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 don’t think the law on cohabitation should change but I do think there needs to be some sort of education programme so that people (usually women) realise the risks of sacrificing their career (either giving up work, going part time or taking a job below their qualifications) to raise children with a man they aren’t married to.

That’s particularly the case if they let him keep the ‘family’ assets in his name. Without marriage they aren’t family assets - they are his assets and his partner has no rights to anything more than child support (leaving to one side equitable interest which is hard and expensive to establish).

On almost every thread where a bewildered woman whose ex has run off with an OW posts to say surely she is entitled to a share of assets after 20 years and three children, someone pops up to say ‘but common law rights’ and that poster and the OP have to be told yet again that they don’t exist in E&W.

I once got massively slated on a thread for telling a woman who wanted to leave an unfaithful partner that she was risking walking away with nothing (all the assets were in his name - I suspect he planned it that way since she paid for food, holidays etc. - all the stuff that doesn’t result in physical assets but which cost nearly as much). Apparently giving someone the correct legal position is ‘unsupportive’.

I didn't want to get married, or be married, just a huge ick for me, but we did a civil partnership.

I found a lot of people say "you can just have a quick ceremony" and their idea of no-fuss is...well, it was not my idea of no fuss.

I wore jeans and trainers and we went to Ikea afterwards. I couldn't tell you what day it happened. Like March? Last year? Or the year before? Can't remember.
You need witnesses but you can opt to not have a ceremony. We just used a couple of friends who work near the registry office.

I wanted it to create as few ripples as possible because I like my relationship as it is and why change it?

We had a civil partnership because, like you I didn't want to get married (I'd been there, done that, twice). Our reason for doing it was solely so that DP would be entitled to stay in my housing association rental should I die first. It took 10 minutes of our time, we booked it to take place during our lunch hour and went back to work afterwards. The only people who know are us, HMRC and my DD. There are no rings, no name changes or any other outward signs that we are a "legal" couple in the eyes of the state.

The current situation means that couples have a choice about being treated as an economic unit. There can be good reasons for choosing not to be. No religious vows or acceptance of patriarchal roles is implied now, you can have a civil partnership and get the tax breaks. I hope it stays that way.

This is why CP can be a really useful option.

I mean, nobody is going to come round and check that you're having sex, or not having sex with other people. If you are tackling life as a team and living it together, the government isn't likely to have the slightest problem or interest in whether you are getting up to shenanigans in the bedroom together or not. Lots of "real" married couples have separate bedrooms, or haven't had sex for decades, or (secretly or consensually) bang other people.

Worth also noting that non-consummation is only ever a ground for annulment if one party wishes it. It doesn’t make the marriage void. Plenty of couples never consummate their marriage , the marriage is completely valid and everyone is happy.

We were in the same position as you. We didn't want/need to be married to be committed to each other. We did marry 2 years ago, registry office, only 4 guests, basic legal ceremony in and out before the marriage was actually supposed to start! Brilliant!! No stupid dress or fuss.
It is mad that you have to do this to avoid the inheritance tax, selling ones home etc (that is jointly owned) to pay tax if/when a partner passes away.

I would say just do it, it's 5 minutes and will give you peace of mind that if the worst happens you won't have to possibly sell your home to pay back the tax!

It's not really clear to me why marriage, or registered civil partnership, is such a barrier for you when you ALREADY have legal ties to your partner through the mortgage and children, and are about to sign wills leaving your estates to each other!

Why is it mad? The piece of paper is the evidence that you qualify for an enormous tax break. Parliament in its wisdom has decided that married couples/civil partners can leave up to £1m* to their direct descendants with no inheritance tax to pay at all. I personally think this is madness and rather than cutting back benefits to people with disabilities they should be reducing that tax-free band, but I'm not in power, so we are where we are. It's like anything else. If you want to claim something you have to meet the criteria.

*Spouse/Civil Partner1's estate gets a tax-free band £325k + an extra tax-free band of £175k if home is to pass to children or grandchildren - if these are not used, e.g. because Spouse/Civil Partner 1 leaves everything to Spouse/Civil Partner 2, these tax-free allowances are passed on to Spouse/Civil Partner 2.

Spouse/Civil Partner 2 therefore gets both their own tax-free bands and Spouse/Civil Partner 1's, making £1m in total. That takes most families out of inheritance tax altogether.

The usual reply when people do address this point is that marriage is a patriarchal institution or they don't want to have a religious ceremony or they don't want to have a wedding. None of these actually apply in 2025.

Because that would effect peoples rights.

My mother deliberately didn't marry her long time partner because I preceded that relationship and wanted her child to get the inheritance when she died. Very common situation in this day and age with modern relationships or blended families. In what you are proposing I would have automatically been cut out and everything would have gone to her boyfriend instead who then would have left her lifes worth to his kids not me, exactly what she didn't want to happen.

People put all kinds of unnecessary emotions onto marriage but its literally just a legal contract.

'It is mad that you have to do this to avoid the inheritance tax, selling ones home etc (that is jointly owned) to pay tax if/when a partner passes away.'

