Advised to get married whilst doing wills

[mustytrusty]

Went to a solicitor with DP today to arrange our wills. We have mortgage, two dc's and been together 23 years. Have been advised that for tax reasons we should think about getting married.

I have no desire to be married. Not to him or anyone else, and I never have wanted to be.

Does anyone know if there's a campaign to make the tax situation for long-term couples
mirror that of married couples?

Boggles my mind that in this day and age unmarried couples can be treated differently than married.

I'm not judging you.

There are advantages to being married or in a civil partnership, pointing that out isn't judging you.

We got a civil partnership for this very reason.

If you want the tax benefits of marriage, you have to marry or enter into a civil partnership. It's not as if it's an onerous requirement. You want the status of your relationship recognised in law. Well, this is the mechanism.

Marriage doesn't protect me. I'm the one with the house and money which I want to leave to my DS not a partner.

when I was younger, my solicitor advised never to get married. I didn’t listen and now I’m getting divorced having lost a lot of money to a cocklodger over the last 7 years.

If I had my time again, I’d keep finances separate at least

I think it is a goo thing that people have a choice, they can opt to be financially tied to each other, or can choose not to be. They don't have to default into something.

The issue is making sure people understand the law and know the implications of each decision and how it leaves them and their partner.

Martin Lewis explains the benefits. I know people who have got married because it makes sound financial sense. Right or wrong it’s how it is. There are many things that don’t suit everyone in this life.

As many others have said the way to resolve this is through marriage or civil partnership. They are above anything, a legal contract between two people that have benefits and downsides. If you don’t like the downsides and therefore don’t want to enter into that contract then you don’t have to but you don’t then get to share in the benefits of marriage /cp either.

as others have said, it would be a logistical nightmare trying to work out if people in non marriage /cp relationships should benefit from tax exemptions etc. when does it start being classed as serious/ long term. Children? Length of time. Own a house etc etc. how would people protect their assets where they want to have a relationship but not risk losing their property etc.

There government relies on couples opting in to that contractual relationship so there’s a clear and obvious line drawn.

perhaps consider why don’t want to be married. If it is because you don’t want the big fancy day and white dress then you don’t need to have that at all. You can simply have the legal process with two witnesses and that’s it.

If it is because you actually don’t want the downsides of marriage ie sharing your assets in a divorce situation, then unfortunately it’s unreasonable to want and expect the benefits of marriage/ cp but not the downsides and would be hypocritical to claim long relationships should be viewed on the same level as marriage if you actually only think they should in certain circumstances (ie if it benefits you)

And I don't imagine you'd want it assumed that you were married simply because you have a partner in your life. Marriage should always be an informed choice made by the couple. If they choose not to marry, they obviously don't want to be seen as a married couple, so they don't get the benefits and disadvantages of being married.

This is devastating when it happens and it happens a lot. Marriage can be a trap for an independent woman. Not to mention a nightmare to get out of and a future financial nightmare potentially if they refuse to sign the consent order.

Without marriage you aren’t your dp’s next of kin. I don’t know about civil partnership on this aspect but someone else will know here.
Not being the next of kin means you can’t make medical decisions in emergency. This includes extreme situations such as life support, treatment being give, organ donation etc.

It’s not a piece of paper though. It’s the contract that’s on the paper that matters.

One of my mum’s friends died unexpectedly in her forties and her parents, as next of kin, were able to have her body taken to a funeral home of theirs choosing and cremated at a ceremony arranged completely by them local to them whilst her long term partner had no say whatsoever.

No need to be so touchy OP, you have received some expert advice above, multiple times. It’s a bit of admin confirming your commitment.

To answer your specific question, op, the government has announced that it intends to launch a consultation on cohabitation rights. I believe this will be focused on the rights of unmarried partners to one another’s assets in death or divorce (situations where eg one partner dies and the other has no claim at all on the estate and faces financial ruin). As far as I know there’s no suggestion that the consultation will also cover IHT- all discussions have been about putting some basic protections in place for those who haven’t protected themselves through marriage/cp or will and/or a cohabitation agreement- but until it’s launched we won’t know.

If the consultation goes ahead, you can submit your views. But as I say, it’s unlikely that there will be any changes to the IHT regime, and it’s also only the possible start of a legislative process that could take years. Whether or not the consultation goes ahead, you could write to your mp. You can also get involved with Resolution’s campaign on cohabitation rights https://resolution.org.uk/campaigning-for-change/cohabitation/ but again this is focused on basic protections for the financially disadvantaged, not tax breaks for the rich.

The simplest thing would be to get married or cp. - You could take advice on ways to mitigate IHT outside marriage if you wish but any workaround (eg a discretionary trust) is likely to complex and expensive and will have a risk of failure.

Marriage is a legal contract, the wedding party is optional. I’m a bit baffled by people who will have children and a mortgage together and plan to be together for ever but won’t sign a piece of paper to officially commit to being a couple. It cost us £85 at the local register office, it could have been cheaper but we wanted the biggest room available, and it will potentially save us a fortune in inheritance tax and we’ve already had more than £85 back in the married couples tax allowance when I was on maternity leave.

We got a civil partnership for all the reasons above plus we both had previously had terrible marriages and didn't want to go there again.

The ‘piece of paper’ thing is just so irritating. Lots of things are a piece of paper.

You wouldn’t want surgery by someone whose piece of paper was her shopping list and not a medical degree.

Or your child looked after by someone whose piece of paper was a prison discharge form and not a DBS.

So you have the choice not to marry.

If the effects of marriage were granted automatically to those cohabiting that choice would be taken away from people like you.

No it wouldn't

Either you want to be treated as legally single. Or you want to be treated as a legal and financial unit, with all the benefits and risks appertaining thereto. You can't be both, so make up your fucking mind. You're in or you're out, and when you've actively chosen not to attend the party it's a bit rich to be mad they're daring to have fun without you.

The price of insisting on preserving your financial independence is... preserving your financial independence.

You don't have to understand why.

You just need to understand that it does.

And you have a financial choice to make.

This. Repeating that it’s just a bit of paper is silly, it’s a legal commitment, first and foremost. The rest, ceremonies, receptions etc, is all optional!

I think the idea of tax or other rights appearing just by cohabiting isn't a good one.

Will the reverse of now happen, where instead of opting into these rights through marriage or civil partnership, people will have to specifically opt out.

How will the government know which are relationships and who were lodgers etc.

That used to happen a lot in the 1980s with gay men who had Aids. Many had been disowned by family, they may have been in a relationship for decades but the family were the ones consulted.

@mustytrusty look at it in the same way as a Will.

A Will is “just a bit of paper” but is evidence of sufficient intent as to ensure wishes for an estate are followed.

A marriage/civil partnership is “just a bit of paper” but it’s evidence of sufficient commitment to benefit from certain advantages.