK's high-value, small-volume manufacturers in 2024 was more than £5.5 billion, with around nine in 10 of their vehicles shipped overseas. They were responsible for just 4% of the UK's car production, but accounted for 12% of its value. In excess of 15,000 people are employed in high-skilled, well-paid jobs by the companies, the SMMT found. The report stated: 'The UK's small volume manufacturers face a series of challenges … (which) threaten competitiveness and growth.' SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said: 'Britain's luxury, performance and niche vehicle makers are exemplars of automotive design, engineering and manufacturing – and a quintessential British success story. 'Government rightly recognises the importance of these high-value and iconic brands to the UK economy and, amid multiple geopolitical headwinds, the industry is looking to work together to ensure the sector can not just survive but thrive. 'A successful sector would deliver the economic growth, well-paid jobs and exports that Government craves, helping keep Britain firmly on the global automotive map.' Industry minister Sarah Jones, said: 'Our luxury automotive manufacturers are iconic British brands recognised worldwide, and this report rightly highlights the huge contribution they make to the UK economy. 'We're ensuring our carmakers go from strength to strength as we deliver our Plan for Change, and we've already secured landmark trade deals with the US and India, which will cut tariffs for the sector and create new export opportunities. 'Our modern industrial strategy will set out a long-term plan to support our manufacturers, including by creating the right conditions for increased investment, bringing growth, jobs and opportunities to every part of the UK.' The UK-US trade deal was confirmed in a call between Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump on May 8. It included American tariffs on UK cars being 10% for the first 100,000 vehicles exported. Mr Trump had previously set the tariff rate on car exports to the US at 27.5%.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store