Marisawright

I suspected that would be the case, thanks.

Rose coloured glasses means seeing things in a more positive light. If you read my post properly, you would see that I do NOT see the situation in a positive light. It is a ridiculous situation which is stacked against the pension owner. But I do not find it at all complex. Clearly you think that means I am missing something. It would be helpful if you explained what I am missing, rather than simply "disagreeing".

If dependency is a hot topic (and it seems to be) then perhaps you should start a new thread for all the dependent children on here to discuss just that subject? You might get more results that way.

Can you clarify where you think my spectacles are rose coloured? I am saying the system is simple, BUT that does not mean it is good news. What it means is that your options are extremely limited. I have clearly stated that you have a choice - transfer your UK private pension to the only compliant fund available, or set up your own SMSF with a compliant deed. Those are your only options. It is NOT satisfactory, so I am not happy about it, which means I'm not looking through "rose-coloured spectacles". However it is undeniably simple. If you believe there are other options, then please expand. Some links to sites or sources for us to research would be helpful. In particular, please explain to @Gbye grey sky, because he's told you that (as far as he is aware) there are no other options.

There's some truth in that. Recently I saw a thread about partner visas. For a couple who have been together long enough and have evidence to prove it, that should be the most straightforward visa of all to get - but an agent posted to say it's the one that has most refusals! However that's not because Immigration is refusing genuine applicants. It's because there are so many people applying who either haven't been together long enough, or don't have enough evidence to prove it. Most of those people shouldn't have applied in the first place, and obviously they're clogging up the system for everyone else. Makes you wonder about how much that happens with other visas.

If it's any consolation, managing and auditing a SMSF is not as hard as you may think. There are companies which offer to set up and manage your SMSF for you, and I think they make it sound onerous to convince you to use them. I had a SMSF at one time. The management wasn't hard to do. The trustees need to hold a meeting occasionally to review results and decide investment strategy, and there must be minutes of each meeting. At the meeting, the trustees can decide to delegate the daily management of the account to an individual. For instance they might say that x can buy or sell shares up to a value of y each month, provided the transactions are in line with the investment strategy. Then the delegated person can happily trade on the account for several months, with no need for further meetings or minutes or documentation other than the transaction records. Once a year, someone needs to audit the records. Our accountant did that and it wasn't expensive. I no longer have a SMSF because it was a joint one with my (now ex-) partner and we split up. He enjoyed share trading whereas I hate it, so I was happy to go back to an industry super fund.

No, that would have made no difference. The system is not as complex as you seem to think it is. The rule, (as I understand it), is that if you have a private pension in the UK, regardless of what type it is, it cannot be transferred to a standard Australian superannuation fund. It can be transferred to a QROPS compliant fund only. There is only one QROPS compliant fund in Australia. If you don't like that one, you have to set up your own (i.e. a self managed super fund or SMSF). There is no such thing as a 'QROPS SMSF". There is an SMSF whose deed contains clauses to make it compliant with QROPS, but otherwise it's the same as any other SMSF. That all sounds pretty straightforward to me. I think people make it complicated by floundering around, convinced there must be a way around the reality. It must be incredibly frustrating, especially since (as previously stated), the problem arises from one small requirement of the British system, which isn't even relevant to anyone over 55. And as GreySky says, the Australian superannuation funds were willing to make special arrangements to cater for the British rule, but for some reason the UK authorities wouldn't agree. So it's doubly annoying because it's so unnecessary. But the fact is the rule exists and it's pretty black and white. The actual process of setting up your SMSF and transferring the money is the fiddly bit.

I was replying to your comment about any Aussies who had ever worked in the UK, who would have relatively small amounts in a UK private pension. I know it's a nuisance to have money in more than one country. I sold my investment property in Australia before our move to the UK for that reason (though as it didn't work out, I'm now sorry I did!).

I don't think it's that difficult to separate them. Firstly, any advice published before 2015 is irrelevant because that's when the rules changed, so always check the date on any article or website - it's surprising how many people leave old advice published. Secondly, you can safely ignore anyone who says it's easy AND offers the solution if you pay them, because you know it's not easy, so they are clearly after your money. Every reputable source I've seen, says "wait till you're 55 because you'll lose too much doing it earlier". Given that, I'd ignore anyone who claims otherwise, particularly if they offer to do it for you (for a fee of course). To do otherwise is chasing rainbows. The bottom line is that you cannot transfer any kind of UK pension to a standard Australian superannuation fund. The only funds which can accept the transfer are either your own self managed super fund (SMSF), or the Expat fund previously mentioned. Personally, I can understand your reluctance to go with the privately-run Expat fund. They may be an excellent fund but it's simply impossible to be sure. If we can't trust investment giants like AMP with our savings, then how can we take such a small player on trust? So that pretty much leaves you with setting up your own SMSF. The Directdocs site gives you the wording you must use for the deed, as the standard wording would not be QROPS compliant. I do note that AFR article says most people use the SMSF as a temporary measure, and they then transfer the funds to a standard superannuation fund after the first ATO audit.

I don't see why, really. I know you have to pay tax on the income, but if it's only a small amount, it's hardly worth the effort, surely? Just cop the tax, pay the money into a UK bank account so you can use it to fund your holidays. I'm sure it doesn't apply to you as you seem to have your head screwed on financially, but I do find some people's attitude to tax in retirement borders on the ridiculous. If it's going to cost you more to avoid the tax than to pay it, then for goodness sake just pay it! My friend's father still lives in a massive Sydney mansion. He hates it, because he can no longer walk down the many steps to the garden, or get up to his own bedroom. It's costing him a fortune to heat. But he won't move because if he did, he'd have to put the surplus money in the bank and "he'd have to pay tax on it". Never mind that he'd have about $3 million in cash and he'd be able to spend the rest of his life cruising the Mediterranean, even after tax. All that matters is not paying tax.

