Author Archives: Erin Louis CPA, Advocate Accounting LLC

National Taxpayer Advocate Urges the IRS to Issue Guidance to Domestic Partners and Same-Sex Married Couples

19 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Community Property, Legislation, RDP Tax Returns, Taxes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

The National Taxpayer Advocate Center is an office within the IRS designed to aid taxpayers in resolving their tax issues. They share responsibility with the IRS for evaluating systems and procedures. Each year the Taxpayer Advocate issues an annual report to Congress in which they make recommendations for improvements and identify systematic deficiencies.

The 2012 Annual Report submitted to Congress once again contained a request that the IRS provide authoritative guidance to domestic partners (DP) and same-sex couples (SSC). They have made this request each year since 2010 when new filing requirements were first implemented for DPs and SSCs living in community property states (CA, WA and NV).

To date, the only guidance the IRS has provided is an FAQ page that is periodically updated. The FAQ page is sadly insufficient however.  It excludes several issues that many DPs and SSCs face. Additionally, since the FAQ page is not authoritative it leaves over a million taxpayers in the position of being required to follow procedures to which there are little to no official rules. These taxpayers are thus forced to attempt to interpret the requirements on their own, or seek professional help from a tax advisor.

Each year the IRS has responded to the National Taxpayer Advocate Center with a claim that issuing guidance would be premature.  Their reasoning is that the political landscape surrounding DPs and SSCs is changing too rapidly and it would affect an “insignificant” number of taxpayers. While I do understand that until the Supreme Court rules DOMA unconstitutional the IRS’ rule making abilities are limited, I find it highly offensive to disregard the needs of over a million taxpayers because they are deemed “insignificant.” Meanwhile, the IRS has delayed tax return processing for the majority of Americans because of disputes on legislation that affects the small amount of taxpayers earning over $400,000/year.

The Taxpayer Advocate report also noted that data from the 2010 Census revealed an increase of documented DPs and SSCs of 100%. Since then, over five states have enacted legislation enabling Domestic Partnerships and/or Same-Sex marriages.  How many couples must there be before the IRS will help taxpayers? How many times must the Taxpayer Advocate urge Congress to enable the IRS to establish and implement authoritative guidance? Despite its apparent lack of effectiveness, it’s nice to know that someone is speaking up for DPs and SSCs. Thanks Taxpayer Advocate.

Advertisements

LGBT Equality Cliff (Not) Averted: Highlights of 2012 LGBT Rights Accomplishments

08 Tuesday Jan 2013

Posted by in Law Suits, Legislation, Marriage, Washington

≈ Comments Off on LGBT Equality Cliff (Not) Averted: Highlights of 2012 LGBT Rights Accomplishments

Congress may have averted the fiscal cliff but I doubt they can curb the fall of anti-LGBT legislation. In 2012 we saw monumental achievements in equality. The momentum is still growing and I do not expect it to slow in 2013. Instead, we may see a Supreme Court rule DOMA unconstitutional. Such a decision would have countless and far-reaching positive consequences; I call this potential roll out of rights the LGBT Equality Cliff.

The progress in 2012 was seen across the board, not just legislatively. Television shows had unprecedented growth in LGBT characters, actors and athletes came out as LGBT and allies, and musicians and Fortune 500 companies came out in support of marriage equality. There are positive shifts everywhere. The way that Americans think about the LGBT community is changing. Here are some of the many, many, achievements of 2012.

State Marriage

  • Maine, Maryland and Washington legalize gay-marriage
  • Rhode Island begins recognizing marriages from other states
  • Minnesota rejects a constitutional amendment denying marriage equality
  • New Hampshire blocks repeal of same-sex marriage
  • 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules California’s Prop 8 is unconstitutional

DOMA

  • Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York rules DOMA unconstitutional
  • 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rules DOMA unconstitutional
  • Supreme Court agrees to hear two cases challenging constitutionality of DOMA

Elected Officials

  • Tammy Baldwin is elected as first openly lesbian or gay US Senator
  • Kyrsten Sinema is elected to House of Representatives and becomes the first openly bisexual member of Congress
  • Number of state legislatures with no openly LGBT members drops from 17 to 10
  • Michael Fitzgerald becomes 4th openly gay federal judge, the 1st outside of New York
  • Mark Takano becomes first openly gay person of color in US Congress

