Married Couples Tax Allowance

[kia cat]

Friends of mine have lived together for about 18 years. They have children and their home is rented in joint names. Can they claim the allowance?

[fiction-factory]

Only if they are above the required age

[fiction-factory]

or do you mean the new transferable tax allowance (for which most couples don't qualify anyway)

[fiction-factory]

https://www.gov.uk/married-couples-allowance/further-information
Havs to be a Spouse or civil partner- can't just be living together

[fiction-factory]

Married Couple’s Allowance could reduce your tax bill by between £322 and £835.50 a year.
One of you needs to be over 80.


"You can claim Married Couple’s Allowance if all the following apply:

you’re married or in a civil partnership
you’re living with your spouse or civil partner
one of you was born before 6 April 1935"

[Old_Geezer]

Discrimination

[fiction-factory]

if you meant the marriage Allowance which allows one partner to transfer any unused tax allowance to teh partner in certain circumstances then again the couple have to be married or in a civil partnership

[fiction-factory]

Why is it that answer now sometimes SUBMIT too early on Answerbank before I press SUBMIT?

https://www.gov.uk/marriage-allowance

[fiction-factory]

I think there may be asmall element of discrimination, O_G, but an important factor is that it would lead to all sorts of abuse if you could share your personal allowance with anyone you claim to be in a partnership with

[Old_Geezer]

I'd not consider that to be abuse. IF there is a case for giving allowances out, then there ought not be an arbitrary rule about going through some ritual in order to qualify. Citizens should be equal and treated as such. If one couple is in a certain situation they ought not be treated differently from another couple in an equivalent situation. Let folk share their good tax fortune with someone they appoint.

[fiction-factory]

It's just far easier to check claims if it's a civil partnership or married couple than if it was just say 2 mates who pretended they live together or someone who has an occasional relationship with several partners (lives with one at weekends and others in the week)
But I would agree that there seems little logic in the tax break at all, even for married couples- it should be scrapped for everyone and the money saved (very little!) could be shared between everyone's allowances- may be worth a couple pounds a year. These vote winning bribes are not worth the trouble.

[gingejbee]

Using OG's argument...perhaps "child benefit" should be available even if you have no child/children. Perhaps dog-owners should get it.

[Old_Geezer]

Child benefit probably ought not be offered at all, but the criteria there is perfectly simple; does the appointed couple have the required children ? Clearly has no comparison to the tax allowance issue.

It must be considerably easier to check the tax return form and see who was nominated than having to identify the couple and check the ceremony. Anyway one might ask why must they live together in order to get an allowance ? If allowances are going, let couples living apart claim them. It's likely to be more expensive for them anyway.

[gingejbee]

The point I was making....that the clue to the allowance in question is it's name.

[New Judge]

Yes indeed the clue is in the name.

If unmarried people believe they are suffering discrimination all they have to do is to get married. It's not difficult or expensive (they will soon recoup their small outlay from the massive allowances on offer). And since they believe being married is of little consequence or significance it won't hurt them to get hitched. Simples :-)