Please explain to me, I am sorry if I am thick, but if a property is owned jointly as tenancy in common , what is the point of leaving a right to occupy for survivor, as they have the right to remain there and cannot be evicted except by court order, being a beneficiary in actual occupation.
I realise it might be nice to make this clear to save disputes, but if it creates an asset that can then be subject to IHT it seems to me a bad idea in a lot of circumstances. Is there another reason I am missing?
Great for the survivor if they really like litigation or are sanguine about its probability depending on who is the other tenant in common. I know which I’d prefer.
Where the testator is not married to the joint owner, this may well make sense. As you say, an owner is entitled to occupy even if they are not the 100% owner, and the alternative of creating an IPDI taxable again on the co-owner’s death is unappealing. However, there will always be a risk of the other co-owner either also seeking to occupy the property or seeking to have the property sold via court order. Much would depend on the family situation and relationship between the co-owner and the beneficiary of the testator’s share of the property.
A discretionary trust in the Will is another option, but the trustees would need to be careful not to do anything that smacks of appointing a de facto IIP to the co-owner in the first 2 years.