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?

Exactly having loopholes or ways out other than getting married would be easy to have tax avoidance

your options are
get married/ civil partnership
takw out insurance
pay

and remember that for houses under 650k it would not be included so you are talking creating a loophole for those who aren’t on the poverty line

Well, the elephant in the room is that it's not "people" who don't want to get married - it's men. On MN, there are countless threads from women asking why their partners won't marry them, yet I've never seen a woman on here complain that her partner is pressuring her into marriage. Yes, there are individual women want to remain unmarried to protect their assets, but they're in the minority. The claim that "a ten-minute ceremony at a registry office with two witnesses is too much of a faff" is just a face-saving excuse.

A lot of these problems would be solved if women weren't so quick to move in and have children with men before marriage. A surprising number of women seem to believe that, even in the 2020s, pregnancy will make a man propose. "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" is a horribly misogynistic expression, but unfortunately it sums up the way a lot of men think.

This. It's because you have to draw a line somewhere, and this is where we've chosen.

Yes, we could bring in a provision for cohabitants and devote the necessary resources to untangling marginal cases and those where people lie to try and take advantage. We've chosen to use those resources elsewhere instead.

It would help if we could get rid of the idea that marriage in 2025 is inherently misogynistic. I've seen this given here many times as a reason a woman feels she shouldn't marry. This is like saying that Parliament has made many awful decisions in the past so we should all stop voting. Marriage in the past may well have been misogynistic and tied up with passing ownership of women and children from one family to another, along with property. It isn't now. Nobody has to have a big expensive wedding, nobody has to wait for a man to propose and buy a ring, nobody has to change their name if they don't want to, or be given away by their father, or all the other faffy stuff beloved of Mills & Boon and the wedding industry. The long and the short of it is we all have a responsibility to decide what's going to work best in our own circumstances - marriage, civil partnership or cohabiting without either of those. It needs to be a decision, not something to drift into passively.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g - I completely agree. The people who appear to have benefitted most from the 'marriage is misogynistic' trope is men.

I might go so far as to say insisiting on marriage or civil partnership before kids is a feminist act - because it's in the best interests of most women & their children.

Caveat: yes, if the man is SAHD and woman continues career, home is owned in women's name only or you're a multi-millionairess with ££££ savings, marriage can be detrimental to women but that's not the norm.

I haven't read the whole thread (am actually only just starting to) but having seen quite a few people claim this I just want to make sure that someone has already confirmed that THIS IS NOT TRUE!! Youare deemed to own the house 50/50 from an IHT perspective but 100% each as beneficial owners (which means the survivor owns 100%). I am assuming this was pointed out upthread very early on. Honestly people!! It's really daft to dish out tax advice to people when you don't know if it's right. Bit of a stitch up to other people if they believe it?People seem to do this a lot on MN...

"If they don't want to get married then they don't get the legal benefits to marriage. "

Or we could lobby to get the law amended to take 'common law' spouses into account. If you can prove you lived together and shared finances like a mortgage, being married shouldn't be the deal breaker. This goes for pensions being paid to surviving partners etc, too

Interesting. I wasn't aware of this

Not married
Been together for 10+ years
We have a home and a child
No will

Maybe we need to finally go legal

I don't agree with this 100% as it's very difficult to prove a relationship without a legal aspect. Plus there's seen a benefit to society on encouraging marriage so the carrot is the tax benefits.

One circumstance that I do think relevant is the sad situation (I think this was in the news.in the last few years) where elderly siblings live together in their old family home and that the survivor of them would lose the house as they couldn't pay the IHT due on first death.

This is how I understand it:
Tenants in common own the property in shares. If one dies and their share is left to the other, its taxable.
If you buy as joint tenants, it passes to the other owner without tax, because you both own the house 100%. But while you are alive, its better to be tenants in common, especially if you put in unequal equity, because if you split you are not protected by divorce courts so there needs to be some record of the share of the house owned by each party. Any savings/other assets left to your partner would be taxable.
Also - you need a will. If you don't have one, your share will pass to your children if you have any, and if you don't, your share will go to your parents or other close family members depending on who is alive. Absolute mess incoming if your parent inherits your share of the house and then demand your partner buys them out or sells up.
So basically, its better to get married. I really need to get on and do it myself, totally unromantic but I don't want my partner to pay tax on my half of our estate and risk losing his home.
*source: advice given to me when buying my house with my partner.

