Tag Archives: DOMA

IRS Will Recognize All Legal Same-Sex Marriages – Regardless of State of Residence

29 Thursday Aug 2013

Posted by in Financial Planning, Marriage, RDP Tax Returns, Taxes

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

The IRS announced today that all legal same-sex marriages will be recognized for Federal Tax purposes.  The looming question about whether the IRS would use the state of domicile or the state of celebration to define “legal marriage” has been answered.  They have chosen the state of celebration which means IRS marriage recognition will be based on where the marriage license came from, not where you live.  This isn’t surprising since it makes the most sense for all parties and lessens the burden to both taxpayers and the IRS. Additionally, it ensures consistent federal taxation to all same-sex married couples (SSMCs)

If you are a SSMC, you are now able, and required, to file as Married Filing Joint (MFJ) or Married Filing Separately (MFS) for tax year 2013. The IRS is also allowing, but not requiring, SSMCs to amend prior year returns to MFJ/MFS.[i]  The change in tax status will have varying impacts on taxpayers.  Those couples in which one spouse earns a majority of the income will likely see a benefit while those couples in which both spouses are high earners may see an increase in tax.

For tax purposes, you will be treated as married for the entire year regardless of what date you were married.   Here are some of the things that should be considered in your tax planning:

W-2 Withholdings

Now that you can file MFJ, adjustments to your W-2 withholding for federal income tax may be needed. Whether and how to adjust your withholding will depend on your particular tax situation. You can use the IRS withholding tables to estimate what your withholding should be as a MFJ taxpayer.  Comparing these amounts with your year-to-date withholding from your pay-stub will help you to determine what withholding is needed for the rest of the year.  Wage withholding is only one piece to the puzzle, though. Talk to your tax preparer to plan for your overall tax picture.

Employer Provided Health and Other Benefits Covering Your Spouse

Before the DOMA decision, and today’s IRS announcement, certain employer-provided benefits covering same-sex spouses have been included in taxable income.  Thankfully, this is no longer a correct treatment of these benefits.  If this situation applies to you, a conversation with your employer may be warranted.  Find out if and when they will stop withholding tax on these benefits.  Make sure to ask them whether you can take advantage of any available benefits immediately or if you’ll have to wait until the next open enrollment period.

IRA Contributions

Now that same-sex spouses are actually considered spouses by the IRS you may be newly eligible to make tax-deductible contributions to a Traditional IRA.  Late last year I posted about your prior inability to do this.  If you have no earned income (taxable compensation) and have thus been ineligible to contribute, you can now use your spouse’s earned income to qualify you for this benefit.  There are other applicable restrictions, however.  Here is a link to more information on Traditional IRA contributions.

Amended Returns

Those couples who will benefit from filing as MFJ should consider amending their prior open-year returns.  An “open-year” return is a return for a year that has not yet passed the  three-year statute of limitations for amending. The three years begins on the date the return was filed.  For most taxpayers this means that 2010 will be as far back as you can go. Luckily, those who will not benefit from MFJ status are not required to amend prior year returns at all.

[i] If you have a legal marriage and your 2012 return is still on extension, you can file MFJ/MFS for tax year 2012.

DOMA is Dead – To Wed or Not to Wed; that is the Question

28 Sunday Jul 2013

Posted by in Legislation, Marriage, RDP Tax Returns, Taxes

≈ Comments Off on DOMA is Dead – To Wed or Not to Wed; that is the Question

Tags

, ,

With the fall of DOMA has come a rush of same-sex couples (SSCs) converting their partnerships into marriages.   It is an emotional time, especially for those who have waited for over thirty years to make that change.  I have been to three weddings since the fall of DOMA and have five more between now and the first week of September. Put simply, it is inspiring and I am proud of these couples.  Despite the pride and emotion we are all feeling, though, I urge all couples to proceed with caution.  The right to marry, and to be recognized as a spouse, comes with changes that are worth consideration.

The media has been quick to discuss a few of the enormous benefits of marriage, particularly in the context of health, retirement and Social Security benefits.  There has even been the occasional reference to the presumed right to file as married filing jointly (MFJ) in 2013. However, there are still questions on how, and to whom, these changes will be applied.

Despite the IRS’ immediate promise to “move swiftly,” they have not yet issued any statements about how they will implement the Supreme Court decision. We can be confident that the IRS will allow SSCs to file jointly if they have a valid marriage license by the end of 2013. The question then is what will be considered a valid marriage license. The answer hinges on whether the IRS will use the state of domicile or the state of marriage in determining who has a valid marriage license. While we wait for the IRS to make an official statement, the more pressing question for many is whether or not to get married at all, and if so, when.  Emotion and celebration aside, the tax implications of marrying in 2013 are significant.

The ability to file MFJ will not be beneficial across the board. Some couples will realize a benefit in their total income tax and others will not.  Generally, if there is only one earner, MFJ status will be financially beneficial.  Others will experience what is known as the “marriage penalty” and end up with a higher tax bill when filing MFJ. This usually occurs when each spouse is an earner and the combining of income pushes the couple into a higher tax bracket.

The combining of incomes may also push many couples to an adjusted gross income (AGI) level that excludes them from tax deductions and credits that they have been able to claim in the past. For example, in 2012, many single taxpayers were eligible for the Child Tax Credit as long as their AGI was below $75,000, the beginning phase-out amount for a single taxpayer. If in an RDP couple each partner had a child and each partner had an AGI of $60,000, it’s possible that they could each claim the credit.  The 2012 AGI phase-out for married taxpayers began at $110,000. In this example, if the couple was married, their AGI would be $120,000 and they would only be eligible for a reduced credit or, in some cases, none at all. Eligibility for many deductions and credits are determined by AGI and, unfortunately, the MFJ phase-out amounts are not equal to double the single amounts.

It is important to remember, too, that some of the discriminatory tax laws actually benefit unmarried couples. Perhaps the most significant is the adoption credit. My earlier post, The Adoption Tax Credit – One Good Thing the Defense of Marriage Act did for Registered Domestic Partners, goes into the details of why registered domestic partners benefit from the adoption credit in a way that spouses do not.    If you are planning on adopting a child, and are not yet married, you may want to consider completing the adoption in 2013. If the potential tax benefit of the adoption credit exceeds the combined benefit from other changes, it may behoove you to adopt in 2013 and marry in 2014.

No matter when you decide to tie the knot, it is important to be prepared.  A quick review of your tax situation can give you the information you need to be ready for the changes to come.  A small amount of planning can go a long way.

Supreme Court to Hear DOMA Case on March 27th: Same-Sex Married Couples Able to File Jointly in 2013?

23 Saturday Mar 2013

Posted by in Law Suits, Legislation, Marriage, RDP Tax Returns, Taxes

≈ Comments Off on Supreme Court to Hear DOMA Case on March 27th: Same-Sex Married Couples Able to File Jointly in 2013?

Tags

, ,

The time has finally come. On March 27th, the Supreme Court will hear a case challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. Many have come forward over the last year in support of overturning the Act. Support has ranged from progressive LGBT rights advocates to President Barack Obama himself. Most recently Bill Clinton, the man who signed DOMA into law in the first place, has come forward.

When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.

So, what if it is overturned? How would such a decision impact same-sex married couples’ tax position and how long will it take for those changes to take place? Frankly, I expect the implementation be slow and burdensome. The IRS made a small change for a small portion of same-sex coupled taxpayers three years ago and we still don’t have official rules.

Not only will it take time for Congress to amend laws and regulations, it will take the IRS time to amend tax forms and procedural guidelines.  Furthermore, if spouse is no longer defined to only include opposite sex partners but applies to all couples who have a valid marriage, how will “valid marriage” be defined and how will the IRS know who has one? The easy answer would be any couple married in a legal marriage state. Only it’s not that simple, is it?  Many couples hold marriage licenses from legal marriage states but live in states without same-sex marriage. The issue is further convoluted when considering the varying recognition laws in each state.

I can only hope that the fall of DOMA will lead to blanket legal marriage across all states. Until then, I truly don’t understand how the IRS will determine which couples have the right to file jointly and I fear that they are no better prepared for such a change than they were for community property income splitting. I suppose the upside of this is that the delay in implementation will provide same-sex married couple taxpayers ample time for tax planning.

Just as it is with community property income splitting, the change will benefit some taxpayers and harm others.  For those of you that will not see a tax benefit from joint filing it may behoove you to start planning now. For those that will benefit, the question of amended returns arises. If DOMA is ruled unconstitutional it means it was always unconstitutional. To me, this suggests the right to amend prior year returns with married filing jointly status in order to cash in on the refunds you should have already received.

Only time will tell how this will all unfold, but my fingers are crossed.  I am grateful to witness and be part of such inspiring and historic accomplishments in equal rights.

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.