Military

  • Tammy Smith becomes first openly gay active duty general in American history
  • Sgt. Erwynn Umali and his partner Will Behrens become the first gay couple to marry on a military base
  • Pentagon hosts first-ever LGBT Pride event

Transgender Rights

  • US Citizenship and Immigration Services announces that US will recognize valid marriages for immigration purposes regardless of a spouse’s subsequent gender transition
  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules unanimously that employment bias based on transgender status is tantamount to discrimination based on sex, which violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Massachusetts passes transgender anti-discrimination bill
  • American Psychiatric Association removes “gender identity disorder” from the DSM-5[i]

Media

  • Nordstrom’s, JC Penny, Microsoft, Amazon, General Mills, Macy’s, Starbucks, Viacom, Boeing, and Google announce support for marriage equality
  • NAACP announces support for marriage equality
  • President Obama and Vice President Biden announce support for marriage equality; so do Jay Z, Brad Pitt, Jason Mraz, Morgan Freeman, and Bruce Springstein
  • Anderson Cooper, Wade Davis, Orlando Cruz, Frank Ocean, and Sally Ride come out
  • San Francisco 49ers become the first NFL team to join the “It Gets Better” campaign
  • Keelin Godsey becomes the first openly transgender Olympic contender

Other

  • First PTA specifically for LGBT students is created in Long Island NY
  • Department of Justice publishes final regulations creating national standards directly addressing LGBT needs in an attempt to eliminate sexual abuse in America’s prisons, jails and local detention facilitates

As great as this list is, there are still 2012 achievements not listed.  I can only imagine what 2013 will bring. We’ve already had one victory this year when the American Civil Liberties Union secured severance pay for those discharged from the military under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  

What to Watch For in 2013

  • January vote on gay marriage bill expected in Illinois
  • February vote on gay marriage bill expected in Rhode Island
  • Supreme Court will review two DOMA cases in March

Happy New Year everyone!

[i] Gender Dysphoria remains in the DSM.

How Marriage Equality Affects Your Retirement: IRA Tax Loopholes Available to Opposite-Sex Married Couples Only

26 Monday Nov 2012

Posted by in Marriage, Retirement, Taxes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are powerful tools for funding your future.  Putting money into an IRA can be a great way to save for your retirement because it provides tax benefits in the present.  Unlike some retirement plans, IRAs can be set up by anyone; they do not have to be set up by your employer.

One of the major benefits of an IRA is that all or a portion of your contributions may be tax deductible and some taxpayers can claim a tax credit for their contributions. Additionally, any earnings on the money you’ve put in will be tax-deferred until you take the money out.  This benefit is particularly useful if you expect your annual income to be less during retirement years.

There are, of course, eligibility requirements for participating in an IRA. First, you must be under age 70 ½, and second, you may only contribute if you have taxable compensation for the year.  Each year the IRS assigns a maximum dollar amount that can be contributed; it is currently $5,000. Anyone under age 70 ½ can contribute the lesser of that $5,000 or their taxable compensation.  As an example, if you earn $6,000 you can only contribute $5,000; if you earn $3,500 you can only contribute $3,500.

It is this “taxable compensation” rule where we come to our first loophole only available to straight married couples, i.e. “spouses” as defined by DOMA.  If you are otherwise eligible to contribute to an IRA but are not working, and therefore have no taxable compensation, you can use your spouse’s income to qualify you for contributions. When one spouse earns $10,000 and the other earns $0, both can contribute up to $5,000.  Unless of course the non-working spouse is part of a same-sex couple, in which case no contribution is allowed.

This means that if a person has enough cash to contribute the maximum every year, but isn’t allowed to because they have no taxable compensation and aren’t considered a spouse, they miss out on up to $5,000 in tax deductions every year.  This essentially results in a gay person having to pay a potential $500 to $1,400 more in taxes, per year, than their straight counterpart.

Next let’s talk about what happens when you pull the money out of these plans.  Depending on what portions of your contributions were deductible, the distributions may be fully or partially taxable as ordinary income.  Furthermore, if you pull the money out before you’ve reached age 59 ½ a 10% penalty will be imposed. Luckily, for some, there are a few ways to get out of paying this.

The IRS has provided several exceptions that allow a taxpayer to avoid the 10% penalty.  While under the right conditions most of them are available to all taxpayers, there are also circumstances in which they are not.  There are three exceptions that apply to individuals who take a distribution to pay for certain expenses for themselves or their spouse[i].

  1. The money can be pulled to pay for health insurance premiums for an unemployed taxpayer or their spouse.
  2. The money can be pulled to pay for higher education expenses for the taxpayer or their spouse.
  3. The money can be pulled to pay for the purchase of a home if the taxpayer or their spouse qualifies as a first-time home buyer.

As an example of these rules in practice, let’s imagine a $10,000 distribution used to pay for higher education expenses.  One man can pull out $10,000 to pay for his wife’s education without penalty while another man who pulls out $10,000 for his husband’s education has to pay a $1,000 penalty.

Don’t get me wrong; the rules were created with good intention.  They are theoretically providing financial incentive for people to stay insured, go to college, and purchase homes.  The problem, albeit unintended, is that in this context, the exclusion of same-sex partners from the federal definition of spouse makes health insurance, education, and homes less accessible to the LGBT community.

Until rights and laws are applied equitably, we must work to understand the consequences of our legal inequality.  The benefits of marriage are more expansive than many of us realize.  I fear that as same-sex marriage begins to feel more attainable, those fighting for it will lose their sense of urgency.  Unfortunately, when it comes to financial rights and obligations, the inequality of today can have a tremendous impact on the future. Gaining parity ten years from now will not make up for present imbalance.

[i] In many cases the funds can also be pulled for children, grandchildren and certain other family members.

Dinner with Volker Beck: European LGBT Rights Leader and Member of German Parliament

14 Wednesday Nov 2012

Posted by in International

≈ Comments Off on Dinner with Volker Beck: European LGBT Rights Leader and Member of German Parliament

Without a doubt one highlight of my trip to Europe was meeting Volker Beck, current spokesperson for Germany’s Green Party. While in Berlin, I had the honor to attend a dinner and discussion with him and a group of my colleagues.

Volker Beck is an openly gay member of German Parliament and has been working for LGBT rights since the 1980’s. His accomplishments over the past 30 years have been many. While he is most known for his work with the European LGBT community, he is also highly involved with various programs providing compensation and remembrance to Nazi victims.

Beck gave us a brief history of his political career which began in 1985 when he joined the Green Party. It was soon after, in the early nineties, that he began spearheading major projects in Germany.  Between 1994 and 1998 he played a critical role in ensuring a monthly pension for Jewish Holocaust victims, in lobbying for construction of holocaust memorials recognizing distinct victim groups, and in revoking criminal sodomy provision Paragraph 175.

The removal of Paragraph 175 in 1994 marks a pivotal time for Germany’s tolerance and acceptance of the LGBT community.  The paragraph, created in 1871, was infamous and had undergone several amendments as Germany fell under the rule of different regimes.  There is even a powerful documentary about the paragraph and how it was brutally enforced during the Nazi era.

During the broader period of 1991 to 2004, Beck was also spokesman for the Lesbian & Gay Association of Germany.  In the later of these years, Beck was responsible for bringing LGBT issues to the attention of Parliament.  In 2001 he drafted, and successfully passed, the Civil Partnership Act expanding the rights of same-sex couples to include nationally recognized registered partnerships. As I mentioned in a previous post, the partnership rights have since been expanded upon several times.  The court-won rights expansions can largely be attributed to the Equal Treatment Act of 2006, also sponsored by none other than Volker Beck.

In 2003, Beck was involved in obtaining funding for the Memorial for Persecuted Homosexuals, aspects of which remain controversial.  I saw the monument when I was in Berlin and I, too, had some issues with it. It was across the street from the Memorial to Murdered Jews of Europe and was therefore, in a way, separating being Jewish and being gay. As someone who is both, the disconnect was a bit troubling. Additionally, the placard explaining the memorial (pictured below) was far away. Regardless, I am thrilled that it exists at all.

In addition to Beck’s admirable dedication and achievements within Germany, he never stops promoting LGBT rights as an international concern.  In 2006, he travelled to Moscow to participate in their first pride parade where he intended to give a TV interview but was unfortunately interrupted by a group of anti-gay youth who assaulted him.  The attack did not slow down his activism, however, and he has continued his fight for a broader sense of equality. 

