A wealthy unmarried couple. Should they get married for financial reasons?

A friend of mine who is in a long term relationship, but not married, asked me if there was any way in which a man's CGT losses could be utilized by his wife.

I told him no, as CGT is separately assessed. (Update - this was completely wrong - see correction from Joe 90 below)

There is a much bigger issue for them in that they both have considerable assets and are in their 60s. They probably should get married to minimise CAT.

She has a state pension so if she dies before him, he would probably get a widower's pension.

All in all, there seems to me to be a lot of financial advantages in getting married.

Brendan

This has come up alot in conversation recently. In my case, not married, long term relationship. If I die and leave will with 100% going to her, she will have to to pay tax on the inheritance over 15K as she is Group C (i.e. no relation in the eyes of Irish law). Disaster.
Its also annoying from smaller things e.g. car insurance. We share a car, but since we are not married, insurance companies do not accept both of us as equals. Hence, if i'm the policy holder, she is not getting a no claims bonus, as she is classed as an unrelated named person. If we were married, she keep her no claims bonus despite being a named person only. The solution to this is to sell the car back and over between us every year so we keep both no-claims bonuses intact.
Then there is the issue of buying a house together which I wont even get into.
Being in long term relationship without marriage is a disaster from Irish law perspective (at least if you're a man and a woman, as you dont have the options of civil partnership, which is afforded to other members of society.)

I'm not sure that your original point is correct about the transfer of losses between spouses:

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/foi/...ains-tax-corporation-tax/part-44/44-02-01.pdf

Thanks Joe. I am glad I checked. I have taken the key points out of that link.

Capital gains tax on the chargeable gains of a married woman living with her
husband is to be assessed and charged on the husband. The total tax charged is
not to be different from what it would be if each spouse were to be assessed
separately.

If in a year of assessment one spouse has allowable losses which
he/she cannot utilise because of an insufficiency of chargeable gains ...the
balance of the losses ... can be offset against the other spouse’s gains in the year of assessment.

Subject to[certain conditions] where an asset is transferred from one
spouse to another, a chargeable gain or allowable loss does not arise.

Where the no gain/no loss treatment outlined above applies in relation to the
disposal of an asset and the spouse who acquired the asset subsequently
disposes of it ... he/she is treated as if he/she had acquired it at the time and cost at which it was
originally acquired by the other spouse.

Long term relationship*, both financially to the good, remaining single = lunacy.

Just in case:- How long is the longterm relationship?

Five years currently.