Section 177 — Pensions Act 2004: Amounts to be raised by the pension protection levies
Text of the provision Official document
Amounts to be raised by the pension protection levies 177 A1 Subsections (1) to (5) apply where the Board decides to impose one or both of the pension protection levies for a financial year.
1 Before determining the pension protection levies to be imposed for the financial year , the Board must estimate the amount which will be raised by the levies it proposes to impose.
2 The Board must impose levies for the financial year in a form which it estimates will raise an amount not exceeding the levy ceiling for the financial year.
3 The pension protection levies imposed for the financial year must be in a form which the Board estimates will result in at least 80% of the amount raised by the levies for that year being raised by the risk-based pension protection levy. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 The Board must impose pension protection levies for the financial year in a form which it estimates will raise an amount which does not exceed the sum of—
a the amount estimated under subsection (1) in respect of any pension protection levies imposed for the previous financial year, and b 25% of the levy ceiling for the previous financial year.
6 The Secretary of State may by order substitute a different percentage for the percentage for the time being specified in subsection (5).
7 Before making an order under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
8 An order under subsection (6) may be made only with the approval of the Treasury.
9 In this section—
a “risk-based pension protection levy” and “scheme-based pension protection levy” are to be construed in accordance with section 175, ... b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Official source: legislation.gov.uk
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from UK courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →