Will Advice Please

Savvy_Sue

I think you meant TENANTS IN COMMON

Tuesday_Tenor wrote: »

[STRIKE]Joint tenancy[/STRIKE]: you each own a specified share of the property. Usually 50% each. When you die, your 50% is part of you estate and you can leave it to whoever you like in your will, not necessarily the co-owner.

The beauty of making a will is that you can set down what you WANT to happen when each of you dies.

Although it sounds as if you are at a huge tax disadvantage if you don't marry. Not that that's a good reason for marrying - but do bear in mind that it really doesn't matter how long you've lived together, the tax man treats you as not married (because you're not), so anything in your individual estates over £325K is subject to IHT, even if you leave it to each other.

NarkT_Ov

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

the tax man treats you as not married (because you're not), so anything in your individual estates over £325K is subject to IHT, even if you leave it to each other.

So apart from a WILL we need to spend, spend, spend :beer:
After all we're both no spring chickens anymore

G6JNS

NarkT_Ov wrote: »

So apart from a WILL we need to spend, spend, spend :beer:
After all we're both no spring chickens anymore

Give serious consideration to quietly marrying.

getmore4less

Spending is a very productive way to reduce IHT liabilities it's like getting a 40% discount on things.

Also review your July payment for TAX, there is a good chance that some will also be at 40% so planning re pension could be beneficial..


Your first death IHT liabilities can be managed out easily, any liability on second death might not bother you and that can be managed out as well but marriage is the simplest solution.


IHT planning should be multigenerational so you need to factor in anything that may drop down from your parents.

G6JNS

getmore4less wrote: »

Spending is a very productive way to reduce IHT liabilities it's like getting a 40% discount on things.

Also review your July payment for TAX, there is a good chance that some will also be at 40% so planning re pension could be beneficial..


Your first death IHT liabilities can be managed out easily, any liability on second death might not bother you and that can be managed out as well but marriage is the simplest solution.


IHT planning should be multigenerational so you need to factor in anything that may drop down from your parents.

It is far more complex than you suggest. What the OP really needs is some paid for professional advice on all aspects of his finances including IHT planning. It would be foolish to just rely on glib advice from this, or any other, internet forum.

AngelOfTheNorth

G6JNS wrote: »

There are none as far as I can see.

So I don't understand your point about OP not making a will because of the IHT advantages?

NarkT_Ov wrote: »

Best we both bang our heads together then and get a WILL sorted asap.

I would! And check the terms of her pension too.

SevenOfNine

To reinforce the answers already given, this was an MSE article recently http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/free-cheap-wills#intestate

I keep warning my unmarried friends (with children) of the pitfalls but you can lead a horse to water & all that!

G6JNS

AngelOfTheNorth wrote: »

So I don't understand your point about OP not making a will because of the IHT advantages?

AFAIK I have not said that. However, for the avoidance of doubt.

If they marry then they get a total of £650,000 free of IHT between them. Unmarried if one has, for example £100,000 there is no IHT payable but if the other has £550,000 then IHT is payable on £225,000 so IHT of £90,000 is payable. So being married saves £90,000 in IHT. That is assuming everything is left to the spouse. Under the intestacy rules the situation is different. Take a look at the rules and work some examples for yourself.

SevenOfNine

G6JNS - I think AngelOfTheNorth is referring to the response you gave to the quote in your post #15

AngelOfTheNorth

Indeed I am. I asked OP why he doesn't make a will, then IHT advantages were mentioned, seemingly as a reason why not. But there aren't any that he could benefit from simply by remaining intestate- hence wills clearly being in his interests.