Looking at the thread quoted above, it's clear that the HMRC admins get things wrong, and badly wrong. They eventually add a post starting
We apologise for the confusing replies we haved (sic) posted on the forum. Our double taxation policy team has reviewed the thread and has provided the following correct and final response:
That post is quite hard to follow, but it makes no sense. It's saying that Article 1(4) means that all of the DTA is null and void. That means that Article 17(2) on lump sums is never valid, so why would it have been written? Here's 17(2), and it's clear about it being a pension in the US owned by a resident in the UK:
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, a lump-sum payment derived from a pension scheme established in a Contracting State and beneficially owned by a resident of the other Contracting State shall be taxable only in the first-mentioned State.
So something doesn't make sense. Why write a tax document where large chunks have no effect?
I'm guessing this wouldn't be resolve until an audit occurs.