header-logo header-logo

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

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

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

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll