federal guidelines for same sex marriage?

[taxea]

"I understood him to be saying that there are some wrong things on tax returns that the IRS actively searches for and others that it only acts on when circumstances force it to acknowledge the existence of a situation and that qualifications to be married are in the latter category."

This is all very true, but do you want to be the preparer that knowingly violates tax law because you know this is one of the issues that they don't dwell on? It isn't any different then allowing your child to be taken as a dependent of someone that does not qualify to take the child because they want the EIC or whatever. Not me, thank you taxes

[David1980]

I think most of us have reported something wrong on a tax return or done something the way it really shouldn't have been. I've been guilty of letting 4852 slide when a W-2 could probably be replaced a time or two in order to get a return prepared and finished instead of waiting when the difference is a matter of weeks or months.

Most software lets small things slide as well. For example if you have active participation in a partnership and were not able to claim all your losses due to the at risk loss rules most of the software I looked at simply lumps the prior year amount into the current year amount and nets it out. When in fact following the IRS instructions it should be stated on a second line of Schedule E page 2 with partnership name "PYA" (prior year amount). The net reporting ends up at the correct bottom line but does not follow the form instructions. (This is one of my favorite items to throw into new software when I'm trying it out because everyone does it wrong, even though the result is fine.)

So I think it's a legitimate question to ask about what the worse that could happen with preparer penalties would be. Personally I wouldn't do a MFJ return for people I knew were not deemed to be married (For federal purposes). I know others that will file the return MFJ for gay couples or even boyfriend/girlfriend situations. While I wouldn't do it, I feel no need to judge them so long as they know what they are doing isn't quite kosher.

Heck, I used to be one of them sticklers over "You can't claim your girlfriends kids" situations and that is of course OK to do now, even on amended prior year returns (with certain conditions met.)

Basically, I do not consider myself to be an employee of the IRS. I'll fulfill the requirements I need to and do what I think is in the best interest of my real customers for the rest.

[travis bickle]

They already have, for all filers

. . . .
Again, why doesn't IRS come out in their instructions and tell these people in those states that allow same sex marriage that they cannot file MFJ on the federal return?

On page 22 of pub 17 [filing status] and on page 15 of the F1040 Instruction packet, it says: "For federal tax purposes, a marriage means only a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife."

Seems fairly plain to me.

[Lion]

Op

TaxMom was asked an insurance question by a non-client who prepared her own tax returns. We're all throwing fits over why a professional would file a same-sex couple as MFJ. TaxMom needs to send them to the company's plan sponsor for answers under the plan and under MA law.

I received a call from a non-client in December asking if he could file single if he was single most of the year. Turns out he and his live-in girlfriend were considering getting married before the end of the year since she would be losing her health insurance when his company dropped its domestic partner coverage 1 January 2009. They had one more option not available to TaxMom's caller, though. I explained the tax implications of his possible decisions and reminded him not to make all-encompassing decisions based on only tax considerations. They had already discussed the possibilities from many angles and just needed some tax input since they each have been preparing their own returns and now needed a tax adviser.

[joanmcq]

Erchess, you are wrong when you say only MA same sex couples file joint. CA RDPs and those that married before prop 8 passed file joint, as do RDPs or civil unions in CT, NJ, VT and a few others I can't rattle off the top of my head. NY recognizes MA same sex marriages. However, only the state return is filed joint; the federal returns are filed as two singles or a single & HOH depending on situation.

[taxea]

Dave1980...take a look at the new tax book page 3-16 that shows examples of the boyfriend taking the girlfriends kids...the way I read it there is no situation where he can do this and vice versa. taxea

[erchess]

Erchess, you are wrong when you say only MA same sex couples file joint. CA RDPs and those that married before prop 8 passed file joint, as do RDPs or civil unions in CT, NJ, VT and a few others I can't rattle off the top of my head. NY recognizes MA same sex marriages. However, only the state return is filed joint; the federal returns are filed as two singles or a single & HOH depending on situation.

Thank you for the education. Most interesting. I get very little call to do returns for any of the relevant states but my software will let me have different filing statuses on Federal and State or even one State and Another State as long as I tick a particular box on one of the screens that comes up early on every return. I don't think I have ever knowingly done something wrong on a return but I will do about anything that I know to be legal if it's also what the client wants.

[David1980]

Dave1980...take a look at the new tax book page 3-16 that shows examples of the boyfriend taking the girlfriends kids...the way I read it there is no situation where he can do this and vice versa. taxea

It's at the office so I'll check that on Monday. What a strange reversal if what you say is true. I know last year, and it still shows in the 2008 IRS Pub 501 on page 15, they allowed you to do exactly that so long as the girlfriend had no requirement to file and either did not file or only filed for a return of withholding.

[taxea]

Dave...the IRS has made several "narrowing" changes the past three or so years and I received this information in one of their recent newsletters. I researched the new Tax Book to see how they explained it and it was quite clear so i just thought I would mention it.

I know there was a lot of posting earlier this year about whether taking a live-in girlfriend was now legal The Tax Book gives very easily understandable examples for dependents and Head of Household. So many people try to take HH when there are two working adults in the household and that is a big no no.

The other narrowing change is giving a child to another to claim just so the other can get more of a refund. In most circumstances, it appears, that only the custodial parent is entitled to the deduction unless, within the current rules, the parent can provide an 8332 to a third party like the other parent.
taxea