Not Married but Cohabiting can tx credits be transferred

sexmag

Hi,

My partner and i are not married but are cohabiting, she is a fulltime carer to her son so is in reciept of carers allowance (or benifit, i cant remember off the top of my head), i work full time and we have 2 children together.

As she is not working is it possible for her to transfer her working tax credits to me so we can benifit from them?

Ive looked online but cant seem to find an asnwer that explains it clearly

Thanks very much

seamus

No, not possible.

From Revenue's point of view, you are single.

It may actually be beneficial, no matter how ideologically opposed to it you both may be, to get married.

But you should examine your entire situation obviously before making any decision - carer's allowance is means-tested based on the entire household income. This includes your income as the cohabiting partner (if welfare are aware of you). Getting married doesn't change this.

sexmag

seamus wrote: »

No, not possible.

From Revenue's point of view, you are single.

It may actually be beneficial, no matter how ideologically opposed to it you both may be, to get married.

But you should examine your entire situation obviously before making any decision - carer's allowance is means-tested based on the entire household income. This includes your income as the cohabiting partner (if welfare are aware of you). Getting married doesn't change this.

Hi and thanks for your reply.

Yes welfare are aware of us living together and i have to provide pay slips every so often etc when my partners allowance is reviewed.

Its a bit of stinker that doing everything by the book and just because we arent married we dont get the tax breaks married couples do. We arent really looking at getting married as we believe its a of an outdated tradition in our opinion and would aware of like minded couples too which would seem a bit unfair someone on baords a few years ago said it could be in contrary to european law. Maybe ill start a thread in the legal forum to ask what people think

Until then i guess ill just have to petition my loca td

Peregrinus

Marriage is the mechanism by which you seek and obtgain legal, administrative, regulatory, recognition for the commitments and obligation you have undertaken towards your conjugal partner. If you want that kind of recognition, marry; if you would prefer to keep these things private between the two of you and have them ignored by bureacrats, do not marry. But you can't really choose not to seek recognition of your relationship, and then complain that your relationship is unrecognised.

Squatter

sexmag wrote: »

Its a bit of stinker that doing everything by the book and just because we arent married we dont get the tax breaks married couples do.

But you're not doing "everything by the book". You're adopting an a la carte approach to one of the biggest things in "the book"!

Do everything by "the book" and your imagined 'problem' will disappear. Remember, it's their game, their ball and their rules!

Purple Mountain

Peregrinus wrote: »

But you can't really choose not to seek recognition of your relationship, and then complain that your relationship is unrecognised.

But the state recognises their relationship when they are receipt of social welfare but abandons them in terms of taxation benifits.
This is a social policy anomaly in our state.

Peregrinus

Purple Mountain wrote: »

But the state recognises their relationship when they are receipt of social welfare but abandons them in terms of taxation benifits.
This is a social policy anomaly in our state.

Not really, since the two social policies have different objectives. Different factors are relevant.

With social welfare, you're looking at how much the state needs to give someone in order for them to live a minimally decent life. That requires you to look at what income/resources they already have. Why they have that income/those resources is irrelevant. So if you're being supported by a domestic partner, that's relevant. It's not relevant whether that partner is your spouse or a non-marital partner.

Whereas with income tax, we're looking at how much you can contribute to the general welfare. The big factors here are (a) how much you have, and (b) what other demands are made on you that take priority over, or at least compete with, the demands of the general welfare. As a rule, how you choose to spend or give away your money is irrelevant. You don't get a tax deduction because you want to make a large gift to your child, for example.

If you're married, you have a legal obligation to support your spouse. Therefore, that's an obligation which competes with or takes priority over your tax obligations, so some allowance is made for that in your tax calculation. But if you're not married, you have no obligation to support your partner; you merely choose to do so. That's ignored, like other entirely voluntary expenditures and gifts.

If you want your support for your partner to be recognised as a legal obligation, you need to actually accept it as a legal obligation yourselrf. You do that by marrying.

(Ironically, you can also do it by separating, and having your ex-partner get a maintenance order against you. And, if you do that, they you'll get the same tax treatment as a separated married couple with a maintenance order.)

Squatter

Purple Mountain wrote: »

But the state recognises their relationship when they are receipt of social welfare but abandons them in terms of taxation benifits. This is a social policy anomaly in our state.

Latest Dáil statement about the matter that I could find.

Unsurprisingly, SF's Pearse "magic money tree" Doherty wanted the State's coffers to be opened to every ersatz partnership under the sun!

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-05-22/134/

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

But if you're not married, you have no obligation to support your partner; you merely choose to do so.

That's actually not correct.

If a relationship breaks up after cohabiting for a certain amount of time, there may be entitlement to maintenance payments (exclusive of children), as well as legal rights over land and other assets. There is also a legal recognition that "shared income" exists within cohabiting relationships and the right of either partner to protect it. So it wouldn't be correct to say that unmarried couples bear no obligation to support their partners.

Whether Revenue is the anomaly, or the cohabiting laws are the anomaly, doesn't really matter.

Point is, there is an incongruence between how civil law and social welfare deals with cohabiting couples, and how tax law treats them.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

That's actually not correct.

If a relationship breaks up after cohabiting for a certain amount of time, there may be entitlement to maintenance payments (exclusive of children), as well as legal rights over land and other assets. There is also a legal recognition that "shared income" exists within cohabiting relationships and the right of either partner to protect it. So it wouldn't be correct to say that unmarried couples bear no obligation to support their partners.

While they are actually cohabiting, there is no obligation; what they do is entirely voluntary on both sides. No obligation arises unless and until they break up, and one of them heads off to court and gets a maintenance order. They there is an obligation, and the tax system will respond accordingly.