When I attempted to steer our dinner discussion towards the current LGBT tax issues in Germany he briefly confirmed that equal tax treatment is expected to be acheived in the near future but quickly brought the conversation back to international LGBT issues.  Beck relentlessly continues to encourage a global discussion.  Here, he discusses LGBT issues within the context of Uganda, Brazil, the UN and even Dan Savage.

Volker Beck is a great inspiration to me and I admire his drive for international progress, particularly, when so many advancements have already been made in his own country.  He encourages me to remain aware of things like the anti-gay violence taking place in South Africa where just last week a 19-year old lesbian was murdered. Beck’s dedication is a timely reminder to those of us in Washington where same-sex marriage has just been legalized. A battle may have been won, but the war continues. Imagine what the world could be if more people were as dedicated as he is.

Progress in Perspective: Germany Leads in Same-Sex Tax Rights

05 Friday Oct 2012

Posted by in International, Legislation, Marriage, Taxes

≈ 1 Comment

In just a few days I will be traveling to Europe, the land of ‘better’ rights, but, not necessarily equal ones.  I wanted to leave you with an entry before I left and that has led me to exploring German tax rights for same-sex couples.

Germany has had Civil Unions for same-sex couples since 2001. While Civil Unions are not technically marriages, Germany’s federal recognition, as early as 2001, frankly embarrasses me. Here we are, in 2012, fighting tooth and nail so that a mere portion of our states might legalize marriage or enact its state equivalent.  

It’s true that progress in the U.S. seems to be coming more rapidly, and I don’t think that federal recognition is far away, but it is only that.  My use of the word ‘recognition’, instead of ‘equality’, is quite intentional.  As illustrated by the development of same-sex rights in Germany, recognition of same-sex couples does not necessarily equalize rights.

Since 2001, Germany has had to make significant expansions to Civil Union rights in order for them to be more equal to marriages.  As with the United States, many of the rights have been granted by the courts.  In Germany, the decisions have predominately been made by the Federal Constitutional Court which is in some ways similar the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Naturally, of particular interest to me has been the extension of income and tax rights to German same-sex couples. The first such extension came in 2008 when a surviving partner was refused a Widow’s Pension Fund.  The court that heard the case ruled that the refusal violated the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; a logical argument that I wish had more clout in the United States.  We seem to have to resort to technicalities and loopholes just to prove a point of common sense and decency.  

Next, in 2010, the court ruled it unconstitutional to treat same-sex couples differently than heterosexual couples in a case related to inheritance tax.  This is similar to the famous case Windsor v United States.  Although the lower courts have ordered that Edie Windsor be given a refund of the taxes she paid, the case is still facing appeals and is likely heading to the Supreme Court.  Meanwhile, Germany’s case ruling not only relieved same-sex couples of a tax that their straight counterparts were exempt from, it also ordered that the government compensate surviving partners that had previously paid the tax; a respectful move that, dare I say, will never happen here.

There is speculation that the German government is close to making further changes that will equalize tax rights across the board.  What’s interesting about this development is who supports it and who opposes. 

The current Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, is expected to support the expansion of rights.  She is part of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a conservative party whose members have recently released a statement calling for equal tax treatment.  The CDU is in coalition with the Free Democratic Party (FDP), a party typically supporting business interests. They are also in coalition with the Christian Social Union (CSU), a predominately Catholic party.  While the FDP has long supported equal rights for same sex couples, the CSU is, unsurprisingly, unsupportive.   What is surprising is that the other opposing party is the Social Democratic Party (SDP), a historically liberal party.

At first I found it strange that the conservative, business minded parties were in support of same-sex rights while the liberal party was in opposition.  That sort of landscape is nearly opposite of what we are used to here.  Then I remembered that it’s politics.  As it turns out, Angela Merkel is suspected of merely trying to save face for her upcoming re-election campaign.  She and her party have developed a reputation of opposing legislation only to have the Federal Constitutional Court rule against their position.  As a result, Merkel is expected to support the tax right expansion, just so she can do it before the court does.   As for the SPD, they are apparently not as liberal as they once were. An emerging liberal party, the Left Party, has recently poached many SDP members after the party supported grossly unpopular welfare cuts.

Regardless of the motivations behind these legal changes, the result is the same.  If Germany extends equal tax rights to its citizens, progress has been made, both in Germany and abroad.  I should be happy about all of this, and a part of me is, but there’s just one thing I can’t get past.  Germany’s path to providing equal rights to all couples seems to be a foreshadowing of what is to come in the US. Our road has been similarly marked with case after case arguing that there exists a discrepancy of rights when it comes to partnerships and marriages.  Well, of course there is. We as a nation have proclaimed that partnerships and marriages are not the same thing, even if the rights should be.  But, didn’t we determine, in 1954, that “separate but equal” doesn’t work?  Please, someone tell me how the marriage issue is any different.

“The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating … is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the… group.” – The Supreme Court of the United States, 1954, Brown V. Board of Education.

“The words (separate but equal)….. it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable…..,—the right to exemption from un-friendly legislation against them distinctively,…—exemption from legal discrimination, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race.”  – The Supreme Court of the United States, 1954, Brown V. Board of Education.

Loss of Head of Household Filing Status for Registered Domestic Partners in Washington and Nevada and Same-Sex Spouses in California

01 Saturday Sep 2012

Posted by in Community Property, RDP Tax Returns, Taxes, Washington

≈ Comments Off on Loss of Head of Household Filing Status for Registered Domestic Partners in Washington and Nevada and Same-Sex Spouses in California

Tags

As taxpayers we are always looking for ways to keep more of our money.  If you are unmarried, one of the easiest ways to save on taxes is to file as Head of Household (HOH) instead of Single.  The HOH filing status has both lower tax rates and a larger standard deduction. Together, these advantages can have a significant impact on your tax bill.

RDP taxpayers have been claiming HOH status under varying circumstances for many years.  Some have a child living in the home while others have been claiming their non-working spouse as a dependent in order to meet HOH requirements.  In some cases, though technically incorrect, RDPs have even both filed as HOH when the couple has more than one child.

There are certain requirements, commonly referred to as “tests,” that must be met in order to claim HOH status.  Unfortunately, the community property income splitting rules have caused most RDPs to suddenly fail to satisfy the requirements.

There are three tests and they must all be met to qualify for HOH status:

  1. Taxpayer must be unmarried, or “considered to be unmarried.”
  2. Taxpayer must pay for more than half the cost of keeping up the home.
  3. Taxpayer must have had a “qualifying person” (usually a child) living in the home more than half of the year[i].

The first test remains easy to meet since under all circumstances RDPs are still legally single for tax purposes. If you have a dependent child, the third test also remains easy to meet.  In most cases however, if you don’t have a child you will no longer be able to use your dependent partner to satisfy the third test. There are additional tests to meet in order to claim a dependent partner as a qualifying person. For purposes of this discussion, only one of these tests is relevant.  The partner must have gross income of less than $3,700; this is known as the “gross income test.”

Now that wages, and most other types of income, are reported 50/50 between the partner’s two returns, it is almost certain that both partner’s incomes will exceed $3,700[ii]. With no child or partner who can be considered a qualifying person the third HOH test is not met and the taxpayer must file as Single.

The more common, yet less complex, reason for losing HOH status is failing to meet the second “cost of keeping up the home” test.  Since, typically, under community property rules all income is split 50/50, neither partner can qualify as paying for more than half of the cost of keeping up the home.  HOH status is lost and both partners must file as Single.

Luckily with some strategic planning, assuming the first two tests are met, there are ways to ensure that one partner can still file as HOH.  All that is needed is any amount of separate income.  If one partner has separate income, then their share of total income will be greater than 50% and may then justify the claim that they provide more than 50% of the cost of keeping up the home.

What is separate income then? There are several income sources that are intrinsically considered to be separate:

  1. Income from an inheritance provided that the underlying assets earning the income have remained physically separate and have not commingled with community property assets.
  2. Distributions from retirement funds that were earned, partially or wholly, prior to registration or marriage.
  3. Distributions from IRA accounts are always considered separate regardless of whether they were funded by property otherwise considered as community.
  4. Social Security benefits that were earned, partially or wholly, prior to registration or marriage.

There are a number of other grey area income sources, such as Health Savings Account distributions, to which the IRS has made no comment.  Income may also be designated as separate by creation of a separate property agreement. Regardless of the source of the separate income, having it or creating it can be a financially rewarding planning strategy. You may want to consult your tax professional to determine how, and if, you can maintain your eligibility to file as HOH.

[i] There is an exception to this rule. If you have a parent that you can claim as a dependent, they do not have to live with you.

[ii] This creation of reportable income also usually means that the non-working spouse must now file their own tax return when they didn’t before.

Will the Supreme Court kill DOMA in 2013?

07 Tuesday Aug 2012

Posted by in Law Suits, Legislation, Marriage

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

Court cases challenging DOMA are popping up across the nation with increasing frequency.  Over the last two years, the legislative momentum has grown dramatically. We are now at a point where we can expect at least one of these cases to be heard by the Supreme Court.  The implications of the Supreme Court hearing such a case are enormous. We could be within a year of undefining, as opposed to redefining, marriage.  If we are successful in broadening the federal definition of spouse to include partners of the same sex, many currently unavailable federal benefits will become accessible to our partners.

There are two key cases currently making their way through the courts.

Perry v. Brown (California) 

This is the infamous Prop 8 case formerly known as Perry v Schwarzenegger.  In February of 2012 a three judge panel, in a monumental decision, held that prop 8, which amended the state constitution to disallow same-sex couples from becoming married, was unconstitutional.  The judges found that there was no “rational basis” to restrict same-sex couples from the right to marry.  Judge Reinhardt, who authored the opinion, declared that Prop 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause stating:

“Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry… the People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of a disfavored class.”

Golinski v Office of Personnel Management (California)

This case stems from a from a 19-year old woman’s complaint after her application to include her wife under her employer-provided health coverage was denied. While this case may not be as well-known as the Prop 8 case, it is widely considered to be the one with most potential for success.  In July, the Department of Justice filed a writ of certiorari, basically a request that the Supreme Court hear the case. Many expect the Supreme Court will accept despite the fact that these requests are rarely granted.  This is especially noteworthy since the request asks that the Supreme Court hear the case before it makes its way through the remaining lower court appeals.  This unusual writ also includes a request to combine the case with two others challenging DOMA’s constitutionality.

Between the two cases, there is widespread conjecture that Golinski not only has a better chance of being heard by the Supreme Court but also has a better chance of being upheld.  At a conference I recently attended[i], Oregon attorney Cynthia L Barrett speculated that a win in the Brown case could require that the court issue a blanket decision allowing same-sex marriage in all 50 states. The Golinski case may instead only require a decision allowing federal benefits on a state by state basis. The expectation is that the benefits would only be available to those holding a valid sate marriage certificate in one of the six states[ii] that allow gay marriage.

Considering the pace with which states are attempting to pass same-sex marriage legislation, perhaps a Supreme Court decision of this magnitude will serve to further that drive.  In the current environment, where it is no longer possible to stand against same-sex marriage without significant backlash, as evidenced by the recent Chik-Fil-A controversy, we can, finally, imagine an attainable and expedient move towards federal marriage equality.

[i] Barrett, C.L. Ask. Tell. LGBT Estate Planning Developments, Multnomah Athletic Center, Portland, Oregon; OHSU Foundation: June 2012

[ii] Gay marriage is also legal in Washington DC and is pending in the State of Washington.

The Adoption Tax Credit – One Good Thing the Defense of Marriage Act did for Registered Domestic Partners

31 Thursday May 2012

Posted by in RDP Tax Returns, Taxes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

Despite the adverse effect that the Defense of Marriage Act has on millions of LGBT people, there is one instance in which it helps.  That instance is the availability of the Adoption Tax Credit to those who adopt their partner’s children.  This of course only applies to those living in states that allow second-parent adoptions; but still, this one bit of law provides a benefit that would be otherwise unavailable if same-sex marriage was federally recognized.  Let me explain.

The Adoption Credit is intended to provide financial relief and assistance to those who adopt children who do not already have a parent.  For this reason, there is an exception rule that says that a taxpayer does not qualify for the credit if they are adopting the child of their spouse.  There’s that word again, only this time, it’s a good thing.   Because the word “spouse” is used, RDPs are eligible for the credit when adopting a partner’s child.  After all, we’ve been told time and again that partner’s are not spouses.  Period.  For once, the rigid federal definition of marriage provides a benefit to LGBT people instead of harming them.

The Adoption Credit has been around for some time, at least as far back as 1996 when Bill Clinton signed the Small Business Job Protection Act.  The credit was then created specifically to benefit those adopting special needs children.  Over the years, the character of the credit has changed as various provisions have been passed and have expired.  Perhaps the biggest moment in the history of the Adoption Credit was in 2010 when President Obama signed the landmark Affordable Care Act.  In addition to increasing the amount of the credit to roughly $13,000 per child, up from Clinton’s $5,000, the act also made the credit refundable.

Tax credits are either refundable or non-refundable and most are non-refundable.  The distinction is significant.  A non-refundable credit will reduce any tax owed to zero, but not below.  A refundable credit is one that will reduce your tax to zero and then refund you any excess.  So, if you have a $1,000 non-refundable credit and $800 tax owed, you end up with zero tax and zero refund.  If you have a $1,000 refundable credit and $800 tax owed, you will receive a $200 refund. 

Sadly, the refundable character of the credit is set to expire for the 2012 tax year.  As it stands now, if there are no changes, the credit will still be available for all 2012 adoptions but will be non-refundable.  In 2013 it may be non-refundable and only apply to special needs adoptions.  Although these attributes of the credit are scheduled to expire, President Obama has already once attempted to make changes.  Unfortunately, the attempt failed as it was wrapped up in his ardently defeated budget proposal.  The changes would have made the credit refundable for 2012/2013 and permanently available as non-refundable for all adoptions thereafter.  

What happens with the Adoption Credit for the 2012 tax year remains to be seen. I expect tax law changes through early 2013, as is typical. Still, if you are planning to adopt your partner’s child, 2012 may be the year to consider it.

Social Security Issues for Self-Employed Registered Domestic Partners in Washington

15 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by in Community Property, RDP Tax Returns, Social Security, Taxes, Washington

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

The absence of federal marriage equality has a powerful impact on your social security. I briefly touched on this in a previous post, Washington to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage?. What I discussed there was in the context of survivor benefits which is unfortunately only one of the social security issues that “unmarried” couples face.

Let’s start with how you accumulate the benefits in the first place.  When you are an employee, your employer withholds social security taxes from your wages at the rate of 6.2%. Additionally, your employer makes a match of this withholding at their own expense. The amounts are reflected on your W2 and from here go toward your social security credits; in other words, this is where your social security benefits come from. These amounts, from wages, are not affected by the income-splitting rules for RDP taxpayers. Even though you will be combining and splitting your W2 wages for income tax purposes, the social security credits are still calculated from your employment records.

This is not the same for self-employed people. When you are self-employed, you report and pay your own social security tax, and since you employ yourself, you also have to pay the match. This means you are paying taxes on your earnings at 12.4% instead of 6.2%, a part of what is collectively known as self-employment tax. The tax is calculated on your return as a percentage of your net self-employment income (net profit). On a married filing joint return, self-employment income is linked to a social security number so that only the earner is credited for the social security. When spouses file separately in community property states, even though the self-employment income is split, the self-employment tax is only imposed upon the earner or owner of the business.

The same is not true for RDPs. The special rule allowing the self-employment income earner to receive full credit for the social security, so as to be comparable to how it works with wages, only applies to spouses.  Again, because of semantics, these protections do not extend to RDPs. Many tax preparers, including me, feel that the IRS’s position on this issue is incorrect.

There are consequences to this treatment of self-employment tax. Firstly, if both partners are working, it means that one partner is getting 100% credit for the social security attributable to their own wages and 50% of the social security attributable to their partner’s self-employment income. The self-employed partner is only getting 50% of their self-employment credits and 0% of their partner’s wage credits.  For many, this is a problem, but for some it could be a benefit.

If one partner is self-employed and the other is not working at all, this treatment allows the non-working partner to accumulate social security credits. This can be extremely important for some since, unlike spouses, a surviving partner is not eligible to receive the deceased partner’s unused benefits. It basically provides a loophole to funnel social security benefits to a non-working partner.

To me though, this potential benefit does not outweigh the potential drawbacks. As is the case with many problems arising from unequal federal rights, there is an issue of double taxation. Let me explain.  There is a wage base for social security tax. This means that once you exceed a certain wage level, the earnings above that level are no longer subject to social security tax. In 2012, that base is $110,100 and it applies to both wages and self-employment income. So, if a single or married person makes $150,000, only the first $110,100 is subject to the social security tax. What if you are an RDP in a community property state with $150,000 in self-employment income? The full $150,000 is taxable.   

