header-logo header-logo

Abolishing salary sacrifice for pensions 'a tax on working people'

26 November 2025
Issue: 8141 / Categories: Legal News , Pensions , Employment , Tax , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Lawyers have expressed dismay at the Chancellor Rachel Reeve’s decision to impose a £2,000 cap on salary sacrifice contributions, while solicitors breathed a sigh of relief this week after the much-anticipated tax on limited liability partnerships (LLPs) failed to materialise

There was mounting speculation ahead of the Autumn Budget this week that Chancellor Rachel Reeves would drop the exemption from national insurance for LLPs, effectively levying an extra 15% tax.

This prompted a campaign by the Law Society and other legal groups seeking to persuade Reeves to rule it out.

Law Society president Mark Evans said: ‘Leaders from across the professional services sector came together this month to write to the Chancellor to warn against such a measure and how damaging it would be for the UK economy.

‘The legal sector is already contending with major regulatory changes in anti-money laundering and compliance. Any additional burdens would have created a perfect storm on firms’ ability to invest, hire, and contribute to growth, which could prove damaging to the wider economy.’

Key elements of the Budget included a £2,000 cap on the national insurance threshold for salary sacrifice pension contributions, an extra 2% on tax for income from property or dividends, and the so-called ‘mansion tax’ on homes worth more than £2m.

The imposition of the £2,000 cap on salary sacrifice contributions has prompted dismay.

James Dean, pensions partner at Freeths, said the decision, in the Autumn Budget this week, ‘will be incredibly unpopular across the pensions industry.

‘Introducing this measure from 2029 risks sending the wrong signal at precisely the wrong time. With many people already struggling to save enough for their retirement, this policy could hugely discourage pension savings and undermine long-term financial security.’

Steve Hitchiner, chair of the Tax Group at the Society of Pensions Professionals (SPP), said: ‘Abolishing salary sacrifice for pensions will affect the take home pay of millions of employees—especially basic rate taxpayers—and is a tax on working people, in spirit if not in name.

‘It is also another sizeable cost to employers and, perhaps most importantly its removal will reduce pension saving.’

Contributions above the cap will incur national insurance payments. Reeves justified lifting the exemption by warning costs will triple to £8bn by 2030.

Issue: 8141 / Categories: Legal News , Pensions , Employment , Tax , Legal services
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
The Ministry of Justice is once again in the dock as access to justice continues to deteriorate. NLJ consultant editor David Greene warns in this week's issue that neither public legal aid nor private litigation funding looks set for a revival in 2026
Civil justice lurches onward with characteristic eccentricity. In his latest Civil Way column, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist, surveys a procedural landscape featuring 19-page bundle rules, digital possession claims, and rent laws he labels ‘bonkers’
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
back-to-top-scroll