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?

I think there should be exemptions. I'm not interested in having a partner but I am looking at this from the pov my kids lose out on effectively something that kids of married couples benefit from. I think if the family lives in the house (dependants of the deceased) they should be allowed a 2 year period to pay IHT. This gives them a chance to find a new place to live (schools etc to be found in an area that would be affordable given they have no savings left), sell the property without a rush potentially not getting full market value, and to grieve the parent that has been lost. In 2 years they might even be able to pay it off without having to sell. People having to make life changing decisions at a time of grief and financial hardship is surely just ensuring bad choices.

My apologies. I have recently 'inherited' a property owned with my late mother as joint tenants and there was never any mention of it being subject to inheritance tax when I spoke to my solicitor.

There are far more pressing issues with my mum's affairs though, so it will probably come up later.

Sorry for the confusion @Blusterylimp

You appear to be missing the point that the £1 million figure is based on two parents - so they each leave £500k.

"Parents divorced, or a single parent, IHT free amount is only 500k."

There's no difference. If the parents are divorced then they can each leave up to £500k to their children making £1 million.

Likewise with a single parent. Unless the children were adopted, or born through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor etc, then even with a single parent there is also going to be a mother/father of the child as well. So, again, you have two parents who can each leave up £500k to their children making £1 million.

Exactly, and I am only talking about the situation where the partner is leaving his share of the shared home to his partner. In that case, I think it should be free of IHT even if the rest of the assets were still subject to IHT because they were not married or in a civil partnership.
It isn’t really such an outrageous suggestion especially as a lot of posters are under the incorrect impression that this is already the case for joint tenants.
And it wouldn’t affect partners who didn’t want their partner to inherit their share of their home.

Exactly, it costs £150 (so very cheap, you're not going to get any significant work out of a solicitor or other official for less) to get married or enter into a civil partnership and solve the issue you're concerned about OP and all you have to do is go along to the register office to do this.

If the inheritance rules changed to include people who'd not officially declared their relationship like this, you'd have lodgers and all manner of other people staking a claim on people's assets.

Or if you could sign up online to something that gave you the rights of being married without any of the responsibilities like a PP suggested, how long would it be before all the reports illustrated by sad faces started to emerge, from people who'd not read the T&Cs and signed up to something that turned out to not be what they thought it was?

That doesn't sort it out. The assets cannot be left to anyone else, but IHT is still applied.

I'm not missing a point.

Married parents, one high earner / received inheritance/whatever, another one SAHP, no wealth. They jointly can pass on 1m.

Unmarried parents, same scenario - only 500k.

Yes, that is the risk especially if a new partner was on the scene.

The 2nd parent isn't always thinking about IHT for children though. The mere fact so many men don't even pay maintenance shows this!

Some people seem to be failing to grasp that the point of not paying IHT if you are married is because finances to a degree are seen as joint, which is why if you split, assets are split.

You cant therefore get the benefits of IHT but then ask for the ability to have separate finances in the case of a split, that just wouldnt make sense. Your finances are tied or they arent, you cant get to pick and choose the best options in both scenarios.

If you want to keep separate finances in case of a split great, but then you are liable for IHT the same as any other family member that would inherit. If you join your finances, there is a risk if you split.

Basically people on this thread seem to want to pick the benefits of each option without a drawback but they are 2 different things for different reasons. Your finances are tied together or they arent, they cant just be when it would benefit you and separate when that works better too.

Why would you be outraged you don't want to play buy the rules fine your choice but you cannot have the benefits then .it's a tax break for married people just like any contract you get benefits. Marriage is more than a nice dress and day .it helps both partners financially. Projects women in divorce. And more importantly for some makes there children legitimate .important if there is big inheritance at stake

Another poster who wants the ability to keep things separate. I acknowledge it's not as beneficial for IHT however that just means reducing my estate and having a will.

I want my share of my home etc to go to DC. There's too much risk that if I die first DP may marry and then my children lose out. And yes this is despite the fact they are his children too.

What @saraclara said is simply incorrect.

If you own a home as joint tenants rather than as tenants in common then, on the death of one person, the home automatically goes to the survivor regardless of having a will or not.

The same happens with joint bank accounts.

But this does not mean that it is excluded from IHT. It is only excluded from IHT if the survivor is the spouse or civil partner of the person who has died.

But you will only pay IHT on everything over £325k on half.

So, house worth £800k? You pay IHT on £75k (so half of £800k is £400k, minus the £325 allowance).

having a will doesn't affect IHT

I don't think you are stupid for not knowing this at all. Not everyone can know everything. And it's never better to remain ignorant than learn - no matter how when or why.

However it's not your lack of stupidity that is being picked up on here. It's your view that the situation is (a) an outrage and (b) everyone who doesn't see the outrage is somehow not getting your point (because if they did, they would then be similarly outraged).

As I have suggested before, if you are that outraged, then the past three and a half hours might have been better employed drafting a petition calling for a change in the fundamental concept of civil marriage and directing us to sign it to correct this terrible injustice that has been perpetuated since time immemorial. If enough people agree we could do this !

Sorry, but if you think you’re financially “savvy” and didn’t know this AND all the other tax and legal advantages of marriage, you’re deluding yourself.
yep, education on the legal and financial implications of marriage is not on school curriculum and as in other recent posts on cohabitation rights, it should be.
its one thing to say you didn’t know,myoure not alone. But more worrying you’re deluded at your level of knowledge.

Only if it is the man who has the inheritance £ though. If the woman has £, gets married and he leaves her with the kids and takes half in the divorce, she still loses out and also has kids to look after with no chance of even keeping the house to pass down without it being taken away from them in IHT.

YABU. As has been said by many posters, if you want the protection that marriage brings then get married. You can get married for pennies ... You don't have to have a wedding/a big fancy do.

Don't get married by all means, but don't complain about not having the same rights as married couples! Why should you?!

Exactly. So 40% of £75k, ie £30k.

I don't understand the concern about 'losing the house'.

If you can't pay straight away, you can spread it over 10 years.

You can remortgage to release money that way - you own a house worth £800k, which is a huge amount of money, despite what MN seems to think.

If you're not in a position where you can take out a relatively small mortgage, it would have been recommended you take out life insurance to cover the potential tax liability.

Or you can make the whole problem go away for £150 at the register office by entering into a civil partnership or getting married.

Who's losing houses over all this?

Strip away the big dress and overpriced cake and that what you’re left with. Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract conferring rights and responsibilities over assets. That’s why.

Phew. That’s what I have.

I am getting the feeling there is a lot you do not know. Have you looked up your state pension starting date? (It is not 60)

and that is all it has ever been.

You have to pay IHT within 6 months of death. Where are you seeing 10 years?!