Same-Sex Married Couples To Get Federal Tax Recognition Regardless Of State

[warrior1]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of the Treasury announced Thursday that when it comes to taxes, it will recognize same-sex couples' marriages even if they live in a state that does not.

The decision, which was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, marks the latest political progress for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

Prior to this spring, the Internal Revenue Service did not recognize same-sex married couples pursuant to section 3 of DOMA. Once DOMA was overturned in June, the question became: What about same-sex married couples who moved to a state that didn’t recognize their marriage (a couple married in Massachusetts who moved to Arkansas, for example)?

Thursday’s ruling by Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew provides a uniform policy for the IRS; the state of celebration -- where the wedding took place -- now trumps the state of residency when it comes to federal tax status for same-sex married couples.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/same-sex-couples-federal-taxes_n_3837444.html

---

Thanks Obama!

[William769]

1. HELL YES!!!!

[irisblue]

2. woo hoo

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Finally and at last.

Yipppppeeeee!

[warrior1]

4. I so happy for everyone.

[Amonester]

5. Change we can believe in.

[RKP5637]

6. Thank you Obama and everyone that supports this. We need equality for ALL! n/t

[Robbins]

7. Great news

A step closer to equality for gays and lesbians.

The right wing will hate this.

[Iliyah]

8. Oh shit

red states ain't gonna like that, time for mention secession.

[closeupready]

9. Very, very nice!! Gobama!

K&R

[JoePhilly]

10. This is a very good example of how you take a strategic view ... and then

work to make the strategic objective happen, piece, by piece, by piece.

Throughout the process, the Obama administration has been taking advantage of the 3 branches of government, leveraging each when the time was right.

And as each piece falls into place, the RW's ability to undo this, becomes smaller and smaller, and smaller. States won't be able to hold it back much longer ... not with the IRS and the Military getting on board.

[glowing]

11. I would assume that states are going to have to start recognizing these marriages

whether they want to or not...

If the Federal Govt is allowing tax breaks and marriages to be recognized legally if a couple marries in one state and then lives in another, the states who have regressive marriage laws would be overturned.

And really, many people have been hitched in say Las Vegas at the Elvis Wedding Chapel, but fly back after the weekend to either get an annulment once the liquor wears off, or because they planned the whole wedding around something cheesy like a Vegas wedding (my uncle was married this way on purpose and spent the honeymoon there as well)... The wedding certificate would say Nevada; but they live in VT and file their taxes there...

[Major Nikon]

14. I'm not sure it will force them to recognize gay marriage

However, what i do think it will do is force many states to extend the exact same benefits, or at least many of them.

It's also going to create huge headaches for the states that don't fall in line. For most states that have a state income tax, many of their rules are based on your federal tax filing. Imagine a legally married gay couple in Oklahoma filing a joint federal return in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. They will either have to overhaul their tax laws, or they will have to extend those same benefits to gay couples. Many states also have equal protection clauses written into their state constitutions that is going to create a plethora of lawsuits due to the inconsistencies between disparate state and federal benefits.

I think a lot of states are just going to figure out that recognizing gay marriage is going to be the path of much less resistance. I'm sure there will still be some hardcore red states that will continue to stand on their warped principles, but their ability to discriminate will be severely limited.

[Ms. Toad]

15. Actually,

same gender couples in states recognizing marriages have been preparing dual returns for years. Federal separate forms, and a "fake" federal one which generates the numbers for the state joint one. It just goes the other direction now.

[Major Nikon]

17. I'm not sure it would go the other way as easily

A same sex couple who files jointly with a state based on a "fake" federal return has a vested monetary interest in doing so and thus would have no desire or reason to file a lawsuit against the state on equal protection grounds.

Now imagine a state requiring a couple to fill out two "fake" federal returns in order to make the state income tax form work. You now have a situation where a state is forcing a legally married couple to pay the single rate which is generally higher. That would almost certainly require a change to their state tax code (which would almost certainly find virulent opposition), and since equal protection clauses are written into most state constitutions, the state will also find itself facing many lawsuits challenging those new changes.

A lot of it depends on how the state's constitution and tax laws are written, but I think it's going to throw a serious monkey wrench in the works for some states.

[Ms. Toad]

20. In Ohio

One of the states in question, the single rate nearly always lower (absent a huge discrepancy in incomes). When I was doing taxes, I could nearly always save significant money for married clients by filing them married filing separate at the Federal level (even with the penalties on the federal level) because of Ohio's marriage penalty (which doesn't apply if you are filing separately).

And since many of the states in question have marriage discrimination amendments, that takes care of the equal protection clause. The marriage doesn't exist, as far as the state is concerned. So the treatment of the single individuals (according to the state - since it is constitutionally forbidden from recognizing the marriage) is the same as all other single individuals.

As someone familiar with both the tax code (as a former enrolled agent) and the law (as an attorney) this a very unlikely path toward marriage equality.

[Ms. Toad]

16. It would be nice - but it will take another court case.

If the Supreme Court had done the analysis it should have done (which the IRS did) it would be all over already. Instead they waved their magic wand and refused to deal with the Vegas-style wedding of the plaintiff in the case. They applied a standard which is never used in tax law (how the home state treated the marriage years after the fact), rather than the standard used for analyzing common law marriages (the one the IRS has more or less always used - AND the one they used in reaching this conclusion).

[X_Digger]

12. Excellent! n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. What's amazing is Republicans RAN on being anti-gay marriage less than a decade ago.

[WovenGems]

21. And...

Today the Republicans run on platform that screams obsolete. And seem to have no clue how to fix it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. What's funny is when the media STILL tries to play the false equivalent game....

...as if there is some comparison between the radical right wingers and ANYTHING on the left. Then there's the claim that the country is evenly divided when everyone KNOWS the nuts are a tiny minority.

There was a time when city dwellers would take a relaxing drive in the country. What's relaxing about going to a place inhabited by people who would attack you for your skin color?

[awoke_in_2003]

18. Some good news today. nt

[meti57b]

19. Great news!.................extremely cool!!!

[scheming daemons]

23. Obama=Bush

Oh.... Wait....

[SunSeeker]

24. K & R