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?

Because that's on effect what is being asked for - marriage is a financial contract

Really surprised how many don’t realise any couple can have a civil partnership. It was all over press at time, the couple released a nice photo with their two little girls.
There’s no need for a ceremony. It’s similar process to registration of a birth. It’s important there are safeguards in place to prevent coercion or immigration fraud.
Out of curiosity those who don’t want to be married what’s the objection to registering your partnership.

Exactly. Or a rich woman. If I can fill out an online form, I think you'll find that I am Mrs Akshata Murty, aka Mrs Mrs Rishi Sunak. (She's very good to me.)

We're in the same position. You just need a well-drafted Will with "intent to marry."

We own a few properties between us, and marrying would become quite expensive if we acquire more.

Speak to a professional—there are a few loopholes.

Thanks, everyone.

We own a few properties between us, and marrying would become quite expensive if we acquire more.

Eh? I don’t think they ask you how many houses you own at the registrars office.

This is the none ceremony civil partnership option.

Might be a reference to CGT? A married couple only get one primary residence exemption between them, unmarried couples get one each.

My bad—I wasn’t clear.

It would be very expensive if we moved and got a mortgage together. Right now, one of us legally owns the property we live in, and I own the others. With the way everything is set up, getting married would increase stamp duty and other costs even further.

There's also CGT.

I think our situation is quite unique.

That said, as I mentioned, there are loopholes with a good solicitor and a well-drafted Will. You can place properties in a trust, include an "intent to marry" clause, or ensure that if one of us passes away, the other can continue living in the property.

Anyway, you don’t need to be married to inherit property like everyone assumes.

Marriage has nothing to do with it. If you buy an additional property and retain your existing you pay a higher stamp duty rate regardless of whether you are married or not, and being married in no way means you must buy an additional home.

Why can’t they get married?

@LoveLifeBeHappy I don't see how specifying an "intent to marry" would work if you died, say, 10 years later and hadn't actually got married.

Anyway, you don’t need to be married to inherit property like everyone assumes.

Nobody assumes this.

Marriage has always been a contract - any philosophical or spiritual connotations that cultures have added have just been window dressing. And civil partnerships are available for all as well.

An "intent to marry" clause simply stops the will being automatically revoked if you marry. It has no effect on tax. You are either married or you aren't re tax.

It just stops a will being revoked.

Honestly the misconceptions on this thread are amazing. Fair enough if you don't know the law but don't pretend you do.if you don't!

@Hoppingabout are you referring to me or @LoveLifeBeHappy? I know that the intent to marry doesn't assist, as I said in the post you have replied to? The intent to marry point is to prevent the will being revoked if the parties subsequently marry, so I didn't see why it was relevant if they don't in fact marry.

Referring to @LoveLifeBeHappy post, to which you replied to correctly.
Sorry if I was confusing! My second point certainly wasn't aimed at you as you were absolutely correct.

Does joint tenancy mean they own the property but are each renting from the other?

No. The word comes ultimately from the Latin word for hold. Joint tenants in the context of owning a property means jointly holding the legal title.

No, it effectively means they both own the entire property, rather than each owning 50:50. So when one dies, the other continues to own the entire property, and there is no transfer of property as such and nothing that can be left to someone else. But they will be treated as though they had inherited 50% for IHT purposes.

Whereas with tenants in common, each owns a share - most commonly 50%, but any share is possible; I am a "tenant in common" with a small share of a property my DPs own. That share can be left to anyone the owner likes.

All underlying "legal" titles are held jointly if there is more than one owner. This is the case for both joint tenants and tenants in common.

The difference between joint tenancy and tenancy in common is how the "beneficial" or equitable ownership is held. This can be held either where each owner nominally owns 100% (JT).or each owner owns a specific share (T in C).

Yes, exactly this. Other example, if you transfer a property's legal ownership you need a notary and proof of identity and intentions etc. Lots of contracts require external confirmation, presence of those involved. None of them require a party.

What a load of nonsense, marriage protects women financially. The type of relationships you describe exist outside of marriage too and those are the ones where the woman ends up fucked over when the man decides to leave, you won’t have to look for long on MN to find a hundred examples of women being screwed because her DP is leaving her with nothing having convinced her for years that ‘marriage is just a piece of paper’ or she has stupidly convinced herself that ‘marriage only benefits the patriarchy’ or, as even seen on this thread, that neither could be arsed getting married because they seem to think that you need to have a party to do it.

There needs to be better education around this.

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

I agree, but all the same happens in unmarried relationships, and the women dropping their working hours to do all the unpaid labour would have no claim on the man's assets. So while staying single is best for women, being an unmarried SAHM is a worse position than a married one.

Yes, I’m imagining a huge amount of really damaging fraud. You’d end up with people about to get married finding out that someone has already registered them and having to prove it’s nonsense.