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?

OP When a person dies the first £325k of the estate is not liable to IHT. So IHT will only be due if HALF of the house value plus any savings is greater than £325k. So you only need to worry about this on the first death, if you have a house worth more than £650k , which is much greater in value than the national UK average. So it is unlikely that the house will need to be sold on the first death.
if your house is worth £750k then you will only have to pay IHT on the extra £50k because each of you will be considered to own £375k.
Any savings etc will also be considered as well.
You would also reduce your liability for IHT if you downsized your house.

You would be amazed the number of people who think that civil partnership = "common law marriage", i.e. they think that cohabiting means they are civil partners 😨.

Some people prefer civil partnership because it doesn't have some of the historical "baggage" associated with the institution of marriage, but the legal implications of both (and steps required to tie the knot) are basically the same.

I think it is interesting because marriage started off being a contract, then it got clogged up with romance, but now lots of people want it to go back to being essentially a contract. You can see why the poor old legislators have struggled. I can see where you're coming from, but you want the advantage of being able to hand something over IHT-free without the disadvantage of actually sharing the property (in case you want to split up). Think you can have one or the other, tbh! You can't have the IHT protection without actually genuinely merging your assets.

You do not need a ceremony for civil partnership that’s incorrect.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/registering-a-civil-partnership/#:~:text=You%20and%20your%20partner%20can,a%20civil%20partner%2C%20or%20married

Exactly. Basically, OP wants to inherit her partner's half of the house IHT-free if he dies first, but doesn't want to get married in case they split up!

Women who do not know this are the same type who believe they will get half of everything if their relationship breaks down despite never getting married.

Actually no - joint tenants benefit from the doctrine of survivorship. Tenants in common is often used by married couples as a way of avoiding the assets bunching with one spouse on the first death, as it enables half to be passed via a will.

It always shocks me that people expect unmarried couples to be legally treated the same as married couples. Surely the very reason they don't want to get married is that they don't want a relationship in law? But then they want the law to recognise their relationship?

Either way, it's really important that unmarried couples don't automatically qualify as though they were married. There are a lot of couples (often older, previously married with separate kids) who specifically choose not to marry SO THAT the law treats them separately etc.

What if 2 friends own a home and live together & one dies? The other could just say they were a couple so they get the home IHT free.

At the end of the day, if you want the law to recognise your relationship, get it recognised in law!!!!!

I personally would favour a system where it’s clear marriage/civil partnership is a legal contract and everyone have to register at council office.
Then it’s up to you if you have party, religious ceremony or nothing afterwards.
I hate the we can’t afford to marry. Authorities are obliged to provide a statutory no frills option - £150 ish all in inc notice and certificates last time I looked - it’s cheaper than making wills.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

One reason it passes IHT free between spouses is because the law recognises that the assets of the marriage belong to the marriage. You can't say it's completely yours and he has no claim on it, but he should have the right to take it tax free when you die.

It's either "mine" or "ours".

Treat it as tax planning. Get married or arrange a civil partnership and you’re sorted. We got married at 50 having been together for 24 years to be able to pass the assets to each other tax free on death. Two witnesses and a nice lunch. Doesn’t have to be expensive or full of fuss but necessary if you want to enjoy the advantages of being treated as a married couple in law.

You can live with a partner - why not? They have no claim on your assets (house, pension savings).

If you and a partner jointly purchase a property you can hold it as tenants in common, where you retain your share of the property, which you could pass on to your son. If you died you partner may have to sell the property so your son could access his inheritance.

My dh and I married, we own the house equally, but as tenants in common. My share is protected for my dc. However, we also have a liferent trust so that dc cannot force dh to sell the house - they don't get my share until dh dies, or moves to something smaller and releases equity.

A good solicitor can advise you on all of this.

You're still daft. IQ does not = sense, I am afraid. No-one is outraged because we all know there is a simple rememdy (2, in fact) to the problem. If you don't want the contract then you will have to pay the IHT. You cannot, as several have said, have your cake and eat it too.

So pay inheritance tax. Or look into other ways to get round the issue. You've got choices. Marriage is probably the simplest option though.

There should also be a choice for couples who, for whatever reason, don't want to all their worldly goods to go to the other after death.

I do think this needs to be taught in phse. My dd had half of one lesson which briefly touched on it. Obviously she knows as I talk about it and scenarios.
So many people are totally ignorant of legal position.
Stats for those believing in ‘common law’ marriage are shockingly high.

Pushing extra IHT onto children who's parents have split doesn't seem to help anyone other than the guy who can go off and hand his £ down to whoever he croaks with though. Making women think about marriage and blaming them when it is often the men who benefit from multiple partners is one thing, but surely taking proportionally more IHT from kids who've had a single parent all of their life is not helping anyone?

I know it’s been said already, but to counter an incorrect point that has been made multiple times on this thread:

JOINT TENANTS DOES NOT MEAN NO INHERITANCE TAX.

THERE CAN STILL BE IHT TO PAY IF THE OTHER JOINT TENANT OF THE PROPERTY DIES.

JOINT TENANCY DOES NOT SOLVE THE OP’S IHT ISSUE.

Please stop saying this. Joint tenancy is a legal mechanism on how property ownership is transferred on death that has absolutely no tax consequence in this scenario.

Hmm, if only you could go to an office somewhere and sign a piece of paper to say that the person you are living with is your life partner and in the event of your death they should not have to pay IHT on the wealth you've accumulated together.

Genuinely no offence meant but if you want that kind of protection then surely you do want to get married. That's all it is at the end of the day if you're not religious, but then if you are then you're probably living in sin otherwise anyway.
Or civil partnership if it makes a difference to you.

You don’t need to propose. I’m married and no proposal just a conversation.
My friend’s dc in her 20s thought a proposal was compulsory. Presumably got idea from social media as her dad hadn’t proposed to her mum (they had conversation and cheapest registry office option)

What do you do if your partner of fucking 20 years doesn’t want to get married?

To be a pedant, insurance is something you take out with respect to an event which may not happen.

Everyone is guaranteed to die. You can't insure against that.

Now assurance on the other hand ....

I'm not outraged by it. Couldn't really give a monkeys. Sorry

Thats the issue really
Some people (usually women) s assumption that there is such a thing legally as a "common law wife"

Would depend on how the property is owned.

You could both own 50% (tenants in common) or both own all of it (joint tenants). If the latter, no IHT is due on death of one partner.

www.gov.uk/joint-property-ownership