Category Archives: Social Security

Same-Sex Married Couples to Get Refunds from the IRS for Taxes Withheld on Health Benefits

29 Sunday Sep 2013

Posted by in Marriage, Social Security, Taxes

≈ Comments Off on Same-Sex Married Couples to Get Refunds from the IRS for Taxes Withheld on Health Benefits

Tags

, , ,

The IRS’ announcement that they will recognize all same-sex married couples became effective on September 16th.   While filing status is the change that is getting the most attention it is not the only significant tax consequence. The effects are far-reaching and provide several avenues for same-sex married couples to get money back from the IRS.

For years, same-sex couples have paid taxes on health benefits that their opposite-sex counterparts have received tax-free.  The Windsor decision has put a stop to this, thankfully, and the IRS is now allowing employers and employees to seek refunds of these taxes.  Last week, the IRS issued guidance on how to claim refunds of both FICA (Social Security and Medicare) and Federal Income Tax Withholding.

Since FICA taxes are reported and remitted by your employer, you will have to rely on them to get your money back.  Unless they are willing to reimburse you out-of-pocket, they will need to amend their payroll tax returns. You will want to discuss this with your employer; they may not know they are also eligible for a refund.

Luckily, the IRS has created special administrative procedures simplifying this process.  Employers typically must amend each quarter individually.  Under these circumstances, the IRS is allowing employers to amend all four quarters with one amended form.  The procedures also require that the employer file corrected W2s.

If your employer does amend their payroll returns it will only get the FICA taxes back to you.  To claim a refund for any income tax withholding, you will have to file an amended income tax return using the corrected W2. This will be a significant benefit to some but it is worth noting that the benefit is not necessarily greater than any negative consequences amending may have. If you are a taxpayer that would have paid more taxes as married filing jointly, amending to claim a refund of payroll taxes may not be worth 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.