Amdended form 1040X

[Danjos]

Trying to amend 1040 form Married filing Separately back to Married Filing Jointly. If Married Filing Jointly the refund would have been $3,155.00. Married Filing Separately One spouses refund was $3,320.00 the Other Spouse was $265.00. When I do the 1040X The spouse whose refund was $265.00 is now 2,890.00 and the other spouse owes 165.00. This does not seem possible that the refund would have this substantial increase.
If filing Jointly the refund would have been $3,155.00
By Filing Separately the combined refund was------------------$3,585.00
If I go back to filing Jointly one spouse would receive an additional refund of $2,890.00 on the 1040X. this does not appear to be correct. I am using ATX tax program to do the figures. What am I over looking. Line 17 on 1040X states " overpayment, in any, as shown on original return." If I add up the figures the increase seems overstated

[David1980]

Amending from MFS to MFJ you only need to amend one return, not both. Then add the other spouse's information. On line 17 of the 1040-X be sure to include the original refunds from both tax returns.

[Roland Slugg]

I believe you've done something wrong. It would be extremely rare for the tax on a MFJ return to be greater than the combined tax on both MFS returns. It's likely that one (or both) of the ORs was done incorrectly or the new MFJ return is wrong.

[mastertaxguy]

MFS to MFJ

Often when going from MFS to MFJ the combined incomes limit itemized deductions which have a floor (medical, miscellaneous expenses/2106 expenses, etc).

My own office has three married couples who file separatley for such reasons and get combined a much lower Federal tax. Two of my Same sex couples called last summer regarding getting married: I do both returns. I ran the numbers and suggested they stay single.

[BP.]

Same sex couples called last summer regarding getting married: I do both returns. I ran the numbers and suggested they stay single.

1. Wouldn't tax outcome be the same (MFJ v. 2 singles) regardless of gender? Are opposite sex clients counseled to remain single?
2. More prudent: "I ran the numbers and told them of the tax consequences." Might suggesting to remain single for ONLY tax reasons mean foregoing other potential financial benefits of marriage?

[Gary2]

1. Wouldn't tax outcome be the same (MFJ v. 2 singles) regardless of gender? Are opposite sex clients counseled to remain single?
2. More prudent: "I ran the numbers and told them of the tax consequences." Might suggesting to remain single for ONLY tax reasons mean foregoing other potential financial benefits of marriage?

The question comes up more often for same sex couples because there are many who've been in long term relationships, sometimes over decades, who only now have the option. For them, the decision is far more about both the symbolism and the finances; they've already proved the commitment. Unmarried opposite-sex couples who are living together have typically already made the decision to not get married (often aware of the tax benefits to filing single plus HoH). Those in newer relationships who are contemplating the next step (regardless of gender mix) are less likely to even ask the question.

When answering such questions, I typically begin with "I'm not a marriage counselor, and this is purely about the tax consequences. It's up to you to evaluate the other aspects."

Finally, don't forget to include potential estate/gift tax issues in the equation.

[mastertaxguy]

Mfs/same sex

1. Wouldn't tax outcome be the same (MFJ v. 2 singles) regardless of gender? Are opposite sex clients counseled to remain single?
2. More prudent: "I ran the numbers and told them of the tax consequences." Might suggesting to remain single for ONLY tax reasons mean foregoing other potential financial benefits of marriage?

As always, it depends on facts and circumstances. When income is combined, those "AGI" type limits apply. In the case of single taxpayers, same sex or otherwise, getting married and filing a joint return may result in higher AGI eliminating for one or both spouses items which are subject to income phaseouts, or inclusions: taxable social security for example, various credits and as noted previously, itemized deductions.

Your point is valid of course, expecially if neither spouse would be claiming various income-phase out credits, both spouses have relatively equal income and itemized deductions above the respective standard deduction and so on.


As for other financial benefits, do you mean like both being liable for understatements of tax on a joint return? Or creating additional injured spouse situations (State and Federal)? As for pensions, retirement plans, life insurance and such those have beneficiary designations. Health insurance is often a bigger factor in such considerations, though.

[BP.]

As for other financial benefits, do you mean like both being liable for understatements of tax on a joint return? Or creating additional injured spouse situations (State and Federal)? As for pensions, retirement plans, life insurance and such those have beneficiary designations.

You're right, there are concomitant downsides. For retirement benefits, do spousal beneficiaries have a wider array of choices than non-spousal beneficiaries in terms of distributions?

[taxea]

mfs creates a higher tax liability