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?

The reason it wouldn't work is that society wants to encourage marriage as it sees it as a social good (re kids etc) and sees tax benefits as a carrot.

The other reason relevant to what you cite is that everyone would just buy property as JT with anyone willing if it meant avoiding IHT. At least with a marriage or.CP there's a provable legal relationship with just one other person at any one time.

If the survivor wanted to avoid IHT then they could just get a civil partnership with a new person!

You’re missing my point

They would have to actually leave the assets to that person though.....

It would only apply for cohabiting couples so it wouldn’t apply by just buying a property as joint tenants if you didn’t live together in the property.

@Blusterylimp the reason it's not the presumed case that ALL cohabiting couples everywhere across the country are not presumed to want to merge their tax & inheritance affairs is PRECISELY because no-one else can presume whether they wish to or not.

For a veritable cornucopian multiplicity of reasons!!!

If you want to, there is one, super simple, straightforward EXISTING way to let the taxman know you want your partner to be treated as a significant partner for inheritance purposes.

It's called a Civil Partnership. It's been open to heterosexual couples in the UK since 2019. It costs less than 200 quid.

Either get on with it or stop whining about not having a tax loophole specific to your personal preferences.

An option exists!

You... Don't think how affluent you are should be relevant to taxation. Oh...kay.

Just like they could get one with the original person!

You’re missing my point

That’s not what I said. Read my post

Nobody’s missing the point you’re attempting to make, they just disagree with you.

@Blusterylimp I really, really, REALLY don't think any of us are missing your point.

Your point is that you would love to not commit enough to your life partner to have to share any assets or maintenance in the event you have an unamicable split.

But in the absence of that, you would love love LOVE to have all the perks of the additional IHT allowances afforded to those who ARE committed enough to their life partner to accept that ups come with some potential downs.

Guess what? That's been the tax code in this country for donkeys & no-one is crying you a river that your partner might have to sell his million pound house to buy a £400k 2 bed flat to see out his old age. Just because you don't feel secure enough in your relationship to register it within the existing system.

We get your point. NO-ONE is outraged!

Tough titties 🤷🏼‍♀️

I think in my case Im happy to accept there might be taxes to pay. I dont want to be married I would be at a financial disadvantage if I did

I have a feeling that my OH's stake in the house as we are tenants in common, is around £150k at todays prices so my understanding is its under the IHT threshold.

I havent read the whole thread but someone mentioned 'next of kin' to the OP as if her family can rock up and be her next of kin. The UK has no legal definition of this, its not a 'thing' even though its often said to be and you'll see it on formal forms. You can nominate that person yourself

As you are being quite rude to me, I wont feel bad for pointing out that your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.

I'm not missing your point. You are saying no one gets married these days so it is outrageous (harumphing toys out of the pram) that IHT is different for married couples and not married and why isn't the world in uproar.

I said in response to that because tax is about government policy. The policy is to encourage marriage and this taxation regime is part of that.

If you want the tax benefit, you need to get married. That's the point of the policy.

If you don't want to get married, that's up to you but the cost of that is the loss of this tax benefit.

It's like complaining that it's outrageous that second home owners have to pay 200% council tax in some council areas. If you don't like it, don't own a second home in that area or actually make it your primary home and live there. It's tax policy to encourage particular behaviour.

It's not difficult and most people understand this.

A will won't get round the IHT issue that the OP is complaining about though.

You can't will your IHT allowance to an individual, you can only pass it on by getting married to or making a civil partnership with them

Parents getting VAT charges before non-doms with hidden billions off-shore kinda suggests Labour aren't too fussed either...

It's very hard to prove "cohabiting" as a legal concept. That's why it doesn't really work as wording for Wills for example.

You could use NRB trusts in certain circumstances. That's why a Will is so important.

Agreed there is no legal concept of "next of kin". However there are the Intestacy Rules which recognises a pecking order of spouse and blood relations only. That's why unmarried couples don't benefit.

But you could have, and it’s easy - what is it you don’t like about a civil partnership?

Not the point of the thread I know but 160 is not the top of the scale at all

I was referring to a post earlier in the thread that cited that OPs family could rock up and start making decisions about her due to being 'next of kin'. I didnt mention intestacy, which is a different matter altogether.

Ah right yes. LPAs. That's another thread entirely! 😆

We share a home but don’t share other finances.