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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll