To wonder why there isn’t public outrage about this?

[Blusterylimp]

If a couple isn’t married but own their property between them, the surviving one will need to pay inheritance tax on their partners half of the house (and other assets) if they die.
Effectively they will lose their home to pay the IHT unless they also have huge savings.
How can that be allowed in this day and age when so many couples cohabit without getting married?

Yes you can only leave up to £500k. It affects many people.

Lots of cohabiting couples choose not to marry so far they can protect their own assets in the event of a separation. If you don't want your assets combined in separation, they won't be combined in death either.

In which case they need to affect that this is the consequence; and ts simple really. 🤔 f you want to spend your life with someone because you love them what reason is there, not to get married?

Exactly!

This is excellent advice for anyone setting up a home together, and having a family……..
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips/2024/10/08/?utm_source=MSE_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=08-Oct-24-5229a669de14f548793-67057e0852bc2d416ed7815c1c817f45&source=CRM-MSETIP-5229a669de14f548793&utm_campaign=nt-viewonlineheader&utm_content=1

If you are fully committed to a relationship, sharing everything that is required, thinking about loved ones and dependents should anything really nasty happen, worried about protecting yourself against a relationship going bad, then sensible people do consider such things, and have as much legal stuff sorted as possible. Quite simply, given the sense of outrage from the OP just finding out about the legalities, not everyone does do as much as they should around some sort of self protection.

I'm surprised that this hasn't been challenged in the courts.
Cast your mind back, at one time, pension funds would only pay a widow/widowers pension to a surviving spouse (via marriage or civil partnership. That got overturned by case law by an unmarried partner.
I think this is the same - discrimination due to marital status.

Which is why I said 'possibly' because I wasn't sure. And it only applies to the half you don't already own.

You can tell that MN is in it's own bubble when they don't think a house worth over £650k is a lot of money.

But seeing as assets would need to be significantly above that for the amount of IHT due to cause someone to lose their home (because they can always pay over time or take out a mortgage if they can't pay in one go) if they don't take one of a few simple steps to avoid the issue in the first place, my point still stands.

So get married have a civil oartnership

job done

It is just (nothing much is fair) because there is no contract to prevent it. If you want the protection sign the relevant contract.

Sorry I don't know your particular situation. I'm talking if you're not married and NOT on deeds either! Double whammy!

As long as you know this is a consequence and mitigate for it you're OK.

The bigger risk in some ways is around joint tenancy/tenants in common.

DP and I have been together since 1983 and were able to manage any issues with the house by being joint tenants. We're now sorting Civil Partnership as ever-increasing house prices and inheritance means we would be screwed over royally by IHT.

I didn’t actually mention a party. I think that was another poster.
I don’t want to get married because of the romantic aspect and because there is no need for me and my partner to combine our assets. I have more savings but he is comfortably off too.
We own the property so that it will pass over to the other one on the death of the first one and I think in those circumstances there shouldn’t be inheritance tax to pay and I only just realised that there was.
It doesn’t seem right that we might have to sell the property to pay the IHT when we have lived there together for decades.
That is all. I don’t even think it is so unfair to have to pay IHT on my partners pensions and savings on his death, it is just on the property where we live.

As a single Mum you can leave your children up to £500k tax free (if your estate includes a house you have lived in as your home).

Their Dad can also leave them £500k.

The only difference with married couples is that when the surviving spouse inherits everything, they also "inherit" the deceased spouse's £500k allowance so that on the second death the two allowances are combined, but it all comes to the same thing - children can inherit up to £1M from their parents tax free.

If you aren’t married, the house still has to be worth more than £650,000 before inheritance tax is due.

Edit: I can see you mean inheriting from the partner when the other partner has no share of the property at all. I misunderstood , apologies. That is something that can be mitigated by either becoming joint tenants or getting married, so that you already split ownership of the house.

I guess it comes down to what kind of partnership you have. If wouldn’t co-own a property with my partner, then I’m unwilling to tie myself financially to them and therefore can’t reap the benefits of financial tax breaks.

I agree. I think you should be able to do it without the ceremony.

We had a very basic registry office service, our parents came (more for their benefit tbh, they wanted to) and we didn't have a reception.

But if we could have done it in an office with the registrar as just a few forms to sign, we would have.

I don't think many people who lose their partners in old age can just take out another mortgage to pay off the IHT? Which bank is going to be giving a 60+yo female enough to cover IHT?

Ignore that - if the house is up as collateral of course, banks are going to bank, which negates the point if you are trying to leave any legacy to the kids.

This is one of the reasons gay people fought for marriage equality. People were losing their homes in those circumstances and I well remember during the AIDS epidemic how long term partners were not legally next of kin and were shut out of funeral arrangements etc. it was cruel.

civil partnerships and then marriage fixed those. How wonderful for you that you’ve always had the option of both.

That why marriage isn't a white dress and a bouquet. It's a legal contract. People know this yet some choose to ignore it.

It also means if you do not want the other person to have rights over your finances, you can opt not to marry. It is a choice. For example many women with a house and dc are advised not to marry someone that has much less.

Couple can choose to marry. End of issue.

AND it doesn't even have to be marriage - any couple can opt for a civil partnership.

Yes but then you, like the single mums among us, can't pass down as much to the kids tax free. As well as not getting the tax breaks on earnings and other perks of marriage.

A lot of men don’t want to get married. Fewer women in my experience. But if women are silly enough to have children with them without any commitment they can’t complain about their lack of protection from financial penalties.

Right so you want the benefits of marriage but not the obligations.

You have to weigh up the positives and negatives and make your decision.

You seem to want automatic legal recognition but just in the areas that benefit you.

?? This would make no difference to inheritance tax liability? Only a difference in who it can be left to?