S I P Ps Has Ingredients Of Disastrous Recipe

[IPOD]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/00fae78c-4bd7-11d...00779e2340.html

Anyone got an FT.com subscription?

[dogbox]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/00fae78c-4bd7-11d...00779e2340.html

Anyone got an FT.com subscription?

I've looked into SIPPS. My business premises is about to come up for sale so I'm hoping to buy it. The disadvantage of me putting such assets into a SIPP is that the SIPP itself becomes the owner of the property and I loose control in a variety of ways. A third party SIPP manager has a say in MY property and charges me every month for the priveledge of thier muppet expertise! I cant touch the property unitl minimum retirement age! - Great, what if Im ill and want the asset sooner?

There is far too much focus on Tax planning within the financial advice industry. Tax efficiency is secondary to flexibility and long - term outcomes.

[737]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/00fae78c-4bd7-11d...00779e2340.html

Anyone got an FT.com subscription?

I wouldn't bother. It's a very badly written and researched piece. For instance

"If the property is your own home, the benefit of the initial tax relief will soon be outweighed by the cost of the “rent” you will need to pay (which will come out of your post-tax income) or the benefit-in-kind tax charge if you live in the property. A rental value of, say, an average seven per cent per annum will mean that the amount you will be required to pay into your pension fund in the first six years alone will exceed the tax relief you benefited from. "

Firstly he doesn't mention or take into account the fact that you will have the cash from the sale of the house to your pension fund(perhaps £300,000++) in your back pocket. Secondly, around my area, which is Huddersfield, a £300,000+ house will not fetch 7% in rent, more likely 3% and one presumes anyone with a serious SIPP won't be living in a £70,000 doss (which may fetch 7% yield) .

I can only pressume this rubbish slipped through the FTs net because of the resignation of the Editor today.

[IPOD]

It's a very badly written and researched piece.

The excerpt you quote does not give that impression at all; on the contrary, it is factually accurate and an assumption of a 7% annual rental value would be considered conservative by some on here:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=18463

Can You Shoot This One Down?, 9% yield

====================================================================

the fact that you will have the cash from the sale of the house to your pension fund

Err, and who will be PAYING to buy the house from you, idiot? That's right, you. In that scenario you are the buyer and the seller. You will have to pay YOURSELF £300,000 for the house (minus tax relief on SIPP contributions).

[737]

The excerpt you quote does not give that impression at all; on the contrary, it is factually accurate and an assumption of a 7% annual rental value would be considered conservative by some on here:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=18463

====================================================================

Err, and who will be PAYING to buy the house from you, idiot? That's right, you. In that scenario you are the buyer and the seller. You will have to pay YOURSELF £300,000 for the house (minus tax relief on SIPP contributions).

You will not get a 7% yield, or anywhere near it, on a £300,000+ house in this or many other parts of Yorkshire nor, I suspect, in many other parts of the UK.

You release £300,000 cash from your SIPP to your own back pocket. This is not mentioned in the article at all. And neither is the rent, whether 3.3% or 7% it matters not, which is repaid into your SIPP, or if you prefer it, to yourself (and tax free).

And, please don't SHOUT you make yourself look a right ignorant ****!