Pretoria woman loses R94,000 due to pension paperwork error

Prospective pensioners have received a stark warning from the Financial Services Tribunal to carefully review their retirement paperwork, as mistakes can lead to significant financial losses.

This was highlighted by the case of Susan White, a Pretoria woman who lost R94,000 due to an irreversible tax deduction. At 62, she chose to withdraw her benefit from a provident preservation fund, but the fund incorrectly processed her claim as a withdrawal benefit, resulting in a large tax deduction.

She explained that the fund provided her with a withdrawal claim form as opposed to a retirement benefit claim form. She accordingly completed the form which had been provided to her and was paid a withdrawal benefit as opposed to a retirement benefit.

She argued that the fund incorrectly applied for a tax directive in respect of the payment of a withdrawal benefit instead of what she had requested, being a retirement benefit.

As a result, she suffered a financial loss of R 94,050,00 in tax which was levied against the withdrawal benefit. According to the fund, an application for a tax directive from Sars can only be made after an election by the member. It said that the tax directive cannot be reversed as requested by White. As she had indicated that her retirement age was 65, it could not have known that White now decided to retire at 62.

It explained that once that tax directive was issued by Sars, the preservation fund was obliged to deduct the amount of tax as stated in the directive and pay that amount to Sars prior to paying the member her benefit, the tribunal was told.

The Pension Fund Adjudicator found that the fund had acted lawfully in terms of its rules, together with White’s instructions at the time, in paying her withdrawal benefit. The adjudicator also found that there was no basis by which her complaint concerning the tax amount deducted from her withdrawal benefit had any merit and accordingly it was dismissed.

When the matter was heard before the tribunal, it was told that White had received professional financial advice regarding her retirement. She was told that she would be entitled to withdraw 100% of the fund value as a cash amount with the first R 550,000,00 being tax-free. Hence, she would only be liable for tax on the remaining portion of approximately R35,000.

Meanwhile, in a letter provided to the tribunal, the financial advisors said that they had no prior experience in dealing with White’s preservation fund and had never used any of its forms. It was thus confused by the use of the word “withdrawal” when requesting the necessary form for her to pay her benefits.

It said: “In hindsight, one can see the confusion on both sides, but the eventual outcome was never intended for the client.”

The financial advisors, meanwhile, reimbursed the R94,000 tax mistake, but wanted the tribunal to order the fund to pay a portion of the money, which the tribunal refused to do.

Retired Judge Dennis Davis, who headed the tribunal, meanwhile said this case highlights the human cost of administrative errors.

Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.

Cape Argus