My understanding of the recent Supreme Court ruling is that DOMA is gone so the Federal Government may not refuse to accept a marriage which is valid under the laws of any state. But as I understand it there is nothing that says any State has to allow same sex marriages to originate there. However what I really do not know is whether a same sex couple that gets a valid marriage in one of the states that does allow it and then moves to a state that wants to not recognize it, is that State free to do so or must it recognize that marriage? Could a state that was so inclined decide to not recognize any marriage that begins in a State that allows same sex marriage? Am I perhaps asking questions that do not have definitive answers at this time? I just need to know what the law is because I am willing to prepare any return that can be legally prepared and for which I will be paid my usual rates for my time.
-
-
Better wait for the dust to clear.
I suspect it will be a while before the IRS shakes out the details and comes up with some guidelines.Evan Appelman, EA -
It's not really quite correct to say DOMA is dead, precisely because of what you mention. States that do not wish to recognize same-sex marriage from other states do not have to. Where as male-female marriage in one state does get recognized in other states. Section 2 of DOMA is still in force.
Comment
-
Correct. But as I understand it, the Feds must recognize them if they are married within any state or international country that recognizes gay marriage. I can already tell (barring my own feelings about this) that I'm going to get REALLY tired of hearing about this for the next 10 years.Originally posted by David1980 View PostComment
-
Nebraska has its own DOMA style amendment to the consititution. Can't wait till some of my same sex couples go across the border to Iowa, get married and want to file MFJ. I would imagine I could do it for the federal return but then would have to prepare two single NE returns. Wonder how they will take it when they find out that as an economic unit they will actually pay more in taxes as MFJ instead of single?In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
Alexis de TocquevilleComment
-
Can Same Sex Couples legaly married still file SINGLE returns?
Many same sex couples who both work have been filing SINGE returns, and their overall tax is less than if they filed joint (no marriage penalty). Can these couples still file SINGE or are they now required to file JOINT or MFS? Many same sex couples will be upset if they are REQUIRED to file JOINT (or MFS). If they are allowed to keep filing SINGLE, then that is very unfair to traditional married couples. There is much to hash out here.Comment
-
One and Two
What did Section One say and what does Section Two say?Comment
-
I think congress would have to pass a new special law to ALLOW them to file as SINGLE.Originally posted by John of PA View Post
I don't believe the "same sex" distinction is necessary here. Many couples are upset when they are REQUIRED to file JOINT (or MFS).Many same sex couples will be upset if they are REQUIRED to file JOINT (or MFS).
Agreed. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting they should be allowed to file as single though.If they are allowed to keep filing SINGLE, then that is very unfair to traditional married couples.
Seems like the issues to hash out will be what happens when a same-sex couple gets married in a state that permits it and then moves to a state that doesn't. Which state determines marriage? What about returns already filed. Allow to amend? Force to amend?There is much to hash out here.Comment
-
I'm sure the full text is online, as it's short, about one page. But from memory, section 1 was purely an introductory statement while section 2 said that states did not need to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. In other words, section 2 was a qualification on the "full faith and credit" clause.Originally posted by erchess View Post
Section 3 said that whenever any federal law or regulation used the terms "marriage" or "spouse", it was limited to opposite-sex couples. That's how a single, very short law could affect over a thousand other federal provisions. I believe it's also what led to the IRS applying community property rules to RDPs and same-sex married couples in community property states, i.e., the federal community property laws and regulations never had to use those words, instead saying things along the lines of "If income is treated as belonging to someone else under a state's community property laws, then it also belongs to that person under federal law."Comment
-
It seems to me the best way to proceed is that a couple's filing status is based on the laws of thier resident state and thier Fed return based on the laws (definition of marriage) of thier resident state as of the last day of the year.Comment
-
You can't read beyond the specifics of this particular court case, because the Supreme Court said nothing about how the ruling applies in other circumstances, which is what many were hoping for.
The specifics of this case were a gay couple getting married in one jurisdiction that allows gay marriage, and then living in another jurisdiction that allows gay marriage. In that instance, the Supreme Court said State law must be followed. The ruling says nothing about what if the couple legally married in one jurisdiction decided to move to another jurisdiction that does not recognize gay marriage.
That will have to be decided in another Court battle. Sorry, but that is how these things work, and until IRS decides to release guidance, we are in the dark.Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveO View PostI’m glad you brought this up, I really thought I was missing something as lately in the news many interviewed couples are overjoyed because they may now file MFJ and currently they are losing out on many of the tax breaks not filing MFJ. Off the top of my head I couldn’t think of any examples that could be more beneficial to file jointly. In states that recognize Domestic Partnerships it seems to me that they are getting the best of both worlds, they can file as two single or possibly one Head of Household if one partner has a qualifying child.Originally posted by John of PA View Post
Working with only one income rather than household income, one can qualify for Pell Grants for education and other low income benefits. Domestic Partners don’t have to be same sex either,and they receive many “married” couple benefits such as Employer provided Health Insurance, Family Leave Act, etc., etc……Comment
-
This is why the BLAG premise that somehow DOMA protected traditional marriage is bogus. There are plenty of opposite sex couples who figured out that they're better off filing one as HoH and the other single, and hence don't get married (not to mention the ones who are married but file this way illegally).
As for the situation of a same sex married couple living in a state that doesn't recognize it, if the IRS issues a ruling or regulation that they may still file as married, it will be very difficult for anyone to show standing to challenge it.Comment
-
The biggest significance for my clients...
will usually be non-taxability of family health benefits. This was the basis on which I filed protective claims for refunds for years that are now closed. This benefit will, in some cases, be diluted by the "marriage penalty." For the treatment of couples who move to a state that doesn't recognize their marriage, perhaps the precedent should be the IRS treatment of common-law marriages. I believe the IRS recognizes them if they were recognized by the state in which they began, OR if they are recognized by the state in which the taxpayers now live.Evan Appelman, EAComment
-
DexEA, I have to disagree that filing joint is advantages, the marriage penalty will cost same sex couples much more in taxes in situaltions where both work. They will no longer be able to file SINGLE or one HofH and the other SINGLE if thier resident state recoginizes their marriage.Comment
Comment