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?

So few estates are subject to IHT (6%?) , most people don’t care about it. Bit like with the Education Tax on private schools. It doesn’t affect that many people, relatively speaking.

Hence no widespread outrage. Just pockets of outrage from people wealthy enough to be affected.

The issue with legally treating non-married couples the same as married ones or civil partners is at what point would they be considered to officially become a couple ?

When they have been 'dating' for x number of years ?
The day they move in together ? (some married couples for whatever reason don't actually live together)
After they've been living together for x number of years ?
When they have a child together ? (and what then if they have children with others ?)

And what then happens if one or the other no longer wishes to be considered part of that couple ?

You'd need some sort of formal acknowledgement of them both considering themselves to be legally part of the couple.

Oh wait - it's called a marriage certificate or civil partnership ! No need to re-invent the wheel. Let couples be free to choose if they want the benefits that come along with the obligations of these ...

there's no outrage because it's an issue that the vast majority of couples can easily address if they choose to

It's the only reason we had a civil partnership

Marriage is like any other contract - it entitles you to certain benefits. If you don't want to sign the contract, you can't expect to have the same benefits as those who have signed. Besides, as other posters have said, there are ways to mitigate IHT for unmarried couples so if you are in that position I suggest you seek legal advice. To be honest there are waaaay more things to be outraged about.

Or even better - parents married, children can receive 1m inheritance tax free. Parents divorced, or a single parent, IHT free amount is only 500k.

THIS IS WHY YOU NEED TO GET MARRIED!!

Sorry for shouting, but it winds me up when people say 'oh it's just a piece of paper' - no it isn't.

If you want the legal protections and benefits that marriage brings - GET MARRIED.

Thanks, I was getting confused about that. Hopefully, our solicitor advised us correctly about that when we purchased the house. I’ll check the paperwork.
It’s not so bad to just have to pay IHT on savings then.

Don't then - but don't complain when you don't get the legal protections that it offers.

First reply nails it, as so often!

Wait until you hear about what marriage does to pensions.

If you are wealthy enough to worry about inheritance tax, you are wealthy enough to pay for some professional advice.

Persecuted is a bit strong!

Blimey some snarky replies. I’m guessing that most of the other posters are either married or don’t have the assets to worry about IHT.
Thanks for the replies about joint tenancy though as that does reassure me that me and my partner won’t lose our home when one of us dies.

My point is that why shouldn’t cohabiting couples get the same legal protection as marriage isn’t just a legal contract and a lot of cohabiting couples are committed to each other but don’t want to get married.

OP is correct.

There should be some kind of legal document you could pop to an office on your lunch hour & both sign in the presence of witnesses.
It could declare that you are a committed couple, and that you share your assets & parental rights. And in the event of your death, it simply transfers those rights to the other.

...oh.

Couples who “don’t want to get married” are making a conscious choice not to sign the legal contract that binds them together financially. That comes with pros and cons.

it is absolutely irresponsible to think that marriage is purely about love or that it is just a piece of paper. It is an extremely important legal contract that tells the government you want to be recognized as a legal and financial unit.

This ⬆️

I just want to sit at home and count my vast fortune though, I don’t want to give it away 💰

you also need to be wary of who is legally next of kin, if you're not married, it isn't each other.

In this scenario, when would you start the agreement?

How do you define a committed cohabiting couple?

The only way is to let them define themselves. Marriage and civil partnership is the easiest way. You can do other ways, you need a solicitor and financial advisor.

There are pros and cons to marriage. You chose whether or not to opt into them, or you put time, money and effort into getting a bespoke deal for you.

Crickey, I didn’t think of that either. My family are really toxic so don’t want them having any control over me or my wellbeing. How does one specify who they want their next of kin to be?

Because many cohabiting couples choose not to marry specifically because they don't want the legal effects of marriage. Which is fine. But they can't expect to then benefit from the advantages of marriage if it happens to suit. There is no need for anyone to be outraged as there is already a solution to couples wanting to pass on property to their partner free from IHT.

You must be very wealthy if you are expecting that inheritance tax will be due on your estate. The position in the UK at the moment is something like this (I am not professionally qualified here):
First £325k of the estate is always tax-free
Everything you leave to your spouse or civil partner is tax-free
If a single person leaves their house to their children or grandchildren, another £175k tax-free allowance can potentially be added.
If a married person dies and leaves everything to their spouse, so their £325k + £175k is not used, on the death of the spouse their estate gets not just their own £325k + £175k but the unused allowances from the other spouse, so £1m in total.

So a married couple leaving a house and some savings to their children in most parts of the UK will be able to pass the whole lot with no question of tax.

I personally think marriage and civil partnerships are more relevant when relationships break down. An unmarried partner has no claim on the other partner's assets. People need to think long and hard about entering into a relationship where their finances become intertwined. Not getting married should be a positive choice taken with full information, not just something that happens because you haven't got the money together for a wedding or the right moment hasn't come along for a big proposal scene or your partner constantly fobs you off when you raise the subject or you mistakenly believe it's just a piece of paper.

Why should you get the legal benefits of marriage if you won't sign up to the legal responsibilities?

It's a free choice. Marriage or civil partnership is available to everyone. You either take it all or none. In or out.

You''re assuming they would inherit the half of the house.

Too often the deceased partner leaves their half the house to their children and then the bill to buy out the children's half is much larger.

If you have children with someone and co-own a home, you need marriage or a civil partnership.