But by not entering into a contract, whether that be civil partnerships or marriage, how do you differentiate yourself from millions of other people who aren't married or in civil partnerships? How do HMRC know your status? All kinds of people buy property together without being in a couple.

The government has provided a simple way of ensuring long term partners can claim their rights - nothing at all to make a fuss about - you want the protection, you make the effort. Which you did - so you obviously understand why.

There are pros and cons to marriage or civil partnership.

There are pros and cons to choosing to be partners but with no legal agreement.

Every couple is free to pick which works best for them.

It’s not judgemental to lay out the options to you, or to point out that you can’t have the pros of marriage without having a marriage.

We are 45 years together, 3 with a CP and only did it because of me coming into money from parents death so didn't want to leave DP with an IHT bill. No one is aware or even interested apart from our adult children. One aspect of the CP which riled me was being asked if we wanted to 'legitimise' our children making it sound like we were living in the 19th century. They're in their 30s. I think this meant you can legally falsify their birth certificates but don't quote me on that.

From op's point of view the family aspect is slightly confusing tax-wise. Treated singly for some things but as a unit for others (eg council tax, student finance, benefits etc). As an unmarried couple you should be completely aware of your financial situation and have tight wills in place, parental agreements or whatever they're called now. People who marry young don't necessarily look at the financial aspects (tax implications, savings, pensions) it's something that becomes clearer when you're older.

Re next of kin, not necessarily true in all situations, dp was asked if he was nok through many of my operations and just signed, hospital weren't interested in whether he was my husband or not. Other situations may be different.

Anyway, worth thinking about for IHT at least and also if you're in a vulnerable position eg low paid or no paid employment, low pension, no savings in your name. Basically think about what would happen to you and the dc if your DP decided to walk away.

There has to be a line. For once this is about as reasonable a line as they can draw. They dont even expect you to get married to qualify so those people who dont value marriage arent excluded.

Its only an issue for those who want to make it an issue. As others have said its a 5 minute event that you can do in your jeans and t-shirt if you want.

Marriage and civil partnerships are legal agreements. They are an indication the couple have joined their finances and want the government to treat them as a family unit

Otherwise how would the tax office or govt know what kind of relationship you have? There has to be some sort of registration process for it so that the status of the relationship is registered and the commitments inherent in that relationship are publicly stated.

The idea that your relationship is private and of no interest to anyone else is fine, until you want to receive govt based financial and tax benefits based on it. At that point it is no longer a completely private thing. Hence the need for witnesses to a marriage or civil union.

I appreciate that marriage has all sorts of cultural and emotional connotations that make some people object to it . Luckily for them we have civil unions now. In the past this wasn't an option.

Just get married or form a civil union, that will solve the tax situation

You can do virtually the same with marriage or CP.

The only difference between CP and marriage is vows are included in a marriage ceremony but not CP. CP also can’t be religious but neither does marriage have to be.

The main reason people choose CP over marriage is to remove the religious element. You could equally have a marriage doing exactly what the poster did just by adding vows.

They are virtually identical.

Why are you against it, OP?

Many long term couples I know ( ourselves included) have married to protect assets as they approach retirement age. Particularly important if you have children and assets over the IHT threshold- this protects your partner if you die and provides two sets of IHT allowances your children can use as a tax shield. Doesn't have to be a grand affair ( tho could be a lovely family celebration). I find it odd that this has only just come to your attention.

Surely you’re aware of tax benefits for married couples like transferable nil rate bands? If you don’t want to get married anyway, then that’s a valid choice but I wouldn’t make that choice in any hope that the government will legislate to give the same rights to unmarried couples

@Gettingbysomehow I'm married and have left all of my asset & my share of the house to my children in my will. Don't have a mirror will where everything goes to the spouse, get a trust will drawn up.

https://www.legalandgeneral.com/insurance/over-50-life-insurance/wills/different-types-of-wills/

I own the house with my dh as tenants in common rather than joint partners. We had a life interest will drawn up and we each left our share of the house to the kids. The children are protected from a sideways disinheritance later on, we had a life interest clause put in so we can live in the house after the death of the other spouse.

You’re being chippy and defensive about nothing. So infantile.

I couple can choose NOT to get married precisely because they’re not committed enough to each other, especially not enough to share such things as tax benefits. Having a mortgage doesn’t signify anything: I have one with my DB. Having children doesn’t signify anything - ask any woman who’s been cheated on or walked out on. One or both parties might be thinking they don’t care for the other person enough to do that, they’d rather leave everything to someone else (a child, for example), they’re just together because it’s better to have someone around to share childcare and chores, or better for the children. Any number of reasons if you put 20 seconds of thought to it.

Nobody is forcing you to get married. Don’t if you don’t want to. But you’re being ridiculous by even asking why you can’t have the benefits of something without doing the thing.

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

Because marriage and civil partnerships are legal contracts and should not be wandered into blindly.

If you want the advantages of marriage/civil partnership, then get married/civil partnered

Do the pension rules from 2027 relate to defined benefit pensions also?