An example: One partner has $200,000 in self-employment income. The rules require this to be split so that each partner reports, and is taxed on, $100,000. Both partner’s shares are now, in their entirety, subject to social security tax since the reportable amounts are both beneath the wage base. This means that social security tax is imposed on the whole $200,000 resulting in $11,148 more tax than a married or single person would have to pay. 

While it’s true that most RDP taxpayers are not bringing home over $110,100 in self-employment income, I find it extremely alarming that this sort of disparity in taxation is built into our current tax system. Of course, there are ways to get around this taxation issue. However, to do so would require consulting a financial or legal professional; just another example of the unnecessary burden the income splitting rules put on RDP taxpayers.

Washington to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage?

29 Sunday Jan 2012

Posted by in Legislation, Marriage, Washington

≈ 3 Comments

The State of Washington may be on its way to becoming the seventh state, in addition to Washington D.C, to legalize same-sex marriage.  In 2007 Washington legalized domestic partnerships, then, in 2009 it expanded the rights of registered domestic partners to include “everything but marriage” as the passing bill became known.  Now, in 2012, Governor Christine Gregoire has announced her support for legal same-sex marriage in Washington State.

Shortly after Gregoire’s announcement, House Bill 2516 and Senate Bill 6239 were introduced by Representative Jamie Pederson and Senator Ed Murray respectively. The legislation would allow for same-sex couples to apply for and receive marriage licenses in Washington. Also in the bills is an amendment providing religious officials an exemption from performing services for such marriages.  Interestingly, this amendment changes the language from:  “minister or priest of any religious denomination” to “minister or a priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious organization.” Perhaps my favorite part of the bill though is an added section that includes the term “gender neutral:”

Where necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, gender specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule or other law must be construed to be gender neutral and applicable to spouses of the same sex.”

Since January 23rd, when Senator Mary Margaret Haugen, the deciding vote, announced her support, the bills have been expected to pass both the House and the Senate.  Upon passage, opponents will begin soliciting signatures in an attempt to get a challenging referendum on the ballot for public vote.  To do so, they need only collect 120,577 signatures by July 6th.

This is reminiscent of what took place in 2009 when the “everything but marriage” bill was passed. Opponents collected the required number of signatures and placed Referendum 71 on the ballot. I recall my time working as co-coordinator of the Olympia chapter Approve Referendum 71 campaign and fear that some of the same confusion will occur.  Because of the wording of the referendum, the beginning of the campaign was dedicated almost entirely to explaining that voting in support of the referendum actually meant voting in support of the original “everything but marriage” bill.  The number of voters unaware that voting against the referendum, brought by opponents, was in fact siding with them was astonishing.

Last night, just as I sat down to write about this, I received a phone call from an Equal Rights Washington phone bank volunteer. His script began by notifying me that I had donated during the Referendum 71 campaign and that they were now looking for support for ERW’s campaign for marriage equality.  I soon found myself in a long and emotional conversation as I jabbered on about how I was, at the very moment, writing a blog about the bills and, also, about the tax work I now do with registered domestic partners. He told me of his partner of 14 years who passed 22 months ago.  He explained that he did not understand, until his partner’s death, the breadth of the impact of not having the very rights he was fighting for.  

His partner was a dedicated worker who refused to begin drawing social security and preferred instead to continue working. By the time he passed he had accumulated significant social security benefits. Because their relationship is not federally recognized, the surviving partner is ineligible for the same social security survivor benefits afforded spouses.  As a result of losing half of his household income, and not being eligible for the same federal benefits married couples receive, this ERW volunteer will likely lose his home.  It is these nuances of the law that have a tangible and often life-changing impact on the lives of people that do not have the right to marry.  Unfortunately, legalization of same-sex marriage in Washington State will have no immediate effect on such federal rights. We can only hope that with each state that passes similar legislation we will be one step closer to federal marriage equality.

If you do plan to marry in the State of Washington, there are some things to consider. For those who are already in a registered domestic partnership, your registration will not immediately and automatically turn into a marriage. Registered domestic partners will need to apply for a separate marriage license.  Once married, the partnership will be automatically dissolved. This will remain true until June 30th 2014 at which time, if you are in a registered domestic partnership and have not yet applied for a marriage license, your partnership will automatically be deemed a marriage. For legal purposes, the date of marriage will become the date of your domestic partnership registration.