For Richer, For Poorer, For Inheritance Tax: Ricky Gervais Finds A Reason To Marry

The Telegraph reports that after 44 years together, comedian Ricky Gervais has identified a compelling reason to marry his long-term partner, author Jane Fallon: inheritance tax.

Speaking recently about the couple’s decision not to marry, Gervais reportedly described the tax distinction between married and unmarried couples as “mad”. He observed that he and his partner have lived together for 40 years and share all their money, asking: “How more married can you be?” Nevertheless, he said that inheritance tax may finally persuade them to formalise their relationship.

He has a point. For inheritance tax purposes, the difference between being married, or in a civil partnership, and simply living together can be substantial, however long the relationship has lasted.

Marriage and the spouse exemption

Broadly, assets passing between spouses or civil partners are exempt from inheritance tax. The exemption is generally unlimited, although special rules can restrict it where the deceased was a long-term UK resident and the recipient spouse or civil partner was not. The exemption applies not only on death, but also to qualifying lifetime transfers.

There is no equivalent exemption for unmarried couples. A couple may have lived together for decades, shared their finances and regarded themselves as married in all but name, but none of that creates a “common law marriage” for inheritance tax purposes.

The practical consequences can be significant. According to press reports, Gervais owns a seven-bedroom property in Hampstead valued at approximately £15 million. If he died before his partner, she could potentially be faced with a large inheritance tax bill, to the tune of several millions, depending on the particular ownership arrangements, and available inheritance tax allowances and reliefs. This would happen at an already difficult time, forcing the sale of assets, for example.

By contrast, if they were married or had entered a civil partnership, the full spouse exemption would apply, and the transfer would generally take place without an immediate inheritance tax charge.

Avoidance or deferral?

There is, however, an important qualification. The spouse exemption will not necessarily eliminate inheritance tax altogether. In many cases, it postpones the issue until the surviving spouse or civil partner dies. If the assets the survivor has inherited are still within their estate at their death, and the estate is left to chargeable beneficiaries (e.g. not a charity), then the asset will become subject to inheritance tax at that time (again, subject to available allowances and reliefs).

Nonetheless, the deferral of inheritance tax is useful because it opens up a number of planning opportunities for the survivor. This is because following the first death, the survivor can give away assets they inherited and, as long as they survive 7 years, those assets may escape the inheritance tax net altogether.

Does marriage make probate easier?

Marriage can also improve the survivor’s position where the deceased has not made a Will. A surviving spouse or civil partner has statutory rights under the intestacy rules. An unmarried partner currently has no automatic entitlement to the deceased’s estate, regardless of the length of the relationship.

That said, marriage does not remove the need for sensible estate planning. Whether a grant of representation is required depends principally on the deceased’s assets and how they were owned. Property held as beneficial joint tenants will generally pass automatically to the surviving owner, whether or not the couple were married, although in the case of an unmarried couple, the deceased’s share of the asset will be subject to inheritance tax. Solely owned assets and property held as tenants in common will pass either under the terms of a Will, or under the intestacy rules. A valid, up-to-date Will therefore remains important for married and unmarried couples alike.

Could the law change for cohabitants?

The Government’s recent consultation, A Fairer End to Relationships, considers strengthening the rights of cohabitants in England and Wales. Among other matters, it seeks views on reforming the intestacy rules so that qualifying cohabitants might acquire automatic inheritance rights, as well as improving access to financial provision from a deceased partner’s estate. The consultation closed on 14 August 2026 and no change in the law has yet been implemented.

As my colleague Matthew Yates discusses in Living together could get a lot more appealing under Labour, the proposals are potentially significant. However, they do not propose extending the inheritance tax spouse exemption to cohabitants.

Even if the intestacy reforms proceed, unmarried couples could therefore remain in a materially different tax position from spouses and civil partners.

The practical lesson

Marriage should not be entered into solely as a tax-planning exercise without considering its wider legal and financial consequences. Nevertheless, Gervais’s comments highlight a genuine issue. The law does not measure commitment by the length of a relationship, the extent to which finances are shared or how the couple describe themselves. For inheritance tax purposes, formal legal status matters.

Cohabiting couples should review how their home and other assets are owned, ensure that each partner has a valid Will, consider how any inheritance tax would be funded and take advice on the wider succession plan. As Ricky Gervais has realised, even after 44 years together, the absence of a marriage certificate or civil partnership can make a considerable difference.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.