Jump to content



Photo

For some gays in America, a legal victory becomes a tax headache


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 chrisj1968

chrisj1968

    copyrighted!! ©

  • 4,059 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 08
  • Location: United States

Posted 23 July 2013 - 03:52

http://www.reuters.c...E96L0VZ20130722

 

 

(Reuters) - Married Californians Jeremy Turpen and Randy Brock celebrated last month's U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage. Now they face a tax headache.

Living in a state that recognizes gay marriage, they are entitled under the rulings to federal tax breaks enjoyed by other U.S. married couples such as tax-free, employer-provided healthcare for a spouse.

But still unclear is how they are to report the business income Brock gets from Florida, where same-sex marriage is not recognized.

For both the tax-collecting Internal Revenue Service and America's accountants, the answer is far from simple.

"I could talk to three different CPAs and get three different answers," said Turpen, who lives with Brock in Capitola. "That's not equality under the law from a financial perspective," he said.

The high court ruled in June that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that are legal in 13 states and the District of Columbia for the purpose of federal taxes, granting them a range of tax benefits for healthcare, retirement plans and a surviving spouse.

But the court also ruled that states can go on setting their own policies on gay marriage.

This raises questions for the IRS about the 114,000 legally married same-sex couples across the country such as Turpen and Brock.

Of those, about 38,000 live in the other states that do not allow or recognize same-sex marriages, according to the Williams Institute, an arm of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law. How is the IRS to manage that?

Turpen and Brock, who married in California in June 2008 and will be filing their first married federal tax returns for 2013, may not be entitled to federal tax benefits for their out-of-state income.

"You're a prisoner in your own state," said Cynthia Leachmoore, who runs Soquel Tax Service in California. "That's not freedom."

IRS DEFERS TO STATES

The IRS has historically deferred to states' definitions of marriage in many federal tax circumstances.

But if the IRS keeps the state residency policy, then people in the 37 states where gay marriage is not expressly endorsed "have gained virtually nothing by last month's decision", said Todd Solomon, a partner at law firm McDermott Will & Emery. "It's a huge issue."

If forced to reconsider the policy, the IRS could scrap the state residency deference and open federal tax benefits to legally married same-sex couples nationwide.

IRS chief Danny Werfel said this month the agency had no specific deadline for a ruling but hoped to publish rules as soon as possible. Speaking to tax practitioners, Werfel said the IRS needed to evaluate more than 200 tax code references to marriage based on the Supreme Court's decision.

An IRS spokesman confirmed Werfel's statements but said the IRS had no immediate comment on the Supreme Court's rulings.

An IRS ruling that reaffirms the court ruling that marriages are defined by states would deal a blow to gay rights, said Brian Moulton, an attorney with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group which has lobbied the Obama administration to recognize marriages based on the ceremony rather than the state.

The IRS marriage rules are at odds with recent same-sex marriage guidance from the Obama administration announced in another context after the Supreme Court's decisions.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said this month it would look at where the marriage took place to determine if it was valid for immigration purposes.

Gay rights advocates applauded that decision.

"We're hoping the IRS will follow suit," Moulton said.

PAYCHECK HURT

Currently, same-sex couples are unsure if they can exclude from federal income taxes any healthcare expenses covered by a spouse's employer. Businesses exclude healthcare expenses from employees' paychecks for heterosexual couples.

Businesses also need to know if pension or retirement benefits can automatically be transferred to a same-sex spouse if an employee dies.

Without an IRS ruling, "most companies are doing nothing right now, waiting for guidance," before changing their payroll systems, said Priscilla Ryan, a partner with law firm Sidley Austin LLP.

Same-sex couples will also be exposed to the tax code's "marriage penalty," which especially hurts married high-income married couples.

Same-sex couples also want to know if the IRS will allow them to amend old tax returns and seek refunds for the tax years when they could not file jointly.

There is a three-year statute of limitations for filing many amended individual returns, meaning that even if the IRS rules favorably for same-sex couples, a lingering delay could cost those couples in tax refunds.

These circumstances mean the IRS is under pressure to make these rulings soon, said Mark Steber, chief tax officer at tax preparation company Jackson Hewitt.

"I think you'll see something out in the next 30 days."

 

Welcome to the REAL world people!! HAHAHA!




#2 Nashy

Nashy

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,653 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 04
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 925

Posted 23 July 2013 - 04:24

Welcome to the real world people?  You make it sound like they weren't real people previous to being allowed to marry.



#3 ccoltmanm

ccoltmanm

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,097 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 09
  • Location: Oak Forest, IL

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:44

Welcome to the real world people?  You make it sound like they weren't real people previous to being allowed to marry.

 

They were allowed to marry.



#4 TPreston

TPreston

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,282 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Ireland
  • OS: Windows Embedded Standard 8 & Server 2012/08 Datacenter
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 23 July 2013 - 07:42

In the same way interracial couples were allowed to marry..... just not each other.

#5 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 15,692 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 23 July 2013 - 07:48

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it and all the baggage that comes with it.

#6 Torolol

Torolol

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: 24-November 12

Posted 23 July 2013 - 07:55

hey, States may accuse cohabit men as un-registered marriages, demand to legislate it, and demand them to pay extra tax for it.



#7 Nick H.

Nick H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,926 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 04
  • Location: Switzerland

Posted 23 July 2013 - 07:58

Welcome to the REAL world people!! HAHAHA!

I'm not sure if the manic laughter is necessary. In fact this has nothing to do with being welcomed to the "real world." If they had been shocked that they had to pay more tax due to being married it would be one thing (and also false, if my understanding is correct), but the issue here is that one state recognises the marriage while another state does not. Due to that it causes issues when doing their taxes.

#8 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 23 July 2013 - 20:07

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it and all the baggage that comes with it.

Not only them but us as well.



#9 Scroogled

Scroogled

    Neowinian

  • 228 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 13

Posted 23 July 2013 - 20:11

Despite the tax penalty for being married, the benefit comes in the form of rights of survivorship should one partner die.





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!