Can I transfer money from a personal pension to a SIPP, while leaving the original pension open?
Just to aid your searching, note that what your employer has provided you with access to is a Group Personal Pension . Now, as to the question of whether partial transfers from a GPP to a SIPP are possible - the answer would appear to be Probably Yes; however you should contact the pension administrator at your employer (who will be able to give both the employer's and the scheme's points of view), and also the SIPP provider you are considering, to get a definitive answer. I'm basing this on the results I'm seeing googling for 'partial gpp transfer', eg Partial transfer from group pension possible? and Is it possible to transfer?. Add to that the fact that one of the largest UK SIPP providers explicitly includes a 'Partial Transfer' checkbox on their pension transfer form. "Yes it's entirely possible; see below.  If you can't find anything on transfers out (partial or otherwise) on anyone's site it's because they don't want to give anyone ideas. I have successfully done exactly what you're proposing earlier this year, transferring most of the value from my employer's group personal pension scheme - also Aviva! - to a much lower-cost SIPP.  The lack of any sign of movement by Aviva to post-RDR ""clean priced"" charge-levels on funds was the final straw for me.  My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner!  Transfer paperwork was initiated from the SIPP end but I was careful to make clear to HR people and Aviva's rep (or whatever group-scheme/employee benefits middleman organization he was from) that I was not exiting the company scheme and expected my employee and matching employer contributions to continue unchanged (and that I'd not be happy if some admin mess up led to me missing a month's contributions). There's a bit more on the affair in a thread here.  Aviva's rep did seem to need a bit of a prod to finally get it to happen.  With hindsight my original hope of an in-specie transfer does seem naive, but the out-of-the-market time was shorter and less scary than anticipated. Just in case you're unaware of it, Monevator's online broker list is an excellent resource to help decide who you might use for a SIPP; cheapest choice depends on level of funds and what you're likely to hold in it and how often you'll trade."
You got that from CNBC's interview with Daryl Issa, the only person who is claiming this to be the the truth, and interestingly enough, the congressman who most wants to privatize the post office, and also the only one who is holding up reform of this insane 2006 law.  It's great that you believe the one person who is pushing this the most as fact, but there's not much else to support that evidence other than Issa himself.   [Issa holding up reform]( http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/issa-blocks-fix-of-post-office-pension-prepay-time-bomb-says-robert-weiner-former-spokesman-for-us-house-govt-reform-comm-bipartisan-bill-has-229-sponsors-but-chairman-issa-pushes-privatization-159224595.html)  [Politifact rates it half true, because the pension law is true, but leaving out the fact that declining revenues in the future is also a problem, but again, the prefunded pension is rated TRUE]( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/29/save-americas-postal-service/ad-save-americas-postal-service-claims-rule-congre/)  [Time](http://business.time.com/2013/02/07/how-healthcare-expenses-cost-us-saturday-postal-delivery/)  [NYT]( http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/nocera-its-d-day-for-the-post-office.html?_r=0)  [PBS]( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-u-s-postal-service/11433/) Revenue Canada allows for some amount of tax deferral via several methods. The point is that none of them allow you to avoid tax, but by deferring from years when you have high income to years when you have lower income allows you to realize less total tax paid due to the marginal rate for personal income tax. The corporate dividend approach (as explained in another answer) is one way. TFSAs are another way, but as you point out, they have limits.  Since you brought TFSAs into your question: About the best and easiest tax deferral option available in Canada is the RRSP. If you don't have a company pension, you can contribute something like 18% of your income. If you have a pension plan, you may still be able to contribute to an RRSP as well, but the maximum contribution amount will be lower. The contribution lowers your taxable income which can save you tax. Interest earned on the equity in your RRSP isn't taxed. Tax is only paid on money drawn from the plan because it is deemed income in that year. They are intended for retirement, but you're allowed to withdraw at any time, so if you have little or no income in a year, you can draw money from your RRSP. Tax is withheld, which you may or may not get back depending on your taxable income for that year. You can think of it as a way to level your income and lower your legitimate tax burden &gt; General Motors Co will cut nearly a quarter of its U.S. pension obligation by transferring the management of its pension plans for 118,000 white-collar retirees to a third party and offering lump-sum buyouts. The two moves unveiled on Friday will cut $26 billion from the automaker's massive U.S. pension liability of nearly $109 billion.   It's almost like the OP didn't read the story. As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns.  Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it.   Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way.   Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured.  The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount.  If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees.  And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee.  For example, from Wikipedia:   The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts.  So they control how much gets invested and where.  Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded.   Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded.  They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short.  This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement.  But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee.   If you want someone else to make promises to you and aren't worried that they won't keep them, you probably prefer defined benefit.   If you want to have personal control over the money, you probably prefer defined contribution.   My personal opinion is that defined benefit plans are a curse.  They encourage risky behavior and false promises.  Defined contribution plans are more honest about what they provide and better match the production of employment with its compensation.  Others see defined benefit plans as the gold standard of pensions. "Yes! What you are describing is an ""off-exchange"" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you." The best way is to ask the charity and the custodian of the retirement account. Both will want to make sure it is done correctly. The charity will want to be able to not have the account go through the probate process. Probate can delay to transfer of money for months or longer. Items in the will could be contested. "I can think of one major income source you didn't mention, dividends.  Rather than withdrawing from your pension pot, you can roll it over to a SIPP, invest it in quality dividend growth stocks, then (depending on your pension size) withdraw only the dividends to live on. The goal here is that you buy quality dividend growth stocks.   This will mean you rarely have to sell your investments, and can weather the ups and downs of the market in relative comfort, while using the dividends as your income to live off of.   The growth aspect comes into play when considering keeping up with inflation, or simply growing your income.   In effect, companies grow the size of their dividend payments and you use that to beat the effects of inflation. Meanwhile, you do get the benefit of principle growth in the companies you've invested in.   I don't know the history of the UK stock market, but the US market has averaged over 7% total return (including dividends) over the long term. A typical dividend payout is not much better than your annuity option though -- 3% to 4% is probably achievable.   Although, looking at the list of UK Dividend Champion list (companies that have grown their dividend for 25 years continuous), some of them have higher yields than that right now.   Though that might be a warning sign... BTW, given all the legal changes around buy-to-lets recently (increases stamp duty on purchase, reduction in mortgage interest deduction, increased paperwork burden due to ""right to rent"" laws, etc.) you want to check this carefully to make sure you're safe on forecasting your return." Having money held from one paycheck hardly counts as being covered by a retirement plan in my book! It's not your book that counts, it's the Congress' book called the Internal Revenue Code. No, you cannot rescind a contribution after the fact. Maybe during the year you can do something with employer balancing it out, but not after the year is closed. (That, by the way, is different for IRAs where you can actually do re-characterization until the tax day of the next year)