I know. I should say, this does not affect me at all, I just have an interest in pensions etc. Is there no option just to leave the pension in the UK and collect the income? I know the income will be taxed as normal income, but if there's a major cost to the initial transfer, is it possible they'd cancel each other out?

I posted the link a few minutes before you did. I don't think anyone has suggested the process is straightforward. It's just that under the new rules, you effectively have no choice but to wait until you're 55. The process should be simple, except that the British regulations insist on the "no access till you're 55" rule, which no standard Australian super fund can meet. It's stupid really - if you can't transfer the money until you're 55, why does it matter if the rules of the Australian super fund say you can access it before 55???? Surely they could make a rule that IF you transfer the pension AFTER you've reached 55, that restriction isn't necessary - then you'd have your choice of every superannuation fund in Australia, because that's the only obstacle to them being compliant. Another example of crazy bureaucracy!

https://directdocs.com.au/ozsmsfdocs.html#completeq

How odd, I don't have a subscription and I just read the whole thing. all I get is a banner across the bottom suggesting I sign up, but it scrolls out of the way as I scroll down. Anyway, it explains why standard Australian super funds can't meet the requirements to be QROPS compliant. The British rules require that there must be NO way to access the funds before you're 55 - but all Australian super funds allow you to access your funds early in case of hardship. So it's that one little rule that's stuffing everything up. I can understand Australian super funds being reluctant to remove the hardship provisions, because it would make them less attractive for most customers (what local person would choose a fund with no hardship provision, when there are plenty that have one?). So the only way you're going to find a compliant super fund is if a private company decides to create one especially for expats. It looks like only one company, Tidswell Financial Services, has decided it's worth their while. Their fund is called the Australian Expatriate Super Fund (AESF).

For anyone else curious about all this, this is a good article http://www.afr.com/personal-finance/superannuation-and-smsfs/how-to-transfer-uk-pension-to-australia-20171206-h00c17

I note it says he can't cut partner and child migration because of the Migration Act. Perhaps the provisions of the Migration Act also explain why they haven't just abolished non-contributory parent visas and Remaining Relative visas? It has always seemed mad to offer these visas yet make them almost impossible to get within a person's lifetime, but that would be an explanation.

But "dependent" doesn't mean living at home. Older children in the UK are still earning a living, buying their own clothes, car, etc. They could probably afford a flat share. They are choosing to stay at home so they can build up some savings, but that is not "dependent".

There is a discussion on this thread which is highly relevant to parents applying for a visa: https://www.pomsinoz.com/topic/201088-should-we-shouldnt-we/

If your cats are indoor cats, bring them by all means. It will cost you a fortune but only you know whether it's worth it. If they are cats that love to roam outdoors, I'd think seriously about finding new homes for them, for a couple of reasons. The first is risk to the cats - there's nothing much that will hurt a free-roaming cat in the UK, but here they'll have venomous spiders, snakes, scorpions, depending where you're moving to. They'll also be at risk from humans: many Australians do not like cats, because they kill wildlife. That's why, as Rammygirl says, some councils are getting very strict and not allowing cats out, enforcing desexing and placing limits on how many cats you can have. You may feel sure your cats don't kill, but most Australians won't believe you. After all, how do you know? I saw a TV program where they followed a number of cats with cameras over several nights, and nearly all of them played with small mammals or birds (which resulted in injury or death of the prey, obviously). All the owners were horrified because these were cats who had never brought any trophies home, or killed anything in their presence. It shouldn't surprise anyone because hunting is a natural instinct for cats, not something "nasty".

OK, I've learned something. Recently we've had several people posting to say they came to Australia, then had to go home again because of aged parents or whatever, and have now decided they'd like to return. I've seen other members tell them to apply giving their "compelling reasons" and they may get a 12 month RRV. However from what you say, they have no chance whatsoever, unless they maintained their home in Australia, or have family here.

So what you're saying is, you MUST have substantial ties, or there's no chance, no matter how compelling your reasons for absence were?

In my first reply, I did say "If you don't have compelling reasons that prevented you moving, then you need to demonstrate strong ties with Australia"

It might be worth working out how much the furniture will cost to move first. Get a quote for your part-container including the furniture, then get a quote for a Movecube without the furniture. The difference is what the furniture is costing you to ship, effectively. Then consider what you might get if you advertised them on Gumtree, or sold them to a dealer. We did that exercise and realised that even though the furniture seemed "too good to give away", it was going to cost us more than it was worth to ship. Especially considering that if it's in a shared container, it's a lot more likely to get bumped and chipped - or lost! Actually if you can find the time, I'd be putting a lot of furniture on Gumtree. We did and sold a lot of stuff very quickly. We didn't put high prices on them ($20 for an IKEA bookcase, $300 for our 3 piece suite) but it all mounts up.

There are two ways you can get a RRV if you don't meet the 2 years residency. One is that you must show compelling reasons. The other is that you have strong ties to Australia. If you move within the last two years then you would rely on the "strong ties" option. You would just have to demonstrate that you've settled and committed to a life in Australia, e.g. you've bought a house or have a lease on a flat, you've got a permanent job, bank account, etc.

No, I don't think it's genetic. Otherwise, how do you explain me? I never felt I belonged in Scotland growing up - even though I never set foot outside the UK until I was 19. When I arrived in Sydney, I had the weirdest feeling that I'd come home. Fast forward 30-odd years and I tried to settle back in the UK again. And once again, I felt like a square peg in a round hole. I feel so much more comfortable in Melbourne. I have looked back into my family tree and apart from a mystery surrounding my grandmother's folks (who might possibly have been gypsies), I come from generations of Scots. I think tea4too has it right.