Marriage and inheritance tax 'loophole'

Thirsty

Registered User
Messages
3,765
Although most folks (including myself), from what I can gather, wished them well; I wonder if the 'non-gay, same-sex' marriage we saw two years ago might be challenged by Revenue? Or will they seek to close off the loophole so it can't be used in the future?

It used to be the case that a marriage had to be consummated to be considered legal, and non-consummation was used in the past as grounds for annulment; the couple in question were clear that they did not intend to live as anything but platonic friends and the marriage was purely to avoid tax.

Arranged marriages for the purposes of obtaining a passport or citizenship are illegal and people have been arrested and prosecuted for this crime.

Tax evasion is illegal and people have been arrested and prosecuted for this crime.

Can a platonic marriage for the purposes of tax avoidance continue to be acceptable?
 
Don't see why not. Taxman is the legal mafia so using all the rules to prevent him taking your money is good
 
Can a platonic marriage for the purposes of tax avoidance continue to be acceptable?
In a way I'd love to see this challenged by Revenue, only because I'd love to see someone from Revenue on TV giving a definition of what constitutes the consummation of marriage in same and opposite sex relationships and then answering questions about different types of marriage and generally what people get up to in their bedrooms. It'd be even better if it was pascal answering the questions.

For those reasons I don't think it will be challenged.
 
I don't believe the non-consummation is any longer a legal concept, though it may be a religious one.

However, it could be argued that the marriage was 'sham' in so far as it was intended solely as means to avoid legal obligations; in much the same way that a marriage to obtain residency/ citizenship or a passport is considered a 'sham'.
 
I don't believe the non-consummation is any longer a legal concept, though it may be a religious one
It can still technically be a basis for an annulment (legal), although the criteria is that a party is unable, rather than unwilling, to consummate the marriage.

It's an interesting thread, but why the focus on this couple? All they've done is shone a light on something that has happened hundreds of times.

Interestingly there has been a case (for different reasons) in the UK.
 
why the focus on this couple
They made it very clear that they were marrying only to avoid tax.

And I'm not focusing on this couple, but rather their reasons for marrying.
 
@Thirsty
Apologies, I didn't mean you, but why would Revenue justify focusing on this specific case.
They're not the first 'couple' to get married to simplify tax affairs on the death of one party. The might be the first that were so public about it, but definitely not the first.
 
Philosopher Immanuel Kant was voluntarily celibate and described marriage as nothing more than a contract to use each others' genitals.

Although it seems in this case not even this low bar has been cleared.

I don't see how the state can police anyone's bedroom life.


It does conflict a bit with recent attempts to cut down on sham marriages for immigration purposes though.
 
Back
Top