YANBU. Marriage is, or IMO should be, for more than financial reasons.
I don't know if you are talking about a specific case, or just making a general point.
A non-marriage solution is to make the ownership of the house a "joint tenancy", in which case, when one dies the other owns the house outright; no inheritance, no death duty.
Maybe worth talking to a solicitor, but you can do it yourself easily enough. The Land Registry can help.

PS. I don't know why so many people treat houses with such fear and mysticism. When I was about to buy my house, the first thing I did was to buy a book on buying a house, what to do and how to do it. That alerts you to issues such as this and tells you what you can do about them.

Incidentally, the best bit of advice was, if you choose not to do it yourself and to use a solicitor, check their work every step of the way and do any important steps they miss out. No one cares as much about getting it done right as you do!

Then form a civil partnership. Exactly the same rights and responsibilities without having to be married.

Incorrect. “Tenants in common” means they each own a share of the property. “Joint tenants” means they both own the entire house, so if one dies the other owns the house outright with no need for a will or any inheritance tax being paid.

A civil partnership does not require a ceremony. It can be carried out by signing a form in front of a registrar and two witnesses. No requirement for speeches or rings or anything UNLESS the couple wants a ceremony.

Yep @pippy1958 that is pretty much a civil partnership you do have to give notice before (to make sure you aren’t a bigamist or marrying for a visa)

then it is just sign in person with two witnesses again to prove you are who you say you are

it cant be any simpler or done online due to the necessary checks but it certainly doesn’t need a party

No it isn’t. If two people own a property as “joint tenants” they each own the whole of the property concurrently. When one dies the ownership automatically passes to the survivor. The deceased person does not own a “share” of the property and so it does not form part of the deceased’s estate. What you are describing is the situation where two people own a property jointly as “tenants in common” in which case they each own a share of the property.

@Charlotte244 you so wrong my brain hurts.

Many people take marriage very seriously for various reasons including financial. Should that be devalued?

Wrong. The house isn't exempt from inheritance tax. If X dies owning a house jointly with Y, and let's say the house is valued at £800k with no mortgage outstanding, Y becomes owner of the whole house by survivorship, but Y is treated as having inherited £400k and the other £400k is in X's estate. If Y is X's spouse or civil partner there will be no inheritance tax to pay. If Y is X's child, then it depends on how much else is in X's estate. The first £325k is always tax-free. If the deceased leaves their principal private residence to at least one child or grandchild, another £175k tax-free allowance is added on to help with passing on the family home intact. But if Y was X's partner, but not married or in a civil partnership, none of that will apply and there will be inheritance tax on hte £75k over the threshold.

Nope. https://www.gov.uk/tax-property-money-shares-you-inherit/joint-property-shares-bank-accounts#:~:text=You%20automatically%20inherit%20anything%20you,deceased's%20estate%20does%20not%20pay

You can get a civil partnership which is different to marriage but gives you the same rights in terms of finances. Not as patriarchical or full of bullshit traditions. Marriage is another way of controlling women. If you aren't married you are made out to be a crazy cat lady( see recent American election debacle re Kamala Harris) because that is the male agenda. Men benefit from marriage more than women do. They get unpaid labour and get to continue their blood lines. Women do the majority of household tasks and child rearing and often drop their working hours (and therefore pension contributions) to do so. Then the fucking twat will cheat on her for someone younger and screw her over again. Marriage is the biggest tool the patriarchy/religions have used to keep women down. I say fuck getting married.

No this is not true re IHT/house.

Joint tenancy just means you each own 100% of the beneficial.share (in equity) so the survivor automatically owns 100%. It doesn't pass via your Will. 50% of the house is deemed to be in each owners IHT estate.

Tenants in common mean you own a specific share of the house 50/50 or 30/70 etc.and you can leave it via you will. Your own share is in your IHT estate.

If you are about to get divorced, sever the tenancy to hold in Tenants in Common straight away and make your Will.

You are still joint LEGAL owners of a house. (The joint tenant/ tenant in common relates to equitable ownership)

Yes get a will. Everyone should have one as everyone has something that they own or may have kids under 18 that need guardians

If you are married gifts to your spouse are not taxable and you can inherit each other's unused nil rate bands.

pretty sure you've just explained what I said in a different way!

No it's your second paragraph claiming that joint tenancy means that the house isn't taxable for IHT. This is incorrect. 50% will be.

The way to look at it is would the government really be stupid enough to allow an IHT exemption simply because you own your house as joint ts rather than tenants in common?